New Nat/CC agenda

[BuckeyeDEJ]

We need to improve the relationship with Ma Blue, and fix the part-time auxiliary problem. We shouldn't be an embarrassment to the Air Force, a red-headed stepchild that they can't seem to shake -- after all, look at the things we do for them! The civilian side of this organization seems to have done its level best to torpedo that relationship. Lobbying directly to Congress was a bad idea then, and is now. And while we're at it, let's de-silo the HQ CAP people from the volunteers. It's almost as if NHQ plays its own little reindeer games in a vacuum from the volunteers -- the people who actually are Civil Air Patrol. If the lessons of Deepwater Horizon are any indication, the NHQ people are so in-over-their-heads that the best thing we could do for them is say they need to CAP uniformed members who are subjected to the same ops quals and promotion processes.

I'd like to see professional development include honest assessments of personnel as part of the promotion cycle -- officer fitness reports, whatever. And yes, I don't mind saying it, but we don't need all these officers floating around. There's no shame in wearing stripes, and many of our members have no business wearing butterbars, especially when it's so darned easy to get them.

CAP is slowly becoming an organization of urban legends, misinformation, cults of personality, whatever, because some regulations are so out-of-date as to be irrelevant. Susie Parker, God bless her, should not be the walking, talking update to CAPM 39-1 or any other instruction. The knowledgebase should not supplant regulations, either. Speaking of which -- can we renumber/reorganize our regs to match the Air Force's system?

Now... not to make this yet another uniform thread, but...

Request changes to AF type uniform:
Replacement of grey epaulettes with blue epaulettes with "CAP" embroidery to also be used on blue service coat

Why? The whole reason we wore red, then gray, was because the Air Force wanted a different color up there to mark us as civilians. Why would you go to blue epaulets on a service coat? If you do that, you take the whole reason for epaulets away (since they're the same color) -- just put the darned pins back in, like it used to be. Of course, at that point, the "U.S." disappears and reverts to "CAP." We're gray for a reason.

The only thing I'd suggest is a different set of epaulets for the service coat and outergarments, where field grade officers don't have the stripe on the bottom. It's not like the Air Force (or we used to) have a stripe on the service coat below the grade; that's a shirt thing. Possibly, we could pin metal rank on the epaulets, but that might require extra guidance, since it's one more variable someone will fark up.

Of course, I'd also say let's rein in those silly enamel shields that people can just puke all over their uniforms. Or just kill them altogether, which might be better, anyway. Too many people need to have their egos stroked just a certain way, apparently....

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

We need to improve the relationship with Ma Blue, and fix the part-time auxiliary problem. We shouldn't be an embarrassment to the Air Force, a red-headed stepchild that they can't seem to shake -- after all, look at the things we do for them! The civilian side of this organization seems to have done its level best to torpedo that relationship.

My observation over the past 18 years is that far too many on the "corporatist" side of CAP want a "have-their-cake-and-eat-it-too" situation...they don't want the AF "interfering" with flying club joyrides flight operations, and they certainly don't want the quasi-military aspects, but they certainly want the AF $$$ funding their flying.

I'd like to see professional development include honest assessments of personnel as part of the promotion cycle -- officer fitness reports, whatever. And yes, I don't mind saying it, but we don't need all these officers floating around. There's no shame in wearing stripes, and many of our members have no business wearing butterbars, especially when it's so darned easy to get them.

Seconded.  Back when I first joined CAP, my Army-veteran dad noticed all the officers and couldn't figure it out.  Apparently the AF didn't want us to have NCO's, but I know we had them because I saw an old, early '60s uniform manual for the Armed Forces in a library that showed both CAP NCO stripes (Amn to MSgt) and warrant officers.  I would like to see warrant officers brought back for those who just want to do one thing and have no aspirations to command.  I'd gladly trade in my railway tracks for CWO3 bars.

And, yes, I know "the AF doesn't have WO's."  They don't, but they are still authorised and the SECAF could start that back up if s/he so desired.  The AF also doesn't have "SMWOG," but we do.

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,176557,00.html

CAP is slowly becoming an organization of urban legends, misinformation, cults of personality, whatever, because some regulations are so out-of-date as to be irrelevant. Susie Parker, God bless her, should not be the walking, talking update to CAPM 39-1 or any other instruction. The knowledgebase should not supplant regulations, either. Speaking of which -- can we renumber/reorganize our regs to match the Air Force's system?

I think that is happening because nature abhors a vacuum.  In the absence of concrete information, rumour and innuendo step in.  The AF knows so little about us, so they too often rely on these urban legends about CAP being nothing more than a bunch of salute-trollers who have some kids that may end up joining the AF.  The "knowledgebase" is often so contradictory as to be virtually irrelevant.  As you said, Susie Parker is too often relied upon to be "regulations," especially 39-1.

The whole reason we wore red, then gray, was because the Air Force wanted a different color up there to mark us as civilians. Why would you go to blue epaulets on a service coat? If you do that, you take the whole reason for epaulets away (since they're the same color) -- just put the darned pins back in, like it used to be. Of course, at that point, the "U.S." disappears and reverts to "CAP." We're gray for a reason.

The reason we were maroon was the Air Force punishing CAP for the actions of a few bad actors.  I came into CAP just after that happened and there was a lot of bitterness that the whole organisation had to suffer because of a few jerks.  I suggested the blue epaulettes for service coats as kind of a "middle ground."  There is no way that CAP would petition the AF to have hard rank again, especially not in the aftermath of the illogic that is and was killing the CSU.  I have seen police dress uniforms that wear rank slide epaulettes.

The grey epaulettes (which do look better) and U.S. cutouts was a half-measure because so many people did hate the maroon epaulettes.

We may be "grey for a reason" but it doesn't follow that it's a logical or even good reason.  It isn't the grey that "marks us as civilians."  Were that the case, we never would have had blue...and cadets wouldn't have their blue epaulettes.  Also, again using the example of SDF's, they are not connected with the AF except through state-only connections with their ANG, and they look much more like the AF than we do...some may have a different-coloured nameplate (some don't) and some may have their state initials as collar brass...but this isn't universal.  Some make the argument that the AF has "no control" over what SDF's do (nonsense; it's the AF's uniform and SDF's could be told to cease and desist wearing them) or that they aren't civilians like we are (half-truth; their ranks and commissions mean nothing in practical terms outside their State).

Of course, I'd also say let's rein in those silly enamel shields that people can just puke all over their uniforms. Or just kill them altogether, which might be better, anyway. Too many people need to have their egos stroked just a certain way, apparently....

A lot of integration/consolidation can be done there.

[Irishrenegade]

We need to improve the relationship with Ma Blue, and fix the part-time auxiliary problem. We shouldn't be an embarrassment to the Air Force, a red-headed stepchild that they can't seem to shake -- after all, look at the things we do for them! The civilian side of this organization seems to have done its level best to torpedo that relationship.

My observation over the past 18 years is that far too many on the "corporatist" side of CAP want a "have-their-cake-and-eat-it-too" situation...they don't want the AF "interfering" with flying club joyrides flight operations, and they certainly don't want the quasi-military aspects, but they certainly want the AF $$$ funding their flying.
easy to get them.

I could not agree more CyBorg...way too much flying for free mentality with a disregard for the overall mission. I see it a lot where we have pilots showing up to SAREXs who get their undergarments in a twist because they don't get enough hours during a weekend when they never show up to meetings and are ghosts until there is an opportunity to fly for free. Along with the "they don't want AF interfering" part...I see a lot of times where flight suits are worn with no cover and with tennis shoes because well they are pilots and they can do what they want and heaven forbid a 24 year old is going to tell them other wise.


To the pilots who actually care about the program and what we represent and do on a regular basis without any care about how much free flight time you get...I salute you (I salute the others cause I have to)

[JC004]

If CAP wishes to be exclusively the Air Force Auxiliary, CAP must demonstrate to the Air Force and Congress that there is a compelling reason why the law should be changed.  The fact of the matter is that when regular meetings and the like require Federal insurance coverage, and similar situations, the cost to the government goes up - something that is not appealing in Congress right now.

I don't think that people can or should even spend tons of time thinking full-time auxiliary until CAP really establishes itself as an incredible value to the Air Staff and can make a very compelling argument to the Air Staff and Congress. 

CAP offers great things but I don't think there is currently a compelling reason to switch CAP's status other than it sucks and we don't like it.

As for epaulets...this is not a topic to which I dedicate a lot of my thinking.

[RiverAux]

I think it would be to the AF's advantage to make CAP a full-time Aux, but only if CAP the corporation was reduced to a non-profit fundraising organization totally divorced from leadership.  If AF had total control over regulations, for example, it might solve some issues.  CG Aux has demonstrated that you can have an Aux totally under the thumb of its parent service while at the same time giving a lot of leeway to Aux members to lead on day-to-day issues. 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I think it would be to the AF's advantage to make CAP a full-time Aux, but only if CAP the corporation was reduced to a non-profit fundraising organization totally divorced from leadership. 

Very true.  Ever since the mid-'90s, when the "corporatist" side of CAP started increasing in influence, we have been almost schizoid in our approach to our operations, what our mission is, and even our raison d'etre.

If AF had total control over regulations, for example, it might solve some issues.  CG Aux has demonstrated that you can have an Aux totally under the thumb of its parent service while at the same time giving a lot of leeway to Aux members to lead on day-to-day issues.

Seconded.  When I was a CGAUXie the only real time I felt the "hand" of the Coast Guard was in beneficial ways...cutting orders for me to patrol and even the Commandant awarding the entire Aux the CG OSU ribbon.  I probably get more questions ("what is that?") about that ribbon than any others (it is an actual Coast Guard ribbon, so it can be worn on the CAP/AF type uniform).

At the same time, I believe all regulations covering the CGAUX were either written by the Coast Guard or either signed off by the Commandant or the Chief Director of the Auxiliary (an AD USCG Captain).

However, at the flotilla (think Squadron) level the leadership was by Auxiliarists.

Again, I think the schizoid nature currently permeating CAP would have trouble with this...the corporatists who say "hey, we're CIVILIANS!" (so are CG Auxiliarists, so that "argument" is fallacious) and the "flying club" types Irishrenegade mentioned who fly more on ego than on Avgas 100LL who just don't want to be told what to do by anyone would probably make a lot of noise.

In a lot of ways we have done this to ourselves by insisting on the full "corporatisation" of CAP and basically flipping the Air Force the bird (figuratively) when they try to interfere.

JC004: What compelling reason was there to switch CAP's status other than to keep John McCain off our six back during the '90s?  I'm not necessarily knocking that - I remember that time, and how close he came to nearly shuttering CAP entirely.

As for epaulettes...I suppose it's because I remember the way and the reason the blue ones were taken from us.  The maroon and (to a lesser extent) the grey seem to me (and to others I've spoken to) to be very much like the "dunce cap" that misbehaving children were made to wear in school years ago.

[JC004]

I don't know if there was a compelling reason or not - it depends on how you look at it.  It doesn't matter, though.  What matters is now.

There are hurdles, the costs are possibly high (FW would need to weigh in on that from being NFO), and we need to know what exactly the benefits would be. 

I fully support CLOSE Air Force relations, wear of the AF uniform, tighter integration with the AF, more missions from the AF of different types, more NCSAs and other opportunities for cadets from closer AF support, etc.  I also support anything that makes Radioman frustrated.

THAT SAID, I am looking at the practical path to getting this DONE. 

There are other considerations like the impact on third party funding sources because I don't think we should go assuming that the Air Force will increase the budget as necessary to compensate for what we could get done with the third party money. 

Operations tempo would have to be increased from the Air Force to compensate for anything that would be removed from CAP's possible missions or activities due to this change in legal status.

Vague and unsure, like this, isn't going to sell the Air Staff or Congress. 

I think it would be to the AF's advantage to make CAP a full-time Aux, but only if CAP the corporation was reduced to a non-profit fundraising organization totally divorced from leadership.  If AF had total control over regulations, for example, it might solve some issues.  CG Aux has demonstrated that you can have an Aux totally under the thumb of its parent service while at the same time giving a lot of leeway to Aux members to lead on day-to-day issues. 

CAP would need to present evidence and clear benefits.  Just asking because it was the way it was before isn't going to fly.

[MICT1362]

Lots of awesome ideas have been covered and I don't want to repeat them, so I'll just go with this one.

How about some transparency...

It has been mentioned that meetings have been had in an attempt to make things better with the AF, but the general membership just doesn't know about them.  Um, excuse me, why not?!  If you are truly doing something for the betterment of the organization, shouldn't you be sending out press releases about what happened. 
I.E. "I met with General So-N-So, and we discussed blah blah.  He/She seemed very receptive of the idea and we will continue to discuss details over the next few months.  More to come at a later date."
This could even be done as a weekly blog.  And not just by the Nat. CC, but by each staffer and committee.  This would prevent those of us in the field from being out of the loop for months/years at a time.

It is because of the current situations that we have the backroom deals, undermining of others and outright back stabbing.  If we put everything out to the membership, who are just as much invested in the organization as those at NHQ, we should be able to eliminate some of these problems.  I mean truly, what do you have to hide?  So, how about we burn all those "Non-Disclosure Agreements"...  Several states in fact have open meeting acts where these wouldn't hold up anyway, unless you are specifically discussing the employment of a paid employee.  Not too many of those in a volunteer organization.

Medic- 

[RiverAux]

CAP would need to present evidence and clear benefits.  Just asking because it was the way it was before isn't going to fly.

Actually, I was suggesting going way further than we were before the current Aux On/Aux Off split.  Basically, giving AF total control over any aspect of CAP that they care to control.  Even before the current fed law went into effect the AF only had indirect influence over CAP since the creation of CAP the corporation back in the 40s.  But, thats probably getting beyond the scope of this thread.

[FW]

[JC004: What compelling reason was there to switch CAP's status other than to keep John McCain off our six back during the '90s?  I'm not necessarily knocking that - I remember that time, and how close he came to nearly shuttering CAP entirely.

The Air Force decided they could no longer afford the expense of Staffing NHQ.  The combined staff in 1992 was well over 300 considering NHQ, Region LO staff and, Wing LO staff.  This is the biggest reason why we have the "corporate structure" of today.  Sen McCain's "blast" occurred much later.  And, had no Air Force support.  It had little support from congress too. 

BTW; our biggest threat was in 1999-2000.  CAP was raided by the FBI and OSI.  A "White Paper" was written by the staff at the Pentegon recommending the "split" between the Auxiliary and, the Corporate Civil Air Patrol.  The Air Force realized CAP was receiving an appropriation illegally and not in accordance with OMB requirements.  Only after very intense negotiations and help from Sens. Harkin and Allard, did CAP make it through the morass. 

[Ned]

How about some transparency...

It has been mentioned that meetings have been had in an attempt to make things better with the AF, but the general membership just doesn't know about them.  Um, excuse me, why not?!  If you are truly doing something for the betterment of the organization, shouldn't you be sending out press releases about what happened. 

Because unless the meeting is finalizing some on-goingwork, it is usually counter-productive to put out this kind of "press release."

"Members of CAP's Board of Governors today met with Gen Schwartz to discuss items of mutual concern.  In particular, CAP asked the Chief of Staff for X, Y, & Z.  Gen Schwartz seemed receptive and said he would think about it."

This kind of "press release" would be seen as an attempt to pressure Gen Schwartz and his staff to accede to our requests, what ever they were, and would almost certainly backfire.

So, how about we burn all those "Non-Disclosure Agreements"...  Several states in fact have open meeting acts where these wouldn't hold up anyway, ( . . .)

NDAs are the norm - not the exception - for every large organization in the country.  Including charities and NGOs.  It is critically important for senior leaders to be able to discuss confidential information in order to reach difficult decisions in matters ranging from sensitive personnel discussions and disciplinary actions to financial decisions involving investments to litigation.

Remember, NDAs only cover a very small proportion of what the senior leadership does and discusses.

CAP has come a long way in transparency.  Heck, we even broadcast the business meetings of the NB and NEC.  Minutes of all meetings are posted on the internet for everyone to view.  Heck, even our massive IRS Form 990 is electronically filed and available on the internet through Guidestar.

And feel free to file suit against CAP if you honestly believe the NDAs are unlawful.  I'd suggest consulting an attorney first.  You might be able to save yourself some trouble and the filing fees.   

[JC004]

I was going to say basically what Ned said about the transparency of meetings. 

I really feel like "transparency" is not necessarily the right word for this situation.  Transparency, to me, has more to do with your funds, meetings that change policy, certain negative actions, etc.  If the CAP/CC goes to have a meeting with the Air Staff to chat about some ideas and start laying a framework for future discussions or plans, I don't see that so much as "transparency" as "communication to the field."  That DOESN'T mean members SHOULDN'T BE TOLD, but as Ned is pointing out, a meeting like I mention here isn't exactly going to warrant its own big publicity. 

I just finished the technology end (National Commander's Blog and National Staff Blog) for part of Colonel Weiss's field communication plan.  He wants to have it going on the first day if he wins the election next week, so that people are in the loop and so the sites get maximum publicity (getting launched at CAP's annual conference).  That way, he'd start reaching as many people as possible from the beginning.  Anyway, my point is that as the current templates are structured, you'd have mentions of meetings like this so that members know what's going on and feel our progress in the field.  BUT, it wouldn't be a big blog post on an initial meeting with Air Staff, a potential partner agency, the Red Cross, or whatever.  It would be a run-down of multiple news items like that in one article. 

Right now, the template and communication plan for this FYI-kinda information is around once a month (and other, more specific or action-related items would be posted in between those consolidated articles).  If more is going on at a faster rate, then it would be posted more often.  But these things are generally FYI and meetings like this are not generally a start of a discussion through to negotiations, a break to type up a fancy agreement, then a signing with fancy pens, flags in the background, and photographers. 

We do think that members should know what's going on so they can get an idea of where CAP is going, so the right people can have their input, and it would improve morale by allowing members to see various progress on different things.  When ACTION IS REQUIRED or something is going to have a big impact on the organization, generally, out of a meeting like that the parties will go home to their respective corners and start tasking working groups, committees, getting approvals, etc.  Those sorts of things are included in this communication plan, but we do want to provide more rounded information.  Transferring an assignment to a different committee or something similar is probably gonna end up on the cutting room floor.

I hope that if he doesn't win this, there will be a similar field communication plan, but who knows.  As for his, it's already in place and member suggestions ARE welcome on how we'd best communicate essential information to the field.  There's no reason this stuff has to be given out by wing commanders only at commander's calls or whatever.  It isn't cutting them out of the chain of command to say "hey, members, we're working on some exciting new initiatives with the Air Force or X agency."

---------

As to the topic of AF-run CAP, Col Weiss's post is one of the issues I'm pointing out (but I'm not as tuned in on exact details of the costs and all, so I'm trying to leave that to those who are).

[MICT1362]

JC004,

Ok, so maybe I had some poor word choice, but you pretty much explained exactly what I was talking about.  Give the general membership some more information about what is going on.  Contrary to what I think is viewed as the norm, there are members that want to know where we are heading as an organization.  A "communication to the field" lets us know that something is happening. 

Medic-

[JC004]

Forums tend to get people all fired up and we should try to make sure we choose our words carefully for that reason.  That said, I've certainly picked incorrect words or phrases that meant something than I wished to convey - even a couple recently.  One thing I am trying to avoid in things on which I work is the fighting, accusations, and crap that happen.  People get all fired up about a word like "transparency" or blow something like that way out of proportion. 

We have a lot to accomplish in order to strengthen CAP and make a remnant of World War II still matter in 2011 and beyond.  Some - maybe a lot of the bickering is simply counter-productive because we need a lot of leadership, talent, and boots on the ground to get things done.  No National Commander can be Superman.  I can't think of a single member of CAP who knows everything important about every single job function, state-level issue, local-level issue, etc.  The keys are leadership and laying the groundwork ("infrastructure" is the word used on the stuff I just finished for Col Weiss). 

I am glad that your ideas seem to be in line with what I just finished on the technical end.  If you have other ideas on how we can best communicate with the field (up and down), e-mail Col Weiss and I will work with my tech people to do the technical support end of that while he focuses on the leadership, teambuilding, etc.  If you have things that he would make a high priority and want done before the election so it'll be ready to roll if he wins next week, hopefully we tech folks can get it set up so it's ready to roll after the Change of Command if he comes out on top during the business meeting.

We need the individual members who contribute greatly to CAP to be able to have their work benefit us all.
We need the guy who knows the CEO of Widgets, Inc. to come forward and get that CEO involved with supporting Cadet Programs.
We need the person who designed a lean, mean tech system for another volunteer organization to step forward in improving ours.
We need the cadet who has a brilliant idea for an NCSA to be able to propose that - actually get it through their Chain of Command - and get it going.
We need that Flight Officer who developed a fantastic guide to building unit websites to get their materials to the right place, then to the field.
We need that squadron commander who found their senior members getting their initial training slowly and developed materials to speed things up and make it work better.

We need to be creative in developing our missions.
We need new ways of looking at our operations missions, finding new mission opportunities, and getting our people trained, then keeping them BUSY.
We need a fantastic Aerospace Education program that is going to help our country continue to dominate in this area, as well as science/technology in general.
We need to have a strong cadet program that serves as a model for youth programs and develops strong leaders - through a program that remains top-notch and is always finding new ways of giving great opportunities and training to our cadets.

We need a strong team with a great VISION for CAP and strong leadership to get it all done.  All the while, we need to be strengthening our members to become leaders and make it all work.  The local unit and the individual member is where the rubber meets the road.  That's what we need in a National Commander's agenda.

[Major Carrales]

I am glad that Col. Wiess is a member here and hope that he continues to read and post here.  One thing that I have found most distasteful as well as possibly destructive is the out of control "rumor mills" that CAPTALK and other forums become from time to time.  Situations where half-truths, wild rumors and lies become "truth" and "fact" and, as I have been enlightened of lately...truths are obscured and made so nebulous that they are buried and disregarded in favor of the prevailing ofuscations and, saddly sometimes, blatant lies.

Since 2006, I have read all sorts of out of control "fact building" where things are posted on one forum as a "speculation," quoted on another forum and then "claimed to be fact" since it was seen in "two places."  The internet destroyed that concept. 

These are the origins and inceptions of all the "URBAN LEGENDS" and presist in CAP or about it...that people swear are true, but not a shred of documentation exists to substantiant the claims.

I cite the lack of any official and regular communication on certain issues over the years...maybe even intentional miscomunication allowed to run wild for "political purposes..." as a major problem. The forum can be free, but people need to know what is real and what is blarney. 

Oh...and "I heard this from Col SOMEONE in the bathroom at the National Conference 13 years ago while in the third stall" is neither proper "evidence" or anything that should be taken as "gospel."

[RADIOMAN015]

We need to improve the relationship with Ma Blue, and fix the part-time auxiliary problem. We shouldn't be an embarrassment to the Air Force, a red-headed stepchild that they can't seem to shake -- after all, look at the things we do for them! The civilian side of this organization seems to have done its level best to torpedo that relationship.

This is real silliness.  The AF Regulations & the Cooperative Agreement are very specific as to what the USAF see as CAP's mission with them.   CAP actually chose to be able to do corporate missions, because it gives them more flexibility in performing "Other Missions For America"..  That's right from my wing commander at a CLC course  --- I would assume he knows what he is talking about, since he is a corporate officer.

The AF is our prime funding source, IF they didn't like us and didn't think we were worthy, they would pull those funds and use them elsewhere.  The Commander of lst AF has had very good things to say about CAP's airborne assets and what we do and at numerous wing conferences the National Commander (or other staff member) has specifically briefed attendees on the AF's DAILY review of CAP missions, etc.

Other than all this uniform nonsense, that continues to come up, most mature adults are going to perform the Missions for America, without whining, without regard to any specific uniform (and how close it looks like an AF uniform -- The AF decides on the "distinctiveness, not Civil Air Patrol members or even the leadership).   The AF isn't interested in the membership's "whining" about various things.  They give us a mission and historically, they do know we can perform that mission.  Historically the leadership (also mentioned at wing conference briefings by the national staff/commander), has been cautious about taking too many different missions on at one time, but as we become proficient they do try to get more varied missions.

Sometime the right thing to do is to be more conservative.  Personally, I don't see the AF as a culprit in any of CAP perceived problems, but rather a limited number of members that have caused some issues in the past.

Locally, we are on a joint military base, and receive outstanding support.  Everyone doesn't know about CAP, but the "decision makers" do, that's really ALL we need to do.

Whomever gets selected as National Commander, has my best wishes.  I know our wing commander has said it's very difficult to please everyone.
RM                 

[abdsp51]

WOs went away with the introduction of SMSgt and CMSgt.  SECAF can not just arbitrarily re-institute WOs without congressional approval.  SECAF has leeway but can't just start something which would have a significant fiscal costs while they are trying to reduce spending. 

[lordmonar]

WOs went away with the introduction of SMSgt and CMSgt.  SECAF can not just arbitrarily re-institute WOs without congressional approval.  SECAF has leeway but can't just start something which would have a significant fiscal costs while they are trying to reduce spending.

Already approved....the USAF just chooses not to use them.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

The grey epaulettes (which do look better) and U.S. cutouts was a half-measure because so many people did hate the maroon epaulettes.

Sorry, but that's not quite true. The "U.S." letters were a gift to CAP from CSAF Gen. Ron Fogelman, a recognition of CAP as part of the Air Force family. It's something we should be honored we could change.

I agree that too often, our discussions devolve to uniforms. Heck, even after 9/11, I sat in a commander's call in the wing in which I lived at the time (one of the five biggest), though I wasn't a member in that wing, and one of the first things said was that CAP wings would be replaced with a variation of Air Force ratings. Huh?

We need to be vital to Ma Blue. We need to be part of the family, and we can be that and still do many of the missions we do. Ain't nuthin' wrong with that.

[MSG Mac]

WOs went away with the introduction of SMSgt and CMSgt.  SECAF can not just arbitrarily re-institute WOs without congressional approval.  SECAF has leeway but can't just start something which would have a significant fiscal costs while they are trying to reduce spending.

Already approved....the USAF just chooses not to use them.

The Warrent Officer grades were dropped in order to allow the establishment of the E-8, E-9 grades. Those who were WO's were allowed to progress with the establishment of CW 3 and CW 4  grades. It was expected that the WO grades would die through attrition in about 20 years. The USAF is  the only service that actually followed through on the plan to eliminate the WO's.