Air Force "Temporary Reserve" status

[RiverAux]

One of the issues that continually comes up in discussions of how CAP members could augment AF units in various ways revolves around the degree of trust the AF would have in CAP members actually showing up to do the job they volunteered to do and the amount of authority that the AF would have over CAP members while augmenting (usually brought up in context of the UCMJ not applying to us).  While most augmenting discussion has been in typical stateside non-combat jobs, the change to title 10 thread brought up the idea of having CAP members run UAVs involved in combat ops. 

I personally don't think these issues are valid in regard to non-combat augmentation since the CG Aux has proven these issues are generally not valid.  However, if people think this is a real problem there is an alternative out there that worked during WWII.

As a result of various federal legislation creating the CG Aux and the CG Reserve the Commandant of the CG was given the authority to accept people into what was known as the "Temporary Reserve".  There were many different operations TRs were involved in and depending on the activity and the person they could have been part-time volunteer, fulltime volunteer, part-time paid, or full-time paid duty.  The CG Aux was pretty heavily involved in this program and so much so that it is sometimes incredibly difficult to separate the Auxies from the TRs. 

Now, the Commandant of the CG actually still has the authority to accept "Temporary Reservists" but there are no CG regulations specifying how this would take place.  The general consensus seems to be that current federal law is so broad that Auxies augmenting the CG can do just about everything a CG member could do except shoot at or arrest somebody.  After all there are Auxies serving as actual crewmembers on CG vessels out for month-long patrols.  Not many, but they're there.

So, would a change to federal law authorizing the AF to accept Temporary Reservists possibly be a good thing for CAP?  In the scenario I envision most CAP members augmenting the AF could probably do so as CAP members just like CG Aux members augment the CG.  But, for some positions the AF might want more control over the persons doing the augmenting.  Perhaps this might be used in a situation where a person retires from an AF or AF Reserve job but the AF would really like to keep him around for surge ops.  The member could join CAP and if the AF needed him they could accept him for duty as a TR and from then on he could be treated just like any other Reservist.

Obviously, the AF would have to come up with some regs for this class of Reservists dealing with all sorts of issues (physical, training, when or if they would get paid, activation procedures, etc.).

Again, let me be clear that I don't think the TRs are necessary to allow CAP to augment in noncombat roles, but may be the only way for CAP to be really accepted in them. 

[mikeylikey]

They are called civilian contractors.  Paid by the feds to provide jobs the military needs.  They are bound by more than what CAP members would be bound by and that is why we would never see a CAP member augment an AF unit.  Heck even the CAP Chaplian augmentation program really has never taken off.  I think in 2005 alone, only 15 CAP Chaplains helped with services on Air Force Bases. 

Lets face the fact that the AF is furthering thier distance from us.  If anything were to happen, it needs to come from CAP-USAF, start righting the Colonel! 

[RiverAux]

Tempoary Reservists could be used in any capacity and would be indistinguishable from Air Force Reservists except that they may not get paid.  TR status might be reserved for the more "serious" jobs.  For example, like the CA State Military Reserve members who serve as Air Operations officers for the CA Air National Guard.  I doubt the AF would be a CAP member in such a role, but might do so with a CAP member activated as a Temporary Reservist. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

I'm not sure how such a system would work.  I'm not knocking your proposal, but I have questions:

1.  If no pay, would there be retirement points?

2.  If there would be retirement points, would the "15 gratuitous points" per year apply?  (I could volunteer as a TR for 1 day, and get as many points as I would have at annual training!)

3.  I presume UCMJ jurisdiction would follow.  Would CAP officers receive commissions in the USAF?  If so, would I have to resign my Army commission to accept an AF commission?  (Not that it does anything for me except take up space on my den wall, my mobilization priority is somewhere behind the Girl Scouts.)

This idea may have merit.  The AF could accept those with appropriate qualifications as TR's in CAP uniforms, and not accept those members who are are the "Soccer Moms" and joined with their kids to be a driver/chaperone for cadet activities only.  It does seem to me to be a potential split in CAP, though, and there might be some downsides.

[DNall]

They are called civilian contractors.  Paid by the feds to provide jobs the military needs.  They are bound by more than what CAP members would be bound by and that is why we would never see a CAP member augment an AF unit.  Heck even the CAP Chaplian augmentation program really has never taken off.  I think in 2005 alone, only 15 CAP Chaplains helped with services on Air Force Bases. 

Lets face the fact that the AF is furthering thier distance from us.  If anything were to happen, it needs to come from CAP-USAF, start righting the Colonel! 

Contractors, yes they can operate UAVs on combat missions, just so they are not the trigger puller, and what they are or are not bound by is huge issue of federal & international law, but they most certainly are not bound by UCMJ & are bound to some extent by whatever tge parties put in the contract.

Let's not forget the Army determination in WWII that CAP in uniform serving at military orders constituted combatant by international law (this is even before the bombs) so were bound by UCMJ. That's a matter of interpretation that's not being excercised, but we are absolutely by international law a combatant by being in uniform w/ a radio & under military orders. If AF wanted to say uniformed CAP members are governed by UCMJ while in uniform on mission, then they have backup to do that.

In other words, I don't think temp reserve status is necessary. Plus a whole big huge pain in the butt law to pass, & you'd be talking about back side of our getting our Prof Dev crap together & holding steady for a few years to prove ourselves. If you get to that point, I'd look for govt commissions as an "Auxiliary Officer" or formal enlsitment in Auxiliary - legal status kind of like DMAT. You might also look at the RAF VR(t) status they use in their version of CAP's cadet program. That's very interesting.

You should get retirement points just for CAP service though, I don';t know why they never put that together. That's what CAP-RAP was about, but you used to get that question all the time from prior-service or the like.


Mikey,
I'd encourage you to take a look around at the source material & historical progression of the situation - not the comments from people who have lived it, but the actual hard documents straight from the horse's mouth over the years. I think you'll find exactly the opposite going on. Every big stir w/ the AF has been over a mass of CAP investigations (misappropriation of funds, abuse of power under color of AF authority, some pretty serious stuff in there), & then AF asking congress to be put BACK in direct charge of CAP. Even this 2000 change w/ our Aux status, that is NOT what they asked for, not even remotely. The Congressmen who wrote that version of the bill were supporting CAP corporate over AF & over the House Armed SErvices Cmte. Go do some research. The cmte & floor transcripts of the debate are available, several AF documents in that period are avail... AF is frustrated no end that CAP can't man up w/ the family & follow orders, but they've spoken with one consistent voice from Hap Arnold to today is expressing that CAP should be under the direct command of AF always. The things that may look like istancing have been Corporate not getting what they want & [censored]ing about it.

[RiverAux]

Kach,
All your questions could be worked out in any way the AF wanted to do it but I suspect it would lean towards providing the least possible benefits to TRs.
As to commissions, ranks, etc. that would again depend on what the AF wanted to do.

Yes, the TRs would be subject to UCMJ. 

I think the simplest would be that TRs would be treated basically the same as CAP members on AFAMs in terms of benefits.  If they had a need for extended full-time personnel they would probably need to treat them differently. 

I'm just putting the TR out there for the folks who think UCMJ-type displine and actual military authority is necessary for CAP members to augment the AF, whether in non-combat or (remote) combat roles.  Like I said, I don't think its really necessary but thought it might be something neat for others to consider.

[flyguy06]

WHat about those of us that are already members of another service? I cant be both a AF Augmentee and a ARmy National Guardsman?

[RiverAux]

Probably not.  But like I said I can't see a whole lot of jobs in which TR status would be necessary for CAP members to augment.  Most could be done just as CAP members on AFAMs. 

[Major Carrales]

Here is how I would handle this...

1) Implement a CAP-USAF course...actually more of a "program" where one who desired to be a TR could maintain some level of training making a temporary reserve position viable.  One would have to meet USAF or USAFR standards.

2) The roles CAP "TR" woudl fiull would be absolutely and clearly defined.

3) "TRs" would be paid at a minimal level an subject to the UCMJ.  Any training discussed in my first point would focus on UCMJ and other such issues.

4) "TRs" might serve to "professionalize" the overall body of CAP.

Now...the Devil's Advocacy.

Why would "TRs" even be necessary?   I could imagine if there was a DEFCON similiar to the start of WWII.  Where we were in a major war...maybe with mainland China...where the full of the USAF and USAFR were deployed to some theather of combat.

Creating this elite CAP corps might make a "weird-out" situation where CAP would dwindle as it would be replaced with the TRs.  Thus, CAP would cease to exist and a "USAFR Auxiliary" would exist.  If it becomes all that sucessful, CAP would be absorbed into the USAFR and thus join the Air Raid wardens in the history books.

Funding would be an issue.

Why not join the USAFR in the first place instead of CAP?


This is based on the most radical idea, that of the CAP members being activited into the USAFR.  Now...this does not exist the situation similar to the USCGAux; where when on a CG mission they are extended certain status.

[wingnut]

I have attached a DOD document in PDF on Mobilization, CAP is part of the Mobilization plan, I have also included the DOD document on the use of the US Military in civilian disturbances

[SAR-EMT1]

Wingnut, where in these documents is CAP specifically mentioned?

[JohnKachenmeister]

DNall:

In the interest of historical accuracy, the UCMJ did not exist in World War II.  The Army operated under the "Articles of War," and the Navy also had its own laws.  Congress passed two separate sets of punitive statutes.  The UCMJ was written to combine all the services under 1 code, once the Air Force was a separate branch.  The UCMJ was passed in (I think) 1948.

River's Temporary Reserve appointments has merit, if for no other reason than to give the Air Force direct control over at least a portion of CAP, and reducing the efficiency-sucking effects of CAP, Inc.  You are correct, however, that implementation of this would be a nightmare.

We already have the authority to perform any "Non-combatant" missions of the Air Force, but the term "Non-Combatant" is somewhat nebulous.  CAP does not fall into any recognized "Non-Combatant" status recognized under International Law, except with regard to our chaplains and medical personnel.  So what does it mean?

There are a few possibilities:

1.  CAP can only participate in civil SAR, public education, and similar programs that have NO relation to combat.

2.  CAP can provide combat support (Movement of key personnel; rapid transport of repair parts; recon for terrorist threats, without engaging such threats directly; etc.) but not direct combat, (Putting ordnance on target).

3.  CAP can perform any mission that does not expose CAP members to enemy fire, except that enemy fire to which all Americans are exposed resulting from an attack upon the United States itself. 

Since Congress never precisely defined "Non-Combatant" as used in Title 36, we are free to interpret the term any way we want, based on case law forund in Alice vs. Queen of Hearts, in which the court found:  "When I use a word, it means what I want it to mean."

So, I would contend that we can do ANY AF mission, provided that the only people shooting at CAP members are the occasional jealous husband.

[arajca]

So, I would contend that we can do ANY AF mission, provided that the only people shooting at CAP members are the occasional jealous husband.

Or freakin' blind hunter.

[shorning]

The UCMJ was passed in (I think) 1948.

May 31, 1951.

[RiverAux]

I think the TR-type jobs would be for either the "more-serious" jobs....for example, if they wanted to bring back a fairly recently (<10 years) retired pilot to serve as an instructor.  Or, they could be used for more typical augmentation jobs but in locations (combat areas) where they wouldn't want to send them as CAP members (for critical positions like doctors where they might have an overall shortage).   

[JohnKachenmeister]

If an officer is retired, he does not need a "Temporay Reserve" appointment.  He continues to serve at the pleasure of the President.  He can simply be called up and ordered to report.  If you try to call me up as an Army MP Officer, but in my CAP status so you don't have to pay me, I will have to point out that Lincoln freed the slaves.  If you want to call me out as a CAP pilot, OK, that's what I volunteered for.

Sending CAP members into combat areas under a TR arrangement is possible, especially if you limit it to chaplains and medics, since both of them are recognized under International Law as "Non-Combatants," and therefore you would be keeping with the law that says that CAP can only perform "Non-combatant" missions for the AF.

[DNall]

3) "TRs" would be paid at a minimal level an subject to the UCMJ.  Any training discussed in my first point would focus on UCMJ and other such issues.

So you mean like the "less than 2 years" number?
O-8 8,453.10 per month  277.91/day
O-7 7,023.90 / 230.92
O-6 5,206.20 / 171.16
O-5 4,339.80 / 142.68
O-4 3,744.60 / 123.11
O-3 3,292.20 / 108.24
O-2 2,844.30 / 93.51
O-1 2,469.30 / 81.18

That'd be a decent deployed per diem rate as well. Actually $50-75 a day would help to cover my expenses if you're going to put me in Katrina for two weeks.

Why would "TRs" even be necessary?

If I can echo SOME of that. We don't need to be FORMALLY in the military. They are bound by UCMJ during a period of contracted service. You understand? They are bound by UCMJ because their contract says so. So why would we need anything different?

You can call people Auxiliary AF Officers, sign a contract that states when you are on federal active duty that you are bound by UCMJ, rights & priviledges etc. That just gets you in the pool, that and meeting the NEW CAP training standards that are basically on par w/ AF. Then when they want to use you, they call and offer you a service contract for a defined job during a defined period. So Joe, you could teach during the year & pick up a summer ocntract to work on base doing some job you've also had to qualify for - like SDF filling in for National Guard. When you accept the contract for that specific service perod, then you are bound by UCMJ during that period.

The point is they don't need you for that role when they can just call up reservists to it, granted you're a slightly cheaper option cause you're getting paid a bit less & they don't pay you year round, but still they don't need you that bad. Augmentation, like CGAux & SDFs, should be a volunteer gig. I can see expenses, housing/food allowances, but no pay. Now, deployed out of state or over two days (be that mission or some longer term augmentation role) I can see some kind of per diem, but you really have to keep that one under control or you're going to sink this whole thing. Maybe half the above numbers qould be more reasonable? I don't know, anythng might be too much.


We're WAY AHEAD OF OURSELVES on this though. Let's figure out how to get our force meeting something like AF standards so we can operate our org worth a crap & gain AF confidence in us to do important missions... THEN when we've proven ourselves AND laid the ground work w/ volunteer professional augmentation or assistance (Chaplains, medical, legal aid, etc), THEN we can come back to a conversation like this. For now though, it's just going to distract from the steps we need to be taking to fix the reality we actually live in. I appreciate the imagination, but lets try to keep it focus on target. Please.

[Dragoon]

By the way, per diem isn't by pay grade - that's salary and basic allowances for housing and subsistence.

Per Diem (for temporary duty)  is set by geographic local, and is the same for all pay grades, as spelled out  here:  https://secureapp2.hqda.pentagon.mil/perdiem/rateinfo.html

[DNall]

By the way, per diem isn't by pay grade - that's salary and basic allowances for housing and subsistence.

Per Diem (for temporary duty)  is set by geographic local, and is the same for all pay grades, as spelled out  here:  https://secureapp2.hqda.pentagon.mil/perdiem/rateinfo.html

Which is significantly higher for the most part. He said PAY though, not per diem. I attempted to use that as a basis to turn the conversation to a per diem rate equally useful in mission deployed or some long-term augmentation role.


UCMJ, I know after WWII. The determination, which you can ask river about a link to, by the Army IG or something like that at the time was that CAP serving w/ AAF under militay orders in uniform are bound by Amry rules & reglations, including rules of war... I don't tknow id the purpose of that determination was so they could cout martial some CAP member for misusing govt property or what, but that was the in-war determination. The law, CAP, & AF have obviously changed a good deal since then, but it's an interesting precedent to take into account.

I'd build on that that the geneva convention says uniform, mil orders, & radio equals combatant. Which is why Congress has to specify that AF cannot assign us combat duties (which doesn't change if you are a combatabt or not). I realize that seems a stretch of the imagination, but if I go fly the border in my little yellow red-wht-blue plane & drug smuggler wails on my w/ a M2 mounted on a painted like mexican army pickup like they did some sherriff's deputies down here over the summer... Same deal if I'm flying HLD/S & bad guy don't like hte pictures I'm taking from a couple thousand gets off a lucky shot. I'm all for taking those assignments, and don't by any means consider them combat, but some things about our status should be adjusted appropriately. At very least they need to go back to teh geneva stuff on teh back of the card like CGAux has if I'm not mistaken.

[RiverAux]

Sending CAP members into combat areas under a TR arrangement is possible

I think you misunderstand the concept.  A Temporary Reservist would basically be a new category within the AF Reserve.  If a TR was on duty it wouldn't be as a CAP member at all.  So all CAP-related restrictions would not apply.  Basically CAP would be a source for TRs just as the CG Aux was a source for CG TRs during WWII.