CAP-USAF Completes realignment from Holm Center to 1AF

[Eclipse]

There's been a lot of rumor and rhetoric regard CAP reporting in to 1AF instead of AETC.
Apparently the realignment was of CAP-USAF, not CAP. 


http://capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?capusaf_completes_realignment_from_holm_center_to_1st_air_force&show=news&newsID=22100

"CAP-USAF completed a nearly three-year journey  today to realign from Air Education and Training Command's
Jeanne M. Holm Center for Officer Accessions & Citizen Development to Air Combat Command's 1st Air Force." 

http://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2697/kw/1st%20air%20force%20faq

Q:  Will CAP also realign under 1AF?   

A:  Technically speaking, no.  Prior to 1976, CAP was a subordinate organization within the Air Force.  However, since 1976, CAP has been the separate organization we know today that shares a close partnership with the Air Force and CAP-USAF as the auxiliary arm of the Total Force when performing Air Force assigned missions.  Just like CAP was not an "assigned unit" under AETC, CAP-USAF's realignment will not make CAP an "assigned unit" under 1AF.  The bond between CAP and CAP-USAF will not change.  What changed is who CAP-USAF now reports to as an organization and chain of command.
_______________________________

Q:  How will CAP as an organization be affected?   

A:  CAP as an organization will not be affected and members will see little change in the longstanding relationship CAP has enjoyed with the Air Force, CAP-USAF and 1AF.  The majority of our missions will continue to be tasked by 1AF. 
_______________________________

Q:  What is the impact on individual members? 

A:  There will be no impact on CAP's members.  Although CAP-USAF will change its "major command" patch from AETC to ACC, there will be no other noticeably visible changes.

[Eclipse]

For some historical context:
http://www.maxwell.af.mil/News/Display/tabid/10067/Article/421169/cap-usaf-realigns-with-holm-center.aspx

http://www.capvolunteernow.com/news/?capusaf_realignment_benefits_americas_youth&show=news&newsID=5606

[DakRadz]

Since we are in the lobby....

Will this help or hinder CAP-USAF in how they respond, operate, or gain approvals for applicable items?

I don't have a grasp on what this means, other than to suspect that "only changing a MAJCOM patch" is too little of an effect to have justified even doing this. And I don't know how helpful it will be after reading the second set of links, where we apparently went from their advocacy (then, anyway) to now just being a part of a numbered AF command.

[Eclipse]

Absent further detail I can't see how it will make any difference, other then to guess from an administrative standpoint
it was easier / cheaper in somebody's mind to have them report there.  Access to or accounting for the reservists, maybe?

CAP-USAF has very little day-to-day involvement in CAP.  They might have daily conversations at the C-Level, but
at the wing they aren't involved in much, and when they are it is primarily the evals / CIs and final approval on money.

[raivo]

Seems more symbolic to me than anything else... Holm Center is an approximately wing-equivalent component of Air University that oversees various education programs (JROTC, ROTC, OTS, etc.) and 1AF is the numbered Air Force responsible for CONUS air defense and related missions, so I guess you could say it signifies a shift in focus.

But that's just me speculating.

[JeffDG]

Seems more symbolic to me than anything else... Holm Center is an approximately wing-equivalent component of Air University that oversees various education programs (JROTC, ROTC, OTS, etc.) and 1AF is the numbered Air Force responsible for CONUS air defense and related missions, so I guess you could say it signifies a shift in focus.

But that's just me speculating.

It's more of a money thing.

We (CAP) will still be drawing funds from the AETC side of things...that's where a lot of our CP and AE funding flows through, but most of our ES funding flows through 1AF and ACC. 

That means that folks have to move money around, and in government that's not a simple process. 

You might think "Well, they had to move money before and they have to move money now, so what's the difference?"

The difference is timing.  The AE/CP funding is stuff that is planned well in advance, so there's ample time for the bean-counters to do their thing to get the funds where they need to go.  ES funding can have more immediate needs that don't have a lot of, or any, lead time.  In such situations, the accountants get...nervous...if they have to move funds between major accounts with little-no notice.  So, organizing out of ACC permits those short-notice funding requirements to be more easily met, while leaving the longer notice CP/AE relatively unaffected.

[DakRadz]

It's more of a money thing.

If this is the case, especially if the examples given for CP/AE vs ES are accurate, then that makes a lot of sense and has good reasons.

Is there a way to see where and how these funds flow? Annual report or something?

[FW]

CAP has been working with 1AF for years, and I think its commander is now a permanent member of the BoG, so it seems the 1AF\CAP-USAF reporting chain makes good sense.  I have no idea about money issues, however our grant is set by congress; not the AF.  Oversight of our spending is the function of a "Grants Officer", and is not dependent on CAP-USAF's parent org.  The BoG's audit committee and the CFO's office do a great job of insuring budgeting, and spending is kept in check. 

That said, extra funds for ES/DR can be funneled thru 1AF to CAP for any reason it deems necessary. This could be a very good thing...

[Fubar]

"For example, emergency services is a lot of what CAP does, and the realignment allows CAP-USAF to offer that training to Reserve Officer Training Corps, and Junior ROTC students," he said.

Did that ever happen? I haven't seen any interaction with (J)ROTC.

Anybody know what command CAP-USAF was attached to before the move to Air Univeristy?

[lordmonar]

Since we are in the lobby....

Will this help or hinder CAP-USAF in how they respond, operate, or gain approvals for applicable items?

I don't have a grasp on what this means, other than to suspect that "only changing a MAJCOM patch" is too little of an effect to have justified even doing this. And I don't know how helpful it will be after reading the second set of links, where we apparently went from their advocacy (then, anyway) to now just being a part of a numbered AF command.

From an operations and funding point of view....it will help.
ACC has a bigger pot of money the AETC ever had.   So it will be easier to get funding for short notice taskings from USAF and other sources.   It is a lot easier for the ACC commander to say get it done....and move the money later then for AETC to do that.

From an operations point of point of view....it is a plus up for us....again because ACC has lots of money and we (via CAP-USAF) will be answering dircetly to ACC commander.   So it is easier to get things done...because only one boss hold all the threads.

As far as "just" being part of a numbered AF.    Just about everyone in ACC is part of some Numbered AF.   So again....it is a plus for us...because we fall under a direct operational commander who answers directly to Commander ACC.   Shorter chain of command with real world missions and the money and staffing that goes with it.

As has been stated time and again.   This does not really help the average CAP member.  Squadron ops will not change much at all.   What will change is the frequency and speed of getting off the wall, one up, or special missions.   AS the funding train is now stream lined.    The funding stream for the Green Flag operations was very convoluted....ACC had to MIPR the money to AETC who then gave it to CAP-USAF, who then transferred it to CAP.  Except for some operational costs that had to go another auditing route to ACC....who then got us the money.

Like I said...while nothing really will change on the street.....overall this is a big plus for CAP-USAF and CAP.

[DakRadz]

~snip~
As far as "just" being part of a numbered AF.    Just about everyone in ACC is part of some Numbered AF.   So again....it is a plus for us...because we fall under a direct operational commander who answers directly to Commander ACC.   Shorter chain of command with real world missions and the money and staffing that goes with it.

~snip~

Like I said...while nothing really will change on the street.....overall this is a big plus for CAP-USAF and CAP.

I appreciate all the points, especially from someone I know has a good basis of experience behind them. I simply don't know enough about the Air Force to have understood half of that without further insight, and the "just" was based on the fact that the AETC move had quotes from the CG showing high support, whereas this press release was a bit lacking.

I will admit that I did not realize the KB answer was longer than those parts in the initial post. Mea culpa. The answers here are good supporting information I would have asked for anyways.

[etodd]

The CAP links keep giving tidbits. Here are a few more details for you from the 1st Air Force website:

http://www.1af.acc.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/5782/Article/812037/1st-air-force-participates-in-civil-air-patrol-transfer-of-authority-ceremony.aspx

.

[etodd]

.

CAP-USAF personnel are the primary functional interface between other Federal agencies, state, and local agencies. ....... "Volunteer Civil Air Patrol pilots and aircraft, operating in an Air Force Auxiliary capacity, already fly thousands of sorties every year in support of civil authorities and Homeland Defense, ......"

Yep. Homeland Defense is just steps away from Homeland Security / FEMA / etc.

Deep in the depths of D.C. there are some 20 year plans for were CAP will wind up and what our new missions will be. Inch by inch were are morphing. Going to be very interesting to see where it all goes.



.

[Mitchell 1969]

.

CAP-USAF personnel are the primary functional interface between other Federal agencies, state, and local agencies. ....... "Volunteer Civil Air Patrol pilots and aircraft, operating in an Air Force Auxiliary capacity, already fly thousands of sorties every year in support of civil authorities and Homeland Defense, ......"

Yep. Homeland Defense is just steps away from Homeland Security / FEMA / etc.

Deep in the depths of D.C. there are some 20 year plans for were CAP will wind up and what our new missions will be. Inch by inch were are morphing. Going to be very interesting to see where it all goes.



.

I helped Indiana Jones put them there. I drove the fork lift.

[FW]

"For example, emergency services is a lot of what CAP does, and the realignment allows CAP-USAF to offer that training to Reserve Officer Training Corps, and Junior ROTC students," he said.

Did that ever happen? I haven't seen any interaction with (J)ROTC.

Anybody know what command CAP-USAF was attached to before the move to Air Univeristy?

We can give O'Flights to them....

Before AU, CAP-USAF was part of CAC or Continental Air Command.  It was one of the reasons CAP had access to Military Airlift...

[grunt82abn]

New guy question: What the heck is CAP-USAF? 

[Eclipse]

New guy question: What the heck is CAP-USAF?

The USAF command responsible for managing the Liaison Region Assistant Director(s) of Operations (LR-ADO) and Reserve Assistance Program (RAP).

Their role and quantity has evolved significantly in the last 20 years, but at the most basic level they are responsible for
oversight of the CAP Congressional appropriation, and in approving mission expenditures.  In addition they perform or coordinate the
Wing Evaluated Training missions and Compliance Inspections.  They also provide liaison to military installations and resources.

Yo may hear olde-school people refer to them as "State Directors", as that was their title previous to the relatively recent RIF that reduced their
numbers from 1-per wing (slots) to 8 total for the country. The LRADOs are civilian employees (GS) while the RAPs are Reservists who earn points
for their service to CAP.

CAP-USAF is not in the CAP chain of command, their primary authority is "safety and purse strings". In other words, they can call a stop for safety issues,
FWA situations, or simply refuse to approve expenditures or missions, but they don't have member-level or organizational authority.  They do provide advice
and counsel to Wing CCs, etc., on a regular basis, as they are all aviators, and former or current military.

From the above website (although I'm not sure those numbers are current):

• 
  Offers guidance and support to CAP organizations for homeland security and humanitarian missions for communities, states, and the nation.
  
  Provides assistance and oversight on search and rescue, disaster relief, and other emergencies and contingencies nationwide.
  
  Helps develop the country's youth through training, education, and professionalism.
  
  Educates citizens on the importance of air and space power.
  
  Personnel serve as the primary functional interface between other federal agencies and the CAP.
  
  Serves as the Air Force program office for the Cooperative Agreement and Statement of Work. The CAP-USAF/CC is the program manager.
  
  Serves as the only active-duty flying unit at Maxwell AFB and the only operational unit in Air University.
  
  Manages the CAP Reserve Assistance Program (CAPRAP) - the largest Air Force Reserve program in Air University.
  
  Only 19 of CAP-USAF's 350 personnel are stationed at Maxwell AFB. The rest are stationed at 44 operating locations across the country.

[grunt82abn]

Thanks Eclipse!!!

[ZigZag911]

Recently I heard CAP-USAF CV and CAP CV speak, both felt this would be good for CAP in all missions. Most immediate effects, as has been mentioned here, will be in compression of the approval chain for operational funds, They foresee positive impact in other areas, including CP & AE, but that will take some time, discussion and working out of details.

For the immediate future, at least, the major impact will be for CAP-USAF personnel and CAP Operations/ES missions.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Yo may hear olde-school people refer to them as "State Directors", as that was their title previous to the relatively recent RIF that reduced their
numbers from 1-per wing (slots) to 8 total for the country. The LRADOs are civilian employees (GS) while the RAPs are Reservists who earn points
for their service to CAP.

I'm old-school, and I remember when every wing had an LO and an LNCO. The liaison officer was usually a light colonel and the LNCO was usually a technical sergeant or in that vicinity. Every. Wing. Had. One. Each.

They became GS-schedule "state directors" later on.

[THRAWN]

Not every one. NJ and PA shared a LO and each had an LNCO.

[JeffDG]

Not every one. NJ and PA shared a LO and each had an LNCO.

Not every wing had a State Director either.

[SarDragon]

Not every one. NJ and PA shared a LO and each had an LNCO.

Eons ago ('70s), every wing had their own LO and LNCO. It wasn't until maybe even the '90s when there was sharing going on. I don't recall the reasons, but it happened gradually, reducing the numbers of LOs, until the billets shifted from AD military, to retired military/GS civilians.

[Eclipse]

It wasn't until maybe even the '90s when there was sharing going on. I don't recall the reasons, but it happened gradually, reducing the numbers of LOs, until the billets shifted from AD military, to retired military/GS civilians.

It was primarily a happenstance of career moves vs. finding the new guy, then once a position was vacant long enough,
the respective wing, etc., came to the realization they didn't need an independent one and the effort to fill the slot was slowed or
stopped.  It takes a special person to dance with CAP, not to mention the requirements are somewhat "specific", further reducing the
potential pool.

As I recall, CAP-USAF was down to about 30-35 SDs before the last reorganization.

The RAP issue is / was a similar problem, made worse by funding issues.

[FW]

Not every one. NJ and PA shared a LO and each had an LNCO.

Eons ago ('70s), every wing had their own LO and LNCO. It wasn't until maybe even the '90s when there was sharing going on. I don't recall the reasons, but it happened gradually, reducing the numbers of LOs, until the billets shifted from AD military, to retired military/GS civilians.

In 1994(?), there was a major shakeup in CAP-USAF/CAPHQ staffing; mostly caused by a decrease in the AF budget...  There's been a steady decline of manpower ever since, however that is another story.  CAP-USAF's duties will not change with the realignment.  CAPHQ will still continue to be augmented with volunteer staffers, and (CAP) funding will basically stay the same.

[NIN]

In 1994(?), there was a major shakeup in CAP-USAF/CAPHQ staffing; mostly caused by a decrease in the AF budget...  There's been a steady decline of manpower ever since, however that is another story.  CAP-USAF's duties will not change with the realignment.  CAPHQ will still continue to be augmented with volunteer staffers, and (CAP) funding will basically stay the same.

1994 was when CAPHQ was "divorced" from CAP-USAF and the so-called "CAP, Inc" rose.

Prior to 1994, the "Executive Director" (basically, Don Rowland's job) was also the job of the dual-hatted Commander, CAP-USAF.

And HQ directorates were managed by a combination of USAF personnel and USAF employees (not sure if the civilians were paid by "CAP, Inc" or they got actual USG paychecks)

Look thru old regs, for example, CAPR 147-1 (Exchange Service).  "ELIZABETH A. MASHBURN, Major, USAF. Director of Administration"  Actual USAF officers were the folks who promulgated and issued CAP regulations.

(and the signature block right next to it: "JOHN T. MASSINGALE, JR. Col, USAF. Executive Director"   Col Massingale was the CAP-USAF commander circa 1985-1986 WIWAC)

Post 1994, CAP HQ was "civilianized."

[Mitchell 1969]

In 1994(?), there was a major shakeup in CAP-USAF/CAPHQ staffing; mostly caused by a decrease in the AF budget...  There's been a steady decline of manpower ever since, however that is another story.  CAP-USAF's duties will not change with the realignment.  CAPHQ will still continue to be augmented with volunteer staffers, and (CAP) funding will basically stay the same.

1994 was when CAPHQ was "divorced" from CAP-USAF and the so-called "CAP, Inc" rose.

Prior to 1994, the "Executive Director" (basically, Don Rowland's job) was also the job of the dual-hatted Commander, CAP-USAF.

And HQ directorates were managed by a combination of USAF personnel and USAF employees (not sure if the civilians were paid by "CAP, Inc" or they got actual USG paychecks)

Look thru old regs, for example, CAPR 147-1 (Exchange Service).  "ELIZABETH A. MASHBURN, Major, USAF. Director of Administration"  Actual USAF officers were the folks who promulgated and issued CAP regulations.

(and the signature block right next to it: "JOHN T. MASSINGALE, JR. Col, USAF. Executive Director"   Col Massingale was the CAP-USAF commander circa 1985-1986 WIWAC)

Post 1994, CAP HQ was "civilianized."

FWIW, in 1973 I travelled to Republic of Korea for IACE, in commercial aircraft, but with USAF travel authorization issued by CAP-USAF, which were signed by a "DAFC" (Department of the Air Force Civilian).

[Nick]

Prior to 1994, the "Executive Director" (basically, Don Rowland's job) was also the job of the dual-hatted Commander, CAP-USAF.

And HQ directorates were managed by a combination of USAF personnel and USAF employees (not sure if the civilians were paid by "CAP, Inc" or they got actual USG paychecks)

Also known as the good 'ol days.

I recently had a lengthy chat over several days with a CAP-USAF WRC (wing reserve coodinator) who was trying to recruit me back into the program.  His impression is that the ACC (Air Combat Command) realignment is going to ramp up the reserve manning to fund more (unsure how much more) IMA (individual mobilization augmentee; basically a reservist who works for an active duty organization like CAP-USAF) positions to augment the LR (liaison region) staff on a more consistent basis than the PIRR (participating individual ready reservist; lowest tier of a reserve obligation you can have and still re-enlist in the Air Force) reservists that are pretty unpredictable in their availability and participation.  This would be consistent with my experience as the last AF manpower slash and burn of the IMA program around 2008ish(?) when the RMGs (reserve management groups; detachments of the Air Reserve Personnel Center that manage the IMA and PIRR program for the active duty MAJCOMs) were stood up defunded IMAs from the AFRC (AF Reserve Command) budget and left it up to the gaining MAJCOMs to either fund or eliminate the positions.  That effectively eliminated the AETC IMA program (and, in turn, the vast majority of CAP-USAF) because they didn't have operational money to use.  The hope here is that 1 AF with a real-world mission has the money to put IMAs back in the field.

Edit: Added definitions to all those acronyms.  Sorry, I go 3-letter-nuts when I start talking Air Force stuff.

[stillamarine]

Edit: Added definitions to all those acronyms.  Sorry, I go 3-letter-nuts when I start talking Air Force stuff.

Haha, I was about to say "Holy Acronyms Batman!" Be interesting to see how that plays out.

[Luis R. Ramos]

McLarty-

You should have gone the complete way, and capitalize them!



Just Joking!

Thank you, as not all of us know their meanings!

[PHall]

McLarty-

You should have gone the complete way, and capitalize them!



Just Joking!

Thank you, as not all of us know their meanings!

Funny, I understood him no problem. But I was in the Air Force too.

[Garibaldi]

On a semi-related note, I attended an NJROTC parent's brief with my best friend, whose son is going into the program (For whatever reason he chose NJROTC over CAP, but that's neither here nor there). They had a few acronyms I wasn't familiar with, and dumb me sat through a briefing on the cadet-parent organization for TWENTY MINUTES before I realized the CPO on the screen didn't stand for Chief Petty Officer. I felt so dumb.

[Luis R. Ramos]

I WILL bite.

CPO, if not Chief Petty Officer...?



Duh! [Palm on face!!!]

Cadet-Parent Orgnization?

[Garibaldi]

I WILL bite.

CPO, if not Chief Petty Officer...?



Duh! [Palm on face!!!]

Cadet-Parent Orgnization?

Exactly my reaction.

[SarDragon]

OTOH, I almost immediately discard Chief Petty Officer as the expansion of CPO in any non-Navy context.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Remember that Garibaldi's story was at a Navy JROTC event if I understand it correctly, so he had reason to believe it was Navy-related and thus thinking about Chief Petty Officer was justified, but your comments do have merit...

[Garibaldi]

Remember that Garibaldi's story was at a Navy JROTC event if I understand it correctly, so he had reason to believe it was Navy-related and thus thinking about Chief Petty Officer was justified, but your comments do have merit...

To be fair, I had just come back from a 2.5 mile hike and my brain hadn't yet adjusted to oxygen.

[Eclipse]

I recently had a lengthy chat over several days with a CAP-USAF WRC (wing reserve coodinator) who was trying to recruit me back into the program.  His impression is that the ACC (Air Combat Command) realignment is going to ramp up the reserve manning to fund more (unsure how much more) IMA (individual mobilization augmentee; basically a reservist who works for an active duty organization like CAP-USAF) positions to augment the LR (liaison region) staff on a more consistent basis than the PIRR (participating individual ready reservist...

I'll believe that when I see it - that takes more then initiative, that takes budget, something in significant shortage right now.

The also has to be a cost-benefit to the additional personnel, which means the converse would have to be "what's not getting done today".

Between RIFs, realignments, and program changes, CAP-USAF has been significantly marginalized over the last 5 years or so.
They no longer certify, or even need to be involved with encampments, they don't test Spaatz candidates, and their
reduction in numbers makes it very difficult for them to be much more then peripheral to Wing Plans and Programs, but with that
said, very little, to my knowledge, isn't getting "done" that could be done by RAPS.

The nation is in a draw-down, too, which means just finding reservists at all with the right attitude, not to mention proximity, gets
harder every day.  The election might change that, or it might not.

I'll take 10 reservists tomorrow if they want to join my unit, but if the idea is to have them visits more, smile politely, and watch the clock,
that doesn't offer much in the way of ROI.

[Nick]

I recently had a lengthy chat over several days with a CAP-USAF WRC (wing reserve coodinator) who was trying to recruit me back into the program.  His impression is that the ACC (Air Combat Command) realignment is going to ramp up the reserve manning to fund more (unsure how much more) IMA (individual mobilization augmentee; basically a reservist who works for an active duty organization like CAP-USAF) positions to augment the LR (liaison region) staff on a more consistent basis than the PIRR (participating individual ready reservist...

I'll believe that when I see it - that takes more then initiative, that takes budget, something in significant shortage right now.

The also has to be a cost-benefit to the additional personnel, which means the converse would have to be "what's not getting done today".

Between RIFs, realignments, and program changes, CAP-USAF has been significantly marginalized over the last 5 years or so.
They no longer certify, or even need to be involved with encampments, they don't test Spaatz candidates, and their
reduction in numbers makes it very difficult for them to be much more then peripheral to Wing Plans and Programs, but with that
said, very little, to my knowledge, isn't getting "done" that could be done by RAPS.

The nation is in a draw-down, too, which means just finding reservists at all with the right attitude, not to mention proximity, gets
harder every day.  The election might change that, or it might not.

I'll take 10 reservists tomorrow if they want to join my unit, but if the idea is to have them visits more, smile politely, and watch the clock,
that doesn't offer much in the way of ROI.

Bob, your optimism is always refreshing.

I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that the MAJCOM shuffle might help them out some. Just because AETC is notoriously horrible for manpower doesn't mean ACC is. If they don't show any results by the end of FY 17, then we know it was all hype.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PHall]

Bob, there is a world of difference between the mindset of AETC and the mindset of ACC.
AETC is a training organization, ACC is an organization that actually accomplishes the mission.

[Eclipse]

Bob, there is a world of difference between the mindset of AETC and the mindset of ACC.
AETC is a training organization, ACC is an organization that actually accomplishes the mission.

What, exactly is "the mission", and which part isn't being accomplished that would be
with additional RAPs or other at-cost personnel.

I know of lots of things not getting done, or which are little more than cursory attention, few, if any,
that could be accomplished properly with non-volunteer personnel.

[Nick]

Why, the mission to fly, fight, and win in air, space, and cyberspace, of course. It's right there in the brochure.

Go poll the national membership and see how their relationship is with local Air Force (and other branches) installations. Chances are it's very spotty across the board. Why is that? Because we have one ADO for like every 3 states. Who is supposed to facilitate that type of effort? The CAP-USAF IMAs. All this talk about base and facility access being complained about on here is an example of what they do--a blue suiter going to talk with big blue about the needs of the organization at the field level.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eclipse]

Why, the mission to fly, fight, and win in air, space, and cyberspace, of course. It's right there in the brochure.

Sorry, I missed that reading the CAP brochures.  Those missions above aren't in there.

Go poll the national membership and see how their relationship is with local Air Force (and other branches) installations. Chances are it's very spotty across the board. Why is that? Because we have one ADO for like every 3 states. Who is supposed to facilitate that type of effort? The CAP-USAF IMAs. All this talk about base and facility access being complained about on here is an example of what they do--a blue suiter going to talk with big blue about the needs of the organization at the field level.

Base and facility access are "nice to haves" that don't really mean much to the core mission, especially if you don't have a base in your proximity, and despite whining
here, it's not really that big a deal for most members, but fair enough.   No one is going to approve additional budget or head count so CAP members can get on base.

Anything related to CAP's mission?

[Nick]

Sorry, I missed that reading the CAP brochures.  Those missions above aren't in there.

Base and facility access are "nice to haves" that don't really mean much to the core mission, especially if you don't have a base in your proximity, and despite whining
here, it's not really that big a deal for most members, but fair enough.   No one is going to approve additional budget or head count so CAP members can get on base.

Anything related to CAP's mission?

Sorry, you asked about "the mission" in regards to the CAP-USAF program. From the Air Force perspective, that is their mission. CAP is an enabler of that mission.

And you're right, in and of itself base access is a nice to have. Until you are a unit seeking to have a meeting location, or a national activity seeking a place to conduct that activity (speaking from personal experience), then it rapidly promotes from a nice to have to necessity.

I think you're missing the big picture of these implications though. We're talking about sustaining the CAP relationship with the Air Force, and how important it is to have manpower to go out and press the flesh with local leaders to gain their support of CAP activities and programs. This isn't something a volunteer can do; it says so in both our regs and AF regs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eclipse]

Sorry, you asked about "the mission" in regards to the CAP-USAF program. From the Air Force perspective, that is their mission. CAP is an enabler of that mission.

No, I actually asked about how ACC could justify additional head count and budget when the primary role of CAP-USAF and the RAPS has been marginalized
over the past decade due to apathy by CAP and budget issues within the USAF.

CAP-USAF's mission is not to support the USAF, its primary role is oversight of the Congressional Appropriation in CAP executing its unique, non-combatant role.
The mission(s) for CAP-USAF, still located on the Holm's Center page, indicate it is centered on oversight of CAP.  You can argue that will change with ACC,
however 10-2701, including the sections added in July of this year, all discuss oversight, inspections, and suspensions of missions.

Sure, on some level most of CAP A & B Missions are in support of the USAF, but again, only on the macro level of the USAF passing down
a mission (some SAR) to CAP via AFRCC.  That's more of a "we don't do domestic / non-defense" situation then CAP or CAP-USAF "supporting" ACC's role.

Heck, 1/3rd to 1/2 of the mission, depending on how you slice it, doesn't even fall under 1AF or ACC (other then in the most macro perspective).  CAP
has caused its own problems in that regard by selectively stressing the "corporate" universe any time the military part becomes too hard to sustain or makes people sad.

And you're right, in and of itself base access is a nice to have. Until you are a unit seeking to have a meeting location, or a national activity seeking a place to conduct that activity (speaking from personal experience), then it rapidly promotes from a nice to have to necessity.

Sounds good on a white paper, fails when compared to reality.

There's only ~59 USAF bases left in this country, with another ~54 Air Guard and USAF Reserve centers, many of the latter are part-time only
facilities that are quiet many days of the month.  Due to cutbacks, BRAC, and other initiatives and challenges, the bases
left are either packed to the gills or being considered for downsizing.

Many of those left don't have the facilities to host encampments or activities of any notable scale. My wing, for example,
has a major command USAF base which is very generous to CAP, but is actually small in the grande scheme and does
not have the kind of resources needed for large-scale CAP activities.

It is also located, as many are, away from population centers and therefore generally a poor, expensive choice for exercises.

Should we be getting more support from USAF installations, certainly? But saying that doesn't materialize the resources or manpower to
make that happen, nor grow facilities in areas they are most useful.  Not to mention that CAP units located on military facilities
sound like a great idea at the time, but many turn out to be far more trouble then they are worth when you consider recruiting,
access, and the general "if the world gets exciting, we may be in Jim's basement..." issues.

This situation evolved over a 20+ year period, and isn't likely to be fixed with a few RAPs or IMAs making phone calls.
The motor pools, aircraft, and people simply don't exist anymore to provide CAP with the resources people think
they remember getting access to on a regular basis (even though it was really just that "one time").

A big chunk of the military has been outsourced, and those people don't work for free - mess halls are run by PSCI, Source One, Good Will,
and other similar companies, transportation is done with private bus companies and commercial airlines, and the phones
in a lot of offices just go to voice mail during the week on a lot of bases.

Between 2008 and 2013, the GAO reported that the DOD demolished or decommissioned over 62 million Square feet of
unused facilities, plus another $1B in facilities not measured in square footage.   Look on Google Earth and you'll see a
lof of empty squares or condos where Airmen and soldiers used to train and live, not to mention CAP units met.  Those aren't coming back.

I think you're missing the big picture of these implications though. We're talking about sustaining the CAP relationship with the Air Force, and how important it is to have manpower to go out and press the flesh with local leaders to gain their support of CAP activities and programs. This isn't something a volunteer can do; it says so in both our regs and AF regs.

Local military leaders?  Fair enough.

Local "everything else leaders"?  No, that's the volunteer's lane, the fact that it's not being done notwithstanding.

[Mitchell 1969]

OK, so USAF is smaller. Facilities are fewer and more spread out. Meanwhile, in Canada, RCAC is everywhere, with even less local military support. What are they doing that CAP is not?

[Eclipse]

OK, so USAF is smaller. Facilities are fewer and more spread out. Meanwhile, in Canada, RCAC is everywhere, with even less local military support. What are they doing that CAP is not?

RCAC is smaller by ~2/3rds in the number of locations, they have no operational component or adult program, and they have about 100 planes total between gliders and powered. They have about 23k members, so after breaking out the adults, less cadets then CAP, though I would hazard their
"empty shirt contingent" is significantly lower.

A worthy program, but not one which compares easily to CAP except in the most general terms.

CAP's lack of clear mission and "divided loyalty" between the adult operational program and the cadet program are
two of its biggest liabilities.

Many of our most effective members joined first for operations and moved into supporting cadets, but that doesn't change the fact that
their time and attention is divided at best and there are only so many hours in a month and weekends in a year.

That week at NESA is a week not at an encampment or family vacation. "I only get one kitchen pass a year."
Boy Scout and RCAC leaders don't have to make that choice.

Externally similar organizations like the BSA don't have the pressure of operational readiness, nor the nightmarish
administrivia that comes with it.  Most members "come, do, and leave", without concern for SUIs, inventories, or staff meetings,
because the "staff" are non-members of the committees that do that work for them.

All part of the puzzle.

All solved with people and planning.

[Spaceman3750]

That week at NESA is a week not at an encampment or family vacation.

I like to think that NESA (GSAR at least) serves both the emergency services mission, and the cadet programs mission in a very unique way.

But you're right. The solution is more people, and following that the elimination of double hatting as a norm.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I like to think that NESA (GSAR at least) serves both the emergency services mission, and the cadet programs mission in a very unique way.

But is still a week away from family or "other" CAP activities.

[Spaceman3750]

I like to think that NESA (GSAR at least) serves both the emergency services mission, and the cadet programs mission in a very unique way.

But is still a week away from family or "other" CAP activities.

Yes it is. Which is why the next line was "but you're right."