I purposely created a throwaway for this question.
I have a cadet who was caught drinking at a school function. Not sure of all the details, but he was sentenced to community service, and received a misdemeanor. Would this be grounds for dismissal? Cadet in question is 17, plans to join the Marines, but has to wait until he is 18 because of this. Your thoughts are appreciated.
I can divulge a few more details if the need arises. Just trying to keep privacy in check.
By the regs. Yes it is grounds for termination. Without knowing any details...... Whether or not I would do any thing would be based on the situation at hand.
OTOH, is dismissal the reasonable option? Could the cadet perhaps get some guidance, mentorship, if they're genuinely open to it from someone who cares, via this avenue?
Is there a chance where someone could make a difference instead of kicking to the curb?
Yes.
IMHO, termination is your last action, generally speaking. It should be preceded by verbal & written counselings, and other administrative actions (demotion or suspensions) with corrective action. (Obviously, sometimes it is appropriate to go right to termination)
I had a c/TSgt improvise an incendiary device in an attempt to retaliate against an upperclassman who was doing things to him and his buddies (typical HS-style crap). He basically tried to firebomb a guy's car in the school parking lot (failing miserably and getting caught).
Sure, it was outside CAP, but it was not the kind of behavior you want to condone and encourage among cadet NCOs. I had to make an example. He got a written counseling and two-grade demotion to c/ SrA with a clear path to gaining his grade back. (This course of action was actually decided in discussion with his parents)
He decided his grade wasn't that important and refused to follow thru on the earn-back. CAPF 2B followed.
The short answer is "YES" 8)
Just out of curiosity, on what grounds could you terminate a cadet for this?
The regulation gives much less discretionary latitude to commanders for cadets than for seniors.
Potentially "Misconduct", but I would argue that termination for Cause would not be applicable:
Quotee. Cause. Termination for Cause is defined as any cadet who has been convicted of any
offense (or suffered a pattern of arrests) that would disqualify such cadet from senior
membership in CAP as described in CAPR 39-2, Civil Air Patrol Membership, paragraph 3-2,
may have their membership terminated for cause.
A misdemeanor conviction does not disqualify an individual for senior membership
Well, you could argue that...
It's a clear violation of the cadet oath, core values, and a tenant of the DDR program.
At a minimum, disciplinary action would be called for. A one-time mistake shouldn't end a cadet,
but it's certainly grounds for very direct conversations.
NIN's approach is probably the best, without knowing anything else about the situation or this cadet.
Clearly a number of messages are not getting through.
First easy, short answer: yes. The commanders of any of the cadet/composite squadrons I served in would probably have done it without a moment's hesitation.
Second not so easy, more difficult answer: If I were the unit commander, I would want to know the exact circumstances.
It is very easy for us, as adults, to pronounce judgement, but I would wager that there are many of us who took an illegal pull underage. I did, but it was not at a school function, and I was never in trouble with the law over it. However, on one occasion, my dad caught me trying to sneak in late at night with Schnapps on my breath...I would have rather have had to deal with the police, let's just say that and I never did it again. :(
School corporations are different now than back in my day (late '70s/early '80s), with "zero tolerance" policies from everything from smoking to fighting. My high school actually designated an area outside the Industrial Arts building where you could smoke, and my grade school's answer to playground fights were to put the two "combatants" in a boxing ring with boxing gloves and head protection and let them batter one another until they had no energy. The school nurse had to oversee it, and I know she hated it.
I would say that if the Marines would not have a problem with him, I would not either.
Bottom line as a commander:
If it is in the best interest of CAP, your unit, and good order and discipline.....then terminate.
Seek guidance from wing/group...and move on.
Having said that......if their continued membership does not hinder your operations....then maybe some lesser punishment may be in order.
Don't always reach for the sledge hammer...if all you need is a mallet.
Quote from: CyBorg on October 19, 2014, 09:10:15 PM
I would say that if the Marines would not have a problem with him, I would not either.
He won't be a Marine now until he's 18, specifically >because< of this issue, and if he gets caught again after raising his
hand, he's likely to be out, not to mention that once he's a Marine, he will no longer be a cadet, anyway.
Which isn't to say the same disciplinary action shouldn't be considered for the same offense if he was a Senior Member, either.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 19, 2014, 09:09:47 PM
Well, you could argue that...
It's a clear violation of the cadet oath, core values, and a tenant of the DDR program.
At a minimum, disciplinary action would be called for. A one-time mistake shouldn't end a cadet,
but it's certainly grounds for very direct conversations.
NIN's approach is probably the best, without knowing anything else about the situation or this cadet.
Clearly a number of messages are not getting through.
Texas Wing recently had a cadet 2B kicked back at them by the MARP because they used "insubordination" as the reason, which is not listed in the regulation as a reason to terminate a cadet member.
Quote from: JeffDG on October 19, 2014, 11:46:12 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 19, 2014, 09:09:47 PM
Well, you could argue that...
It's a clear violation of the cadet oath, core values, and a tenant of the DDR program.
At a minimum, disciplinary action would be called for. A one-time mistake shouldn't end a cadet,
but it's certainly grounds for very direct conversations.
NIN's approach is probably the best, without knowing anything else about the situation or this cadet.
Clearly a number of messages are not getting through.
Texas Wing recently had a cadet 2B kicked back at them by the MARP because they used "insubordination" as the reason, which is not listed in the regulation as a reason to terminate a cadet member.
It is too. Para 3.d.5 It is one of the things listed under misconduct.
God I hate when people can't read the freaking regulations. Took me less then 30 seconds to pull up the reg and find it!
That MARP case seemed to hint at issues in the process of how it was handled.
Well.......Im glad I never got caught!! :o But to vague to really comment on. I would hate to see a kid tossed for making a kid mistake.
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 20, 2014, 01:45:51 AM
Well.......Im glad I never got caught!! :o But to vague to really comment on. I would hate to see a kid tossed for making a kid mistake.
It's not a mistake, unless he thought it was funky carbonated drinks. He broke the law. Now, is the severity enough to remove him from CAP? Depends.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on October 20, 2014, 02:05:57 AM
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 20, 2014, 01:45:51 AM
Well.......Im glad I never got caught!! :o But to vague to really comment on. I would hate to see a kid tossed for making a kid mistake.
It's not a mistake, unless he thought it was funky carbonated drinks. He broke the law. Now, is the severity enough to remove him from CAP? Depends.
The parents need to take some responsibility too, since he was still legally a minor.
My dad ripping me a new one for several hours after I came home with booze on my breath certainly fell under "parental responsibility"...he made it clear that what I did was stupid (loudly) that it was against the law (loudly) and that if I ever did it again he would call the police on me
himself (loudly). He also grounded me for two weeks, and when he said "grounded," he meant
grounded.It had its deterrent and punitive effects, as my dad no doubt intended. After I became an adult, we would joke about it but it certainly was not a joke to an intoxicated 16 (I think) year old feeling like a mouse being faced down by a king cobra.
I knew exactly what I was doing. I was drinking liquor, not something that just happened to be spearmint-flavoured. Where I lost the gamble was thinking my dad would be in bed asleep and that I could sneak past him and crash in my bedroom.
If I were the CC, I would call the parents in too and see what they thought of their son remaining in CAP, if
they thought he should be kicked out or not (my dad would have agreed to it, since his Army veteran side would have said my actions disgraced the uniform).
I may be in the minority, but I have a hard time blaming parents for something like this.
Quote from: lordmonar on October 20, 2014, 12:04:27 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on October 19, 2014, 11:46:12 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 19, 2014, 09:09:47 PM
Well, you could argue that...
It's a clear violation of the cadet oath, core values, and a tenant of the DDR program.
At a minimum, disciplinary action would be called for. A one-time mistake shouldn't end a cadet,
but it's certainly grounds for very direct conversations.
NIN's approach is probably the best, without knowing anything else about the situation or this cadet.
Clearly a number of messages are not getting through.
Texas Wing recently had a cadet 2B kicked back at them by the MARP because they used "insubordination" as the reason, which is not listed in the regulation as a reason to terminate a cadet member.
It is too. Para 3.d.5 It is one of the things listed under misconduct.
To be pedantic, termination for Misconduct is different than termination for Cause.
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 20, 2014, 01:45:51 AM
Well.......Im glad I never got caught!! :o But to vague to really comment on. I would hate to see a kid tossed for making a kid mistake.
Amen! I'm certainly in no position to cast stones. I "think" I turned out okay after getting a second (and maybe a third or fourth) chance.
I frequently credit my time as a CAP cadet with keeping me out of jail, but I must also admit that I was introduced to a few vices by my fellow cadets...
Why are we discussing this subject here?
Life offers some hard lessons.
DISMISS!
Im much more lenient on youthful mess-ups than I am on adults depending on the totality of the circumstances. If this was a 17yr old cadet who just got caught tossing back a brew with his buddies on the tailgate of a pickup.... I dunno... call him in, maybe suspend a rank or a position removed for a few months. Again, not a lot of detail here to really make a call. Let mom and dad be involved in the discipline process to a point.
If the kid is already enlisted in the Marines my thought its that he's not a loser, he's just trying to spread his wings a little before he jumps out of the nest. With teen guys, alcohol can be that "look Im all grown up now" act.
When he hits the Corps, drinking is very much a byproduct of that life. I didnt really drink much at all, even in the infantry. Others blew it.
...and chances are as long as his community service is completed, the misdemeanor will drop off of his record when he turns 18. I look at all the people I went through CAP with who are all now pretty amazing people.... several of whom I know tossed back a frosty beverage on the sly every once in a while. Most were in college so they were 18, 19, 20 range.
^ Getting away with something that is a bad idea doesn't make it a good idea, it means you dodged a bullet.
As a police officer yo surely know how easy it can be these days for kids to get off track, or get stuck in the system
because of piled up little mistakes.
I don't drink and never did (beyond an occasional Irish Coffee), nor did many of my friends, but when I think of some
of the dumb stuff I did in my late teens and early twenties, I realize the only reason I'm alive is because I wasn't physically impaired.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 20, 2014, 02:08:54 PM
^ Getting away with something that is a bad idea doesn't make it a good idea, it means you dodged a bullet.
As a police officer yo surely know how easy it can be these days for kids to get off track, or get stuck in the system
because of piled up little mistakes.
I don't drink and never did (beyond an occasional Irish Coffee), nor did many of my friends, but when I think of some
of the dumb stuff I did in my late teens and early twenties, I realize the only reason I'm alive is because I wasn't physically impaired.
Who ever said it was a good idea? Yep... it is easy for them to get off track. Thats why you don't boot a kid out of CAP for having a drink unless its a bigger problem or there is more to it. Kids do step over the line. And I would say in the case of the few older cadets I knew, they stepped over it, but it was staying in CAP that kept them on a self imposed very short leash of what they were willing to "experiment" with. I don't know that any of them were ever "caught" per se... It was just something I knew because of being around them although I never actually saw them drink.
When I ran the unit in CAP we had a couple kids who were about one meeting away from being walked out because of their attitudes, predominately because of the gang culture they were surrounded by at home. These were tough kids. They didnt get any slack and were held to the same standard. But its because of CAP that these two "kids" are now adults and both serving in the military. I have to believe it was the draw to CAP that prevented them from getting worse. Because everything else they had was pushing them the other direction. It was because of the staff that ran the cadet program and my deputy commander who was a former Oakland CA school teacher who snatched them up by the necks and set them on the right path.
So a kid gets caught drinking? Yes, deal with it swiftly and make a statement provided there are no other extenuating details being left out. In this case he's already been dealt with via the juvenile justice system. Let CAP deal with it also, but to just boot the kid out because of it? Hammer the kid pretty hard... if he's willing to take it, then he's remorseful. If not, he's not. I mean any staff positions he has, gone. Maybe a reduction in grade for a reasonable amount of time? Yes. But with a time frame that will allow for him to earn it back if that amount of time is available.
The idea of the cadet program isnt absolute zero tolerance. If it was, we wouldn't have avenues of progressive discipline. 2B would be the only option for any mistake. Sorry, a 17yr old getting caught drinking is a youthful mistake. Yes it has criminal penalties, but its a mistake. This cadet didnt get away with anything obviously. Let his attitude from here on out dictate whether he stays or goes. Again, assuming the cadet isnt a pain in the --- already who needs to go bye bye.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 19, 2014, 09:09:47 PM
Well, you could argue that...
It's a clear violation of the cadet oath, core values, and a tenant of the DDR program.
At a minimum, disciplinary action would be called for. A one-time mistake shouldn't end a cadet,
but it's certainly grounds for very direct conversations.
NIN's approach is probably the best, without knowing anything else about the situation or this cadet.
Clearly a number of messages are not getting through.
Yeah, sadly: you can't precisely terminate a member for just a
prima facie (note: I have used a legal Latin term here, its my way of summoning Nedly to comment..LOL) violation of the cadet oath (most of it, anyway), core values or the DDR program. Cadets at least.
35-3 allows for several causes to terminate cadet membership:
1) Failure to progress (which is where you get a demoted cadet who doesn't earn-back his grade, but thats also covered in 52-16). You need massive documentation on that, if you're gonna go in that direction. You need to demonstrate that you've alerted the cadet to failure to progress could result in termination, you have given the an action plan, you've helped them if they have an issue (ie. taking tests), etc, etc.
2) Lack of interest (three meetings, etc. Again, you better document that, including alerting the cadet, counseling, etc)
3) Misconduct. Ahhh, here we go. This is where we *might* hang a termination on the aforementioned issue.
- Conduct unbecoming. OK, is that conduct unbecoming? Sure. Have you informed the cadet that this is conduct unbecoming? Counseled him on it? Please define examples of conduct that is unbecoming. Is there a track record? One time event? Prior incidents that have been addressed? Hard calling one instance a track record, and unless it was a terribly egregious thing that literally happened at a CAP activity, like getting sauced at a CAP conference and barfing on the wing commander's shoes, you might have a tough time making a one-time thing outside of CAP stick under "conduct unbecoming." I certainly wouldn't attempt a termination under conduct unbecoming without a "you did this thing, we told you it was wrong and to not do it again" documentation.
- Making false statement to or concerning CAP. Yeah, likely not applicable here. Again, need to document. Did the cadet forge the wing commander's signature on a CAPF 101?
(had that happen! Resulted in a written counseling, told cadet if he blinked wrong he'd be gone after that. Never progressed beyond his existing grade with that could over his head with me) Again, probably need to document a track record, or have REALLY solid documentation on a one-time situation or else its going to be hard to make stick.
- Serious or willful violation of CAP regs or directives. Are the core values "directives?" I'd say "Maybe" Can I hold a cadet 100% accountable for core values outside CAP? Depends. Tough to make a termination stick on that, IMHO. DDR? Meh. Show me where adherence to DDR is regulatory. DDR isn't even uniformly applied across the organization. Cadet oath? Not precisely regulatory, either, without something to really hang your hat on. A one-time event, you make it clear that it is unacceptable behavior, counsel the cadet in writing, and then you're poised to slam the door under the next codicil.
- Failure to obey rules, regulations and orders of higher authority. Probably can hang a better opportunity for termination under this one. I'd still want a track record established by documentation versus trying to terminate on a one-time event like this.
- Insubordination (tough to make that stick till you show a pattern. Again, documentation).
- Any other conduct [...] in violation of paragraph 1. Which basically says you have to continue to meet initial eligibility requirements for cadets as found in CAPR 39-2. Ahhhh, if you have an arrest (as a teen) can I deny you CAP membership? Maybe. This is probably the "catchall" that would work to your favor.
and then we get to paragraph e.
Cause, which relates back to the whole "is what they did something that would cause us to not allow them to join in the first place?" Again, probably something you can hang your hat on, but I'd be cautious about trying to do it with a one-time event. Since juvenile records are often sealed, we might have a tough time saying "OK, cadet or cadet's parents disclosed this to us as part of wanting to be on the level, so we should just terminate the kid and get it over with." You wouldn't necessarily know about it otherwise.
So if Timmy's parents come to you, the commander, and say "Look, Timmy got busted for underage drinking. Its a hell of a show stopper for him, but we're trying to find ways for this not to end everything positive in this kid's life over just one mistake.." now you're in a situation where you have some leverage with Timmy (I've literally had this conversation with moms and dads, where we used CAP as a lever for their parental actions) and you might just get a win out of the whole thing and save Timmy from screwing his entire life up.
So, in the wake of that, now is when you establish a counseling baseline, inform Timmy that its not acceptable behavior, here's whats going to happen to you, etc, etc.
You can do things like rebuke a cadet by suspension, restriction of activities, demotion (per 52-16) etc, if you do it formally and in writing.
my continuum in this would be:
1) Written counseling (indicating why the behavior is not appropriate for a cadet. This is happening no matter what)
which could lead to
2) Suspension (30/60 days? There are some rules surrounding suspension in CAPR 35-, para 2-2 that you better follow off the top of my head)
3) Demotion (demotions corrspond to 60-120-180 days of disciplinary action depending on if they are a 1, 2 or 3 grade demotion)
and if counseling doesn't do it, or any follow on action like suspension or demotion, or the offense is too serious to warrant 1, 2 or 3 as actions, then you arrive at #4:
4) Termination
Been there, done it. Terminated it. Made it stick.
Quote from: NIN on October 20, 2014, 03:41:57 PM
and then we get to paragraph e. Cause, which relates back to the whole "is what they did something that would cause us to not allow them to join in the first place?"
Actually, that's not what the "Cause" section says. It indicates something that would
disqualify a senior member from membership. A misdemeanor alcohol charge/conviction would not, a felony conviction would.
Discretionary things, where a unit simply refuses to accept a member, do not constitute cause to terminate a cadet member. This is where a misdemeanor alcohol conviction may come in in the senior world.
Good catch. I was working without a net there...
NIN hit it on the head with my thoughts. My only other thought would be to turn this into a learning experience for not just the cadet, but the squadron. Have them give a presentation on the dangers of alcohol...ties right in with Red Ribbon Week going on.
Thank you everyone for weighing in with your input. I apologize I was not on for some time. Overall, I did get the message that termination is probably the best option in this scenario (but to get more details on the offense as well). Alternatively, we could find a way to develop the situation into a learning experience, and have the cadet in question make restitution somehow.
I know this cadet smokes/chews tobacco outside of CAP, and his family lets him drink as well (legally).
Thanks again for your input, and I will let you know the results ASAP.
Quote from: Reacher on October 21, 2014, 01:19:51 PM
Thank you everyone for weighing in with your input. I apologize I was not on for some time. Overall, I did get the message that termination is probably the best option in this scenario (but to get more details on the offense as well). Alternatively, we could find a way to develop the situation into a learning experience, and have the cadet in question make restitution somehow.
I know this cadet smokes/chews tobacco outside of CAP, and his family lets him drink as well (legally).
Thanks again for your input, and I will let you know the results ASAP.
You might want to read again. The consensus I see is that termination is a last-resort, not "the best option"
Yea, message missed.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on October 21, 2014, 02:03:02 PM
Yea, message missed.
Or ignored because it wasn't the desired answer.
Quote from: PHall on October 21, 2014, 02:04:42 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on October 21, 2014, 02:03:02 PM
Yea, message missed.
Or ignored because it wasn't the desired answer.
Agreed, but leads to the same "missed" point. Clearly the outlook on the cadet is negative, as we now also get to hear about him "chewing" tobacco products, on TOP of his drinking.
In some states, it is perfectly legal for a minor to consume alcohol at home under parental supervision, and here in the south it is not uncommon to see teens who dip snuff (or chew tobacco-less common). While not wise choices, they may be legal in the OP's state, and would therefore not necessarily be CAP's concern unless it's happening at meetings.
Quote from: Al Sayre on October 21, 2014, 04:28:50 PM
In some states, it is perfectly legal for a minor to consume alcohol at home under parental supervision, and here in the south it is not uncommon to see teens who dip snuff (or chew tobacco-less common). While not wise choices, they may be legal in the OP's state, and would therefore not necessarily be CAP's concern unless it's happening at meetings.
Concur with all of that.
At some point, what a member does, whether cadet or senior, when not "on CAP time" is, to put it mildly, none of CAP's [darn] business.
Quote from: JeffDG on October 21, 2014, 04:50:17 PM
Quote from: Al Sayre on October 21, 2014, 04:28:50 PM
In some states, it is perfectly legal for a minor to consume alcohol at home under parental supervision, and here in the south it is not uncommon to see teens who dip snuff (or chew tobacco-less common). While not wise choices, they may be legal in the OP's state, and would therefore not necessarily be CAP's concern unless it's happening at meetings.
Concur with all of that.
At some point, what a member does, whether cadet or senior, when not "on CAP time" is, to put it mildly, none of CAP's [darn] business.
Agreed. I started doing air quality tests when I was in college. For a year or so I was a cadet, but not active. The prohibition is against CAP activities and at 18-19.... Well, that was my choice to make. Of course a cadet who does "bad" outside of CAP can certainly be "punished" for it in CAP, but within reason.
How does that saying go? "It is the Discretion of the Officer", In other words: the right to choose what should be done in a particular situation or power of a judge, public official or a private party (under authority given by contract, trust or will) to make decisions on various matters based on his/her opinion within general legal guidelines. Examples: 1) a judge may have discretion as to the amount of a fine or whether to grant a continuance of a trial; 2) a trustee or executor of an estate may have discretion to divide assets among the beneficiaries so long as the value to each is approximately equal; 3) a district attorney may have discretion to charge a crime as a misdemeanor (maximum term of one year) or felony; 4) a Governor may have discretion to grant a pardon; or 5) a planning commission may use its discretion to grant or not to grant a variance to a zoning ordinance.
Quote from: Devil Doc on October 21, 2014, 06:25:29 PM
How does that saying go? "It is the Discretion of the Officer", In other words: the right to choose what should be done in a particular situation or power of a judge, public official or a private party (under authority given by contract, trust or will) to make decisions on various matters based on his/her opinion within general legal guidelines. Examples: 1) a judge may have discretion as to the amount of a fine or whether to grant a continuance of a trial; 2) a trustee or executor of an estate may have discretion to divide assets among the beneficiaries so long as the value to each is approximately equal; 3) a district attorney may have discretion to charge a crime as a misdemeanor (maximum term of one year) or felony; 4) a Governor may have discretion to grant a pardon; or 5) a planning commission may use its discretion to grant or not to grant a variance to a zoning ordinance.
The cadet was already assigned a penalty. I don't think jail time was mentioned, so it must not have been a case of him hosting a rager for 12 year olds. He's already paying for it, and can't go into the Marines until he's 18. How much more do we need to drop kick him?
Quote from: JeffDG on October 21, 2014, 04:50:17 PM
Quote from: Al Sayre on October 21, 2014, 04:28:50 PM
In some states, it is perfectly legal for a minor to consume alcohol at home under parental supervision, and here in the south it is not uncommon to see teens who dip snuff (or chew tobacco-less common). While not wise choices, they may be legal in the OP's state, and would therefore not necessarily be CAP's concern unless it's happening at meetings.
Concur with all of that.
At some point, what a member does, whether cadet or senior, when not "on CAP time" is, to put it mildly, none of CAP's [darn] business.
JMHO, some Units are desperate for bodies. I can not believe some people that Unit Membership Boards have accepted. In life you do not get a choice who your neighbors are but in CAP you should have some common sense to see a "problem" before you take them in. Naivete should not effect a Unit's Membership Board but a naive Commander will usually surround themselves with similar thinking (or non-thinking) Staff. JMHO .. 8)
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on October 21, 2014, 06:29:19 PM
Quote from: Devil Doc on October 21, 2014, 06:25:29 PM
How does that saying go? "It is the Discretion of the Officer", In other words: the right to choose what should be done in a particular situation or power of a judge, public official or a private party (under authority given by contract, trust or will) to make decisions on various matters based on his/her opinion within general legal guidelines. Examples: 1) a judge may have discretion as to the amount of a fine or whether to grant a continuance of a trial; 2) a trustee or executor of an estate may have discretion to divide assets among the beneficiaries so long as the value to each is approximately equal; 3) a district attorney may have discretion to charge a crime as a misdemeanor (maximum term of one year) or felony; 4) a Governor may have discretion to grant a pardon; or 5) a planning commission may use its discretion to grant or not to grant a variance to a zoning ordinance.
The cadet was already assigned a penalty. I don't think jail time was mentioned, so it must not have been a case of him hosting a rager for 12 year olds. He's already paying for it, and can't go into the Marines until he's 18. How much more do we need to drop kick him?
One of my youngest daughter's classmates was the "extreme dude" and was going to be a Marine at 18. Well he never graduated in June, he is 18 and still not a Marine. But smokes and drinks after a good day panhandling at the freeway off ramp. 8)
As a Squadron Commander, I actually had this exact situation come up where one of my Cadets was caught drinking. The Cadet was great, motivated, and caused no problems. I gave him the option to stop drinking or I would see to it that he was out of the Squadron. Being of basically firm moral character, he straightened out and today is attending college and learning aerospace.
It would have been a different situation if this Cadet was on the edge already, but considering his character, I knew he just needed be put back on the straight and narrow.
We had a similar thread earlier...
I only have one question to ask: did said drinking occur on CAP time, at a CAP activity or while in CAP uniform?
If the answer is no to all these and its apparent that the law, the school and the parents already have a firm handle on the situation then MYOB. Handle it as a CAP issue when it becomes a CAP issue, right now it isn't.
Disagree. CAP cadets are called to perform to a higher standard and to live by the core values. Same reason cadets vet in trouble for Facebook posts.
Chances are also good that if the adults outside of his family circle know about it, so do the cadets. So it may not be a full on CAP problem, but left unchecked, it most certainly could influence CAP behavior.
Like I said in like post 2........if the behavior is detrimental to good order and discipline, cadet operations or brings discredit on to CAP and/or the USAF....whether it happens on CAP time or not...then by all means it is a CAP problem....other then that.....not so much.
Well.....given the number of responsible senior leaders in the military today who committed the same infraction back when they were young (whether they were caught or not) I'd say this is whole incident is getting way more attention than it deserves. All my under 21 y/o troops know that drinking underage is one thing....driving under the influence is another and not tolerated matter entirely. I doubt we could field much of a military force if all who drank before 21 were kicked out.
Well, I guess it's OK, then.
Not what he said. He said that throwing people out for it may be inappropriate
Actually, he tried to equate underage drinking by those in the military to underage drinking by cadets.
Not only does the math not work, the former isn't CAP's problem, therefore not relevent to the conversation.
If the military chooses to look the other way, that's on them. CAP doesn't.
Military hardly looks the other way. Those caught are punished and right now with folks getting cut and more to come they will definitely be meeting a QFRB. It is highly frowned upon.
The military, and the Air Force in particular, is definitely not looking the other way. I have a friend who I met in tech school, she lost a stripe for underage drinking, she was later separated when her name came up (thanks to the Article 15) on the DOS rollback list.
What the military did 20-30 years ago doesn't matter, what it has been doing recently is far more relevant.
Quote from: Tim Medeiros on October 27, 2014, 07:42:08 AM
The military, and the Air Force in particular, is definitely not looking the other way. I have a friend who I met in tech school, she lost a stripe for underage drinking, she was later separated when her name came up (thanks to the Article 15) on the DOS rollback list.
What the military did 20-30 years ago doesn't matter, what it has been doing recently is far more relevant.
+1. Based on what our children tell us, the USMC and USCG take a similar, strict, approach. At official events the also police the over-21s. No reason to 'look the other way'.
When I was in the USN, we called the official events "OBSL's" One Beer, Smile, Leave....
Quote from: Eclipse on October 27, 2014, 04:23:07 AM
Well, I guess it's OK, then.
C'mon, Bob.
Underage drinking is not OK, and never has been. How it's handled is the issue here. Most of us who drank underage probably never had any prosecutable incidents, and escaped unscathed. Others were not so fortunate. Each situation needs to be evaluated on its own merits, and processed accordingly.
Regarding the situation in the OP, I think the perp deserves a second chance if this is a first offense, and then observation. If it's more complicated than the OP suggests, harsher action might be warranted.
But you knew that, didn't you.
You really didn't think that was serious...
Quote from: Eclipse on October 27, 2014, 09:10:00 PM
You really didn't think that was serious...
Of course not. I do think it was unneeded rabble-rousing, though.
Quote from: blackrain on October 27, 2014, 04:04:57 AM
Well.....given the number of responsible senior leaders in the military today who committed the same infraction back when they were young (whether they were caught or not) I'd say this is whole incident is getting way more attention than it deserves. All my under 21 y/o troops know that drinking underage is one thing....driving under the influence is another and not tolerated matter entirely. I doubt we could field much of a military force if all who drank before 21 were kicked out.
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 27, 2014, 04:54:35 AM
Military hardly looks the other way. Those caught are punished and right now with folks getting cut and more to come they will definitely be meeting a QFRB. It is highly frowned upon.
The decision whether or not to discharge a service member due to an alcohol violation is made on several criteria. It truly is time dependent. It can be dependent on the person, past history, needed AOC/MOS, needed MTOE strength, etc. In some years, the DoD seems like they will never discharge a person on it, while on others it is all too often. The same is true for drug violations. the decision is up to the commander. I have seen an E-6 retained after two drug violations, while I have seen an E-3 discharged over the same violation. I have seen an O-3 discharged for an alcohol violation but an E-8 kept until 20 years.
Bottom line is these types of violations are all over the board.
Quote from: LSThiker on October 27, 2014, 10:06:00 PM
The decision whether or not to discharge a service member due to an alcohol violation is made on several criteria. It truly is time dependent. It can be dependent on the person, past history, needed AOC/MOS, needed MTOE strength, etc. In some years, the DoD seems like they will never discharge a person on it, while on others it is all too often. The same is true for drug violations. the decision is up to the commander. I have seen an E-6 retained after two drug violations, while I have seen an E-3 discharged over the same violation. I have seen an O-3 discharged for an alcohol violation but an E-8 kept until 20 years.
Bottom line is these types of violations are all over the board.
Over the board or overboard?
You reap what you sow - underage drinking and DUI is / are never a mistake or an accident. They are conscious decisions
made by people who know better, and there are many people who are tired of the excuses and allowances that keep
these offenders on the streets and killing people.
Unless you were out bird watching and someone came along and poured a bunch of beer down your throat,
you made that choice for instant gratification against everything you have been taught and told.
Uneven enforcement and disciplinary actions are certainly fair game for discussion in a separate thread,
but both an E-8 and an O-3 know well better about these issues, and neither was brought to the table
by accident. whether it's Captain's Mast, or separation is likely determined by whether or not you
are a recidivist and your relative value in the hierarchy, two other factors well within your control.
Should young people get a second chance? Of course. But it should be treated with the severity it deserves.
and never ignored or treated as "boys will be boys".
Quote from: Eclipse on October 27, 2014, 10:54:59 PM
Over the board or overboard?
Over the board.
QuoteUneven enforcement and disciplinary actions are certainly fair game for discussion in a separate thread,
but both an E-8 and an O-3 know well better about these issues, and neither was brought to the table
by accident.
Agreed, well except that any one over E-5 should know better. Nevertheless, these were not my decision, so I do not know all of the details. Therefore, I cannot really say why.
Quote
Should young people get a second chance? Of course. But it should be treated with the severity it deserves.
and never ignored or treated as "boys will be boys".
No argument there. Although, the E-8 was the only "non-punished" person as far as I could tell. But again, not my call and I do not know all of the details.
Quote from: LSThiker on October 27, 2014, 10:06:00 PM
Quote from: blackrain on October 27, 2014, 04:04:57 AM
Well.....given the number of responsible senior leaders in the military today who committed the same infraction back when they were young (whether they were caught or not) I'd say this is whole incident is getting way more attention than it deserves. All my under 21 y/o troops know that drinking underage is one thing....driving under the influence is another and not tolerated matter entirely. I doubt we could field much of a military force if all who drank before 21 were kicked out.
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 27, 2014, 04:54:35 AM
Military hardly looks the other way. Those caught are punished and right now with folks getting cut and more to come they will definitely be meeting a QFRB. It is highly frowned upon.
The decision whether or not to discharge a service member due to an alcohol violation is made on several criteria. It truly is time dependent. It can be dependent on the person, past history, needed AOC/MOS, needed MTOE strength, etc. In some years, the DoD seems like they will never discharge a person on it, while on others it is all too often. The same is true for drug violations. the decision is up to the commander. I have seen an E-6 retained after two drug violations, while I have seen an E-3 discharged over the same violation. I have seen an O-3 discharged for an alcohol violation but an E-8 kept until 20 years.
Bottom line is these types of violations are all over the board.
Well said.....the height of the war showed a LOT of serious infractions overlooked in the name of filling a battle roster...as for underage drinking I can't offhand think of an E-5 or above that hasn't passed 21 y/o so that shouldn't be an issue. I seem to recall the recent Army bloodletting of Captains and Majors allowed the board to go back and see previously masked UCMJ action from the officers enlisted days as part of the decision on who went and who stayed. So they had no problem commissioning and promoting as an officer but it was suddenly relevant again when it came time for cuts. Commanders have a lot of discretion and if your the one on the hot seat it could come down to luck on whose holding the hammer.
I'd be interested on how many senior members consumed alchohol before turning 21
Quote from: LSThiker on October 27, 2014, 10:06:00 PM
The decision whether or not to discharge a service member due to an alcohol violation is made on several criteria. It truly is time dependent. It can be dependent on the person, past history, needed AOC/MOS, needed MTOE strength, etc. In some years, the DoD seems like they will never discharge a person on it, while on others it is all too often. The same is true for drug violations. the decision is up to the commander. I have seen an E-6 retained after two drug violations, while I have seen an E-3 discharged over the same violation. I have seen an O-3 discharged for an alcohol violation but an E-8 kept until 20 years.
Bottom line is these types of violations are all over the board.
Exactly. But most troops do not understand apples and oranges. The E-6 may be making an afford at rehab where the E-3 is not. The O-3 has ten years to go to retirement so do you keep him/her or a O-3 who does not have a problem? An E-8 who has done 19+ years of honorable service, you would throw away those 19 good years he did? Because apprently he had never been called on his drinking problem.
Same thing with HYT. Troops do not get it. But you can not keep a slacker on forever. 8)
Quote from: LSThiker on October 27, 2014, 11:03:38 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 27, 2014, 10:54:59 PM
Over the board or overboard?
Over the board.
QuoteUneven enforcement and disciplinary actions are certainly fair game for discussion in a separate thread,
but both an E-8 and an O-3 know well better about these issues, and neither was brought to the table
by accident.
Agreed, well except that any one over E-5 should know better. Nevertheless, these were not my decision, so I do not know all of the details. Therefore, I cannot really say why.
Quote
Should young people get a second chance? Of course. But it should be treated with the severity it deserves.
and never ignored or treated as "boys will be boys".
No argument there. Although, the E-8 was the only "non-punished" person as far as I could tell. But again, not my call and I do not know all of the details.
Details = apples and oranges. The majority of troops do not know the whole story. Same thing in CAP. People never know why somebody got a Exceptional Service Award and someone else only got a Achievment Award. Big clue, very different activity. 8)
Quote from: blackrain on October 28, 2014, 12:11:54 AM
I'd be interested on how many senior members consumed alchohol before turning 21
I did, but the drinking age where I was stationed was 18 at the time.
Drank some in high school too, but we were at parties and nobody got out of control because we didn't want the cops to show up...
Of course this was in the 70's too!
MLDA in the US wasn't consistent until 1987, and wasn't even widespread as 21 until about 1984, so anyone born before 1966
could have potentially tilted one legally before 21, not to mention those born or traveling overseas.
Our kids will speak of the era before Marijuana was universally legalized in the 2020s, but that doesn't change the fact
that you can still be arrested on the eve of your 21st birthday, or the day before pot is legalized.
Considering the seeming inability of a great percentage of Americans to understand the term "moderation",
especially in regards to intoxicants, there has to be >some< age and limits to being impaired in public, ignore those,
whatever they are, and suffer the consequences.
Depending on which channel you watch or rag you read, it seems beyond the comprehension of many young
people, and their parents, that people like myself somehow made it to 21 without drinking, never smoked up,
didn't have a first child until after marriage in my late 20s, and beyond dancing with the Chicago PD about fog lights and loud pipes,
was never incarcerated.
It's a struggle and a sacrifice, but by cracky, you can do it.
Same for me concerning illegal drugs......most just have a hard time believing I never smoked anything...legal or illegal......though I guess I had a great fear of them (drugs) and they just didn't have an allure even though I knew a great many who did partake.
The patchwork of marijuana legalization seems to have caused an uptick in positive tests in the troops and more seems finds its way into the various baked goods.. (not that it hasn't before now).not to mention THC stays in the body longer than most drugs giving a greater chance of getting caught during a test. I can attest to the stream of paperwork across my desk related to troops and positive drug tests.
Alcohol now was a different story.........but I never got too out of hand with it
Quote from: Eclipse on October 28, 2014, 02:13:51 AM
Depending on which channel you watch or rag you read, it seems beyond the comprehension of many young
people, and their parents, that people like myself somehow made it to 21 without drinking, never smoked up,
didn't have a first child until after marriage in my late 20s, and beyond dancing with the Chicago PD about fog lights and loud pipes,
was never incarcerated.
It's a struggle and a sacrifice, but by cracky, you can do it.
+1 in all boxes! Well, apart from the Chicago PD where you need to substitute Service Police and a dodgy exhaust... :-[
Quote from: Eclipse on October 28, 2014, 02:13:51 AM
MLDA in the US wasn't consistent until 1987, and wasn't even widespread as 21 until about 1984, so anyone born before 1966
could have potentially tilted one legally before 21, not to mention those born or traveling overseas.
No need to go "overseas". Provinces in the GWN are split between 18 and 19 as the age when you buy booze and drink in a public place (ie. bar). However, it's left to the parents to police their own homes.
OK.... so whatever happened to the cadet in question?
Quote from: blackrain on October 28, 2014, 12:11:54 AM
I'd be interested on how many senior members consumed alchohol before turning 21
I was similarly stationed in a foreign country that had no minimum drinking age when I was 19-22. And lets just say that I also, for a short time, benefited greatly from confusion over the "grandfathering clause" of Virginia's recently enacted 21-year old drinking age. (Hey, its not
my fault the server can't do math in her head, or wasn't sure what the law
actually read as it pertained to 19 year olds! LOL)
And I grew up across the river from a foreign country that had a much lower legal drinking age than my own country. That I was a cadet at this time was, essentially, immaterial.
(I did attend an Air Cadet event in that county, in an official capacity and in uniform, and on my birthday, where libations were made available at the post-event luncheon. Since that country's Air Cadets were, by definition and regulation, not of age to consume, my OIC suggested that while I certainly *could* legally consume a beverage proffered by our hosts, since my cadet counterparts could not similarly partake, this was one of those times where the phrase "discretion is the better part of valor" applied. Learning experience for a guy literally on his 19th birthday about what you "can" do, and what you "should" do in these circumstances...)
Quote from: Eclipse on October 28, 2014, 02:13:51 AM
Depending on which channel you watch or rag you read, it seems beyond the comprehension of many young
people, and their parents, that people like myself somehow made it to 21 without drinking, never smoked up,
didn't have a first child until after marriage in my late 20s, and beyond dancing with the Chicago PD about fog lights and loud pipes,
was never incarcerated.
It's a struggle and a sacrifice, but by cracky, you can do it.
Oh boy, You scofflaw.
I had come home from three years on active duty and stepped back in my squadron as Leadership Officer back in the late 1980s. That fall, we had a wing conference on the other side of town where a number of cadets I knew (from our CLS over the summer, one was my cadet commander) got a hotel room at the conference hotel and took advantage of the "less than ideal" oversight policy that the conference had. :)
(The conference was a 30-ish minute drive for me, there was no way I was spending that cash on a room that I didn't need. And if the organizers didn't care about cadets getting rooms on their own, then by jimminy, neither did I...LOL) I showed up on Friday night to meet some encampment buddies. I knew where my cadet commander's room was, so I parked outside and rapped on the outside door. He opens the door, I waltz in and note that he and his 3 buddies (all my CLS troops) have uniforms laid out on the bed with all kinds of crap hung on them
(they later admitted that these were their "bimbo hunting uniforms" They got a talking to about that one)I walk up to one of the beds and flip the comforter back near the floor and look for their stash. Nope.
I walk into the bathroom, pull the tank cover off the back of the toilet and fish the 6 pack of beer out. I walk out of the bathroom with the six-pack in hand, past these cadets and their incredulous looks, and said "Thanks for keeping the beer cold for me, fellas" and walked out the door.
I got word the next day after the general assembly that the rumor among the cadets was that I could smell beer cans underwater... LOL.
I vote for a new blog: "NIN BITD"
Quote from: Fubar on October 29, 2014, 04:11:42 AM
I vote for a new blog: "NIN BITD"
Would be boring. The good stuff is still covered by statutes of limitations. (Not really)
If this cadet is frequently drinking alcohol, even at home with parental approval, that alone would be grounds for termination of membership for misconduct.
CAPR 52-16 is very clear that cadets will not possess or consume alcohol. The clause prohibiting tobacco use at CAP activities specifically mentions this as well, hence it is my opinion that NHQ intends the ban on alcohol to be global, and not only be restricted to CAP activities.
Of course, that's just my opinion. But if I were in OP's shoes, I would contact Wing Legal to make sure that a 2B would be supported on appeal, and then file the paperwork. I don't want people who engage in frequent drinking being buddy/buddy with my cadets. This is why we have rules on fraternization as well.
Quote from: Keyboard Warrior on October 30, 2014, 10:31:22 PM
The clause prohibiting tobacco use at CAP activities specifically mentions this as well, hence it is my opinion that NHQ intends the ban on alcohol to be global, and not only be restricted to CAP activities.
NHQ is not required to say "specifically at CAP activities" for alcohol as any cadet in CAP is prohibited from drinking alcohol in the US or US bases due to age. That very person would not be prohibited if they go to a country on personal vacation where drinking age is 18 years. This is different for tobacco where a cadet can be of legal age to use tobacco and still be a CAP cadet. So I doubt it is NHQ's intention that CAP cadets are always banned from alcohol even if they are legal age. Otherwise, said cadet might have to make a decision between their religious faith and drinking the "blood of Christ" and cadet membership.
Quote from: LSThiker on October 30, 2014, 10:50:36 PM
Quote from: Keyboard Warrior on October 30, 2014, 10:31:22 PM
The clause prohibiting tobacco use at CAP activities specifically mentions this as well, hence it is my opinion that NHQ intends the ban on alcohol to be global, and not only be restricted to CAP activities.
NHQ is not required to say "specifically at CAP activities" for alcohol as any cadet in CAP is prohibited from drinking alcohol in the US or US bases due to age. That very person would not be prohibited if they go to a country on personal vacation where drinking age is 18 years. This is different for tobacco where a cadet can be of legal age to use tobacco and still be a CAP cadet. So I doubt it is NHQ's intention that CAP cadets are always banned from alcohol even if they are legal age. Otherwise, said cadet might have to make a decision between their religious faith and drinking the "blood of Christ" and cadet membership.
Actually, that's exactly what 52-16 says now:
c. Alcohol & Recreational Drugs. Cadets will not possess alcoholnor use any drugs that are
prohibited under federal law, even if local law permits their use. Further, tobacco products and ecigarettes
are prohibited for cadets at CAP activities.
The foreign travel and religious issues bring up an interesting academic point, but nowhere is there
a specific relief of the above.
The reality of course, is that in family and religious cases, discretion wins the day, which is a lot different then
getting busted with your buddies in an alley with a bottle of Brass Monkey in your hand.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 30, 2014, 11:01:41 PM
The foreign travel and religious issues bring up an interesting academic point, but nowhere is there
a specific relief of the above.
The reality of course, is that in family and religious cases, discretion wins the day, which is a lot different then
getting busted with your buddies in an alley with a bottle of Brass Monkey in your hand.
Exactly, discretion is the ultimate answer. For those reasons, I doubt it was NHQs intention to really ban all practices of drinking alcohol. Otherwise, there are a lot of commanders that need to start 2B's on those Catholic cadets that went through communion:) It is clear that their intention was to really ban those times where federal law prohibits a particular drug but state law says it is fine (like right now).
Also, federal law does not state that drinking age is 21, just that states that have drinking age less than 21 are punished through lower highway funds ( National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984). States make drinking age determination. So alcohol is not really banned under federal law
Quote from: Eclipse on October 30, 2014, 11:01:41 PM
Actually, that's exactly what 52-16 says now:
c. Alcohol & Recreational Drugs. Cadets will not possess alcoholnor use any drugs that are
prohibited under federal law, even if local law permits their use.
This was added because of the States of Colorado and Washington legalizing marajuana.
And its useless because we don't test cadets for drugs...
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on October 31, 2014, 02:40:19 PM
And its useless because we don't test cadets for drugs...
CAP doesn't need to. Disciplinary actions are "at will" - if a CC felt he had enough evidence to support
a termination, he can. From there the burden would actually be on the cadet, which would probably
include providing a clean test.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 31, 2014, 02:48:14 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on October 31, 2014, 02:40:19 PM
And its useless because we don't test cadets for drugs...
CAP doesn't need to. Disciplinary actions are "at will" - if a CC felt he had enough evidence to support
a termination, he can. From there the burden would actually be on the cadet, which would probably
include providing a clean test.
Granted, not on top of the law, and IIRC, the MJ states limit it to 21+, but again, that sentence is not necessary, because even if it happens, unless the cadet is a goober about, talking at the meetings, or comes in smelling of skunk/gets arrested for it, how will we know? I've been surprised many times by people I never expected to, to be partaking in the practice.
That's just it, discretion, etc., means only the most egregious or dumb offenders will get caught,
but if they do, you still have to have it written some where that there is zero allowance.
Having not partook of the Ganja, I know little about it other than picking up a contact buzz at many, many rock concerts.
I don't know how long it stays in the system. I imagine it would depend on the potency of it and how much was smoked.
I remember having gone to a rock concert a couple of weeks before a job interview, after which I had to submit a whizz-quizz. I remember worrying that trace amounts would show up, so I called my doctor's office. His nurse told me "not impossible, but unlikely." Nothing showed up.
I was going to ask about Colorado and Washington, but PHall answered the question for me.
That does not keep the military from prohibiting use under the UCMJ, or CAP under 52-16.
What I do wonder is: if someone is actually, on paper, prescribed marijuana for medical purposes, can they still be kicked out of CAP, or would that fall under our nondiscrimination policy?
Quote from: CyBorg on October 31, 2014, 03:40:10 PMI don't know how long it stays in the system. I imagine it would depend on the potency of it and how much was smoked.
Urinalysis tends to only detect usage in the last 12-24 hours, but a follicle test can detect usage up to 90 days.
Quote from: CyBorg on October 31, 2014, 03:40:10 PM
What I do wonder is: if someone is actually, on paper, prescribed marijuana for medical purposes, can they still be kicked out of CAP, or would that fall under our nondiscrimination policy?
As far as the federal government is concerned, there's no such thing as "medical" marijuana, so it's still illegal and would not be grounds for a discrimination
complaint.
Quote from: CyBorg on October 31, 2014, 03:40:10 PM
Having not partook of the Ganja, I know little about it other than picking up a contact buzz at many, many rock concerts.
[Emphasis mine]
Sure, buddy, sure...
Quote from: CyBorg on October 31, 2014, 03:40:10 PM
Having not partook of the Ganja, I know little about it other than picking up a contact buzz at many, many rock concerts.
I don't know how long it stays in the system. I imagine it would depend on the potency of it and how much was smoked.
I remember having gone to a rock concert a couple of weeks before a job interview, after which I had to submit a whizz-quizz. I remember worrying that trace amounts would show up, so I called my doctor's office. His nurse told me "not impossible, but unlikely." Nothing showed up.
I was going to ask about Colorado and Washington, but PHall answered the question for me.
That does not keep the military from prohibiting use under the UCMJ, or CAP under 52-16.
What I do wonder is: if someone is actually, on paper, prescribed marijuana for medical purposes, can they still be kicked out of CAP, or would that fall under our nondiscrimination policy?
yes
Quote from: Eclipse on October 31, 2014, 05:20:12 PM
Urinalysis tends to only detect usage in the last 12-24 hours, but a follicle test can detect usage up to 90 days.
That is not true. It depends on the test method and manufacturer used to analyze the urine. The ELISA test (rapid) is generally non-specific but sensitive. The GC-MS method (confirmatory) is both specific and very sensitive. The Oral/saliva drug test (which is not FDA approved) is very short lived of 1-24 hours for THC. However, generally speaking for urinanalysis drug screening:
Amphetamines: 1 - 3 days
Methamphetamine: 3 - 5 days
Ecstasy / MDMA: 1 - 4 days
Barbiturates: 1 day for "short" acting and 1 to 3 weeks for "long acting"
Phenobarbital: 2 - 3 weeks
Benzodiazepines: 7 days to 6 weeks depending on the user
Cannabis: 7 - 30 days depending on the user
Cocaine: 2 - 5 days
Cotinine: 2 - 4 days
Morphine: 2 - 4 days
TCA: 7 - 10 days
LSD: 2 - 24 hours
PCP: 3 - 30 days depending on user
You will find variation in these numbers but they are in the ball park. There are a number of biological factors that come into play such as when the urine was collected, how hydrated the patient was, and how much urine is collected.
Quote from: NIN on October 31, 2014, 05:47:30 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on October 31, 2014, 03:40:10 PM
Having not partook of the Ganja, I know little about it other than picking up a contact buzz at many, many rock concerts.
[Emphasis mine]
Sure, buddy, sure...
I think the first time I smelt it was when I was a little kid and my stepbrother smoked it...other than that, the first time would have been seeing Van Halen in 1980.
But no, really, I never have. I was too scared of what my dad would do to me if I did and he found out - and he WOULD find out, he was like a Sith Lord in that respect - and I'd have rather dealt with law enforcement than with him!
Quote from: CyBorg on October 31, 2014, 11:25:51 PM
I think the first time I smelt it was when I was a little kid and my stepbrother smoked it...other than that, the first time would have been seeing Van Halen in 1980.
But no, really, I never have. I was too scared of what my dad would do to me if I did and he found out - and he WOULD find out, he was like a Sith Lord in that respect - and I'd have rather dealt with law enforcement than with him!
Funny story. I went to my first actual concert in 1982. The house lights went down in the Joe Louis Arena, and everybody around us started lighting up cigarettes.
"Thats odd," I thought, but pretty soon, this rather pungent smell wafted my way.
"Ugh! What the hell is that smell?"
"You don't know what that is?" my buddy asked me.
"No..."
"Thats dope, you idiot!"
"oooh, really?"
Almost 16 years old and I didn't even know what it smelled like. Go figure.
Quote from: NIN on November 01, 2014, 01:02:28 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on October 31, 2014, 11:25:51 PM
I think the first time I smelt it was when I was a little kid and my stepbrother smoked it...other than that, the first time would have been seeing Van Halen in 1980.
But no, really, I never have. I was too scared of what my dad would do to me if I did and he found out - and he WOULD find out, he was like a Sith Lord in that respect - and I'd have rather dealt with law enforcement than with him!
Funny story. I went to my first actual concert in 1982. The house lights went down in the Joe Louis Arena, and everybody around us started lighting up cigarettes.
"Thats odd," I thought, but pretty soon, this rather pungent smell wafted my way.
"Ugh! What the hell is that smell?"
"You don't know what that is?" my buddy asked me.
"No..."
"Thats dope, you idiot!"
"oooh, really?"
Almost 16 years old and I didn't even know what it smelled like. Go figure.
I'm 10 years older then you Nin, trust me, at 16 I knew what dope smelled like! >:D
Of course when I entered the military in 1974 the question wasn't "have you ever used drugs?"
It was "when was the last time you used drugs?" ;)
Quote from: Eclipse on October 31, 2014, 02:48:14 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on October 31, 2014, 02:40:19 PM
And its useless because we don't test cadets for drugs...
CAP doesn't need to. Disciplinary actions are "at will" - if a CC felt he had enough evidence to support
a termination, he can. From there the burden would actually be on the cadet, which would probably
include providing a clean test.
I'd be interested to know what would constitute "enough evidence" absent a positive test or actual observation of said infraction. We had this discussion recently among several members and to an individual we agreed it's next to impossible to make a termination stick on a 35-3 appeal without solid proof, (like a positive test) at least in my wing. Any body out there know a time where a test was ever required especially under a "guilty until proven innocent scenario"? (or in the aftermath of some sort of vehicle/aircraft accident/incident) If I'm accused of something of which I'm not guilty I'm thinking a defamation suit would be in order (5 minutes after my test comes back clean) whether my membership was terminated or not.
Quote from: blackrain on November 02, 2014, 09:28:21 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 31, 2014, 02:48:14 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on October 31, 2014, 02:40:19 PM
And its useless because we don't test cadets for drugs...
CAP doesn't need to. Disciplinary actions are "at will" - if a CC felt he had enough evidence to support
a termination, he can. From there the burden would actually be on the cadet, which would probably
include providing a clean test.
I'd be interested to know what would constitute "enough evidence" absent a positive test or actual observation of said infraction. We had this discussion recently among several members and to an individual we agreed it's next to impossible to make a termination stick on a 35-3 appeal without solid proof, (like a positive test) at least in my wing. Any body out there know a time where a test was ever required especially under a "guilty until proven innocent scenario"? (or in the aftermath of some sort of vehicle/aircraft accident/incident) If I'm accused of something of which I'm not guilty I'm thinking a defamation suit would be in order (5 minutes after my test comes back clean) whether my membership was terminated or not.
First off.....the guy you need to talk to is your wing commander....he is the guy who determines "if there is enough evidence". Second.....you can't bring defamation if the actors were working in good faith.
Third......go ahead and sue CAP...it is what we have lawyers for. Commanders should not let the threat of getting sued stopping them from doing what is right.
It works both ways....if you are innocent.....fight.
But it is our duty as leaders to pursue matters we think are important.....and to fight for them.
Quote from: lordmonar on November 02, 2014, 09:39:12 PM
First off.....the guy you need to talk to is your wing commander....he is the guy who determines "if there is enough evidence".
Depends. If your wing has Groups, the Wing Commander will never see a termination action, either directly or upon appeal. The appeal is to the Group, and from there to MARP.
Quote from: lordmonar on November 02, 2014, 09:39:12 PMSecond.....you can't bring defamation if the actors were working in good faith.
That's not true. False statements of fact are subject to defamation claims regardless of "good faith". The "absence of malice" standard applies only to "public figures" who may be defamed, not to ordinary individuals.
Quote from: lordmonar on November 02, 2014, 09:39:12 PMThird......go ahead and sue CAP...it is what we have lawyers for. Commanders should not let the threat of getting sued stopping them from doing what is right.
It's not "right" to accuse someone without any basis of evidence. If that accusation is factually false and causes damage, the commander personally, and CAP as an entity, could be jointly and severally liable.
Quote from: JeffDG on November 02, 2014, 10:40:44 PMIt's not "right" to accuse someone without any basis of evidence. If that accusation is factually false and causes damage, the commander personally, and CAP as an entity, could be jointly and severally liable.
never said that. If you are working in good faith....which I mean you are following the regs, you have a reasonable suspicion, and reasonable evidence for that suspicion,.... then you are not making accusations "without any basis of evidence". It just means we do not have to have the fidelity of evidence that a DA would need to bring a case to trial.
If SM X came to a meeting with alcohol on his breath and seemed to be inebriated.....that's all I need. I don't need a field sobriety test, or a BAC sample. It is just CAP.
If I'm wrong.....then I'm wrong....and you can sue me to your hearts content. Have fun.
Quote from: lordmonar on November 02, 2014, 10:52:26 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on November 02, 2014, 10:40:44 PMIt's not "right" to accuse someone without any basis of evidence. If that accusation is factually false and causes damage, the commander personally, and CAP as an entity, could be jointly and severally liable.
never said that. If you are working in good faith....which I mean you are following the regs, you have a reasonable suspicion, and reasonable evidence for that suspicion,.... then you are not making accusations "without any basis of evidence". It just means we do not have to have the fidelity of evidence that a DA would need to bring a case to trial.
If SM X came to a meeting with alcohol on his breath and seemed to be inebriated.....that's all I need. I don't need a field sobriety test, or a BAC sample. It is just CAP.
If I'm wrong.....then I'm wrong....and you can sue me to your hearts content. Have fun.
Not going to be your decision anyway. You've foresworn ever wanting to be considered for command anyway, so not your problem.
Used to be my problem and as a former commander advising my current commander most certainly something I would be involved with.
So after two weeks of discussion has the Cadet reached "their moment of clarity"? 8)
Quote from: JeffDG on November 02, 2014, 10:40:44 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on November 02, 2014, 09:39:12 PM
First off.....the guy you need to talk to is your wing commander....he is the guy who determines "if there is enough evidence".
Depends. If your wing has Groups, the Wing Commander will never see a termination action, either directly or upon appeal. The appeal is to the Group, and from there to MARP.
The wing commander is to be notified:
Quote from: CAPR 35-3
Within 10 days of the commander's decision to terminate, the letter of notification should be delivered by personal delivery to the member or a copy mailed both by certified mail and by regular mail to the member's residence address as recorded in the membership unit. At the time the letter of notification is sent to the member, a copy of the letter will be sent to the appropriate approving authority, to the wing commander (if the approving authority is below wing level) and to NHQ/DP.
Also, even during an appeal, the wing commander, assuming if the approving authority is at group, should be notified. While not stated in black and white, it would be hard for the wing commander (next higher level) to determine any possible conflicts of interest:
QuoteIn the event the approving authority is determined by the next higher level commander to be disqualified from making the final decision due to an impermissible conflict of interest, the next higher level commander shall appoint another commander at the same level to act as the approving authority and appoint the appeal board.
Quote from: Reacher on October 19, 2014, 12:31:58 AM
Would this be grounds for dismissal?
Reacher your question raises MY question, what are we going to do about those senior members who smoke at meetings in uniform? Nicotine is an addictive thing, and has negative impacts on the body, and it is worse than drinking, so some extent.
I have been to/seen squadrons, where the Senior members are in a group, IN UNIFORM, smoking together right by the cadets (outside, of course).
These senior members have obviously been checked through Civil Air Patrol and are qualified to be senior members in the program, but they smoke! Are we going to dismiss all those senior members?
Like so many postings here this one seems to have entered the realm of the infinite loop. Best explained as:
nfinite loop is a computer programming concept, describing a situation of cause and effect that continues forever, one action causing another action that causes the first action etc.
These loops never happen in real life, unless...
A company CEO tells his secretary:
"Next week we're going to a convention abroad and spend some quality time together, please make all the required arrangements."
The secretary calls her husband:
"Next week the boss is taking me abroad for a week on business, please take care of yourself during this time."
The husband calls his lover:
"My wife is going abroad for a week, lets spend it together..."
The lover, a private school teacher, tells the children:
"Because of a personal problem, I will not be at school next week, so you'll be studying at home."
One of the kids went to his grandfather and said:
"Grandpa, next week I don't have school, you promised me that if I had time off we'd go to the mountains together."
The grandfather, who was also the CEO, calls his secretary and tells her:
"My grandson asked me to spend the week with him, so we're not going abroad."
The secretary calls her husband:
"The boss cancelled, we'll be together, my love."
The husband calls his lover:
"We can't spend the week together, my wife is staying."
The lover tells the kids:
"My problem was solved, school is back on."
The kid goes to the grandfather:
"Sorry grandpa, school is back on, I won't be able to go."
The CEO calls his secretary:
"My grandson won't be able to spend next week with me, rebook the flight abroad"
The secretary calls her husband....
Quote from: C/MSgt Pearman on November 03, 2014, 08:42:49 PM
Reacher your question raises MY question, what are we going to do about those senior members who smoke at meetings in uniform? Nicotine is an addictive thing, and has negative impacts on the body, and it is worse than drinking, so some extent.
I have been to/seen squadrons, where the Senior members are in a group, IN UNIFORM, smoking together right by the cadets (outside, of course).
These senior members have obviously been checked through Civil Air Patrol and are qualified to be senior members in the program, but they smoke! Are we going to dismiss all those senior members?
This phrase was in the 2012 CAPR 52-16, but has been removed from the 2014:
QuoteSeniors should avoid drinking alcohol or using tobacco when they are directly working with cadets or when they are in a confined space with cadets. Additionally, seniors who are not working with cadets should avoid excessive alcohol consumption when they can reasonably expect to encounter cadets thereafter. Commanders may establish designated smoking and non-smoking areas and designate areas as "off-limits" to cadets.
Basically, if there is a problem with a senior member smoking around cadets, the answer is to talk with your Deputy Commander for Cadets to address the issue with either the individual or the squadron commander.
There is no prohibition for seniors regarding tobacco products at CAP, therefore, no dismal is required.
Quote from: Cliff_Chambliss on November 03, 2014, 08:45:20 PM
Like so many postings here this one seems to have entered the realm of the infinite loop. Best explained as:
nfinite loop is a computer programming concept, describing a situation of cause and effect that continues forever, one action causing another action that causes the first action etc.
These loops never happen in real life, unless...
A company CEO tells his secretary:
"Next week we're going to a convention abroad and spend some quality time together, please make all the required arrangements."
The secretary calls her husband:
"Next week the boss is taking me abroad for a week on business, please take care of yourself during this time."
The husband calls his lover:
"My wife is going abroad for a week, lets spend it together..."
The lover, a private school teacher, tells the children:
"Because of a personal problem, I will not be at school next week, so you'll be studying at home."
One of the kids went to his grandfather and said:
"Grandpa, next week I don't have school, you promised me that if I had time off we'd go to the mountains together."
The grandfather, who was also the CEO, calls his secretary and tells her:
"My grandson asked me to spend the week with him, so we're not going abroad."
The secretary calls her husband:
"The boss cancelled, we'll be together, my love."
The husband calls his lover:
"We can't spend the week together, my wife is staying."
The lover tells the kids:
"My problem was solved, school is back on."
The kid goes to the grandfather:
"Sorry grandpa, school is back on, I won't be able to go."
The CEO calls his secretary:
"My grandson won't be able to spend next week with me, rebook the flight abroad"
The secretary calls her husband....
You must be Army....
"I don't Care Who You Are That's Funny"
Quote from: C/MSgt Pearman on November 03, 2014, 08:42:49 PM
Quote from: Reacher on October 19, 2014, 12:31:58 AM
Would this be grounds for dismissal?
Reacher your question raises MY question, what are we going to do about those senior members who smoke at meetings in uniform? Nicotine is an addictive thing, and has negative impacts on the body, and it is worse than drinking, so some extent.
I have been to/seen squadrons, where the Senior members are in a group, IN UNIFORM, smoking together right by the cadets (outside, of course).
These senior members have obviously been checked through Civil Air Patrol and are qualified to be senior members in the program, but they smoke! Are we going to dismiss all those senior members?
Being sarcastic or are you a
ハローキティ .. really you live in the USA, a free country and in a state, Florida, where people smoke. Move to Utah where nobody smokes if it is a problem to you 8)
Quote from: blackrain on November 04, 2014, 12:49:21 AM
Quote from: Cliff_Chambliss on November 03, 2014, 08:45:20 PM
Like so many postings here this one seems to have entered the realm of the infinite loop. Best explained as:
nfinite loop is a computer programming concept, describing a situation of cause and effect that continues forever, one action causing another action that causes the first action etc.
These loops never happen in real life, unless...
A company CEO tells his secretary:
"Next week we're going to a convention abroad and spend some quality time together, please make all the required arrangements."
The secretary calls her husband:
"Next week the boss is taking me abroad for a week on business, please take care of yourself during this time."
The husband calls his lover:
"My wife is going abroad for a week, lets spend it together..."
The lover, a private school teacher, tells the children:
"Because of a personal problem, I will not be at school next week, so you'll be studying at home."
One of the kids went to his grandfather and said:
"Grandpa, next week I don't have school, you promised me that if I had time off we'd go to the mountains together."
The grandfather, who was also the CEO, calls his secretary and tells her:
"My grandson asked me to spend the week with him, so we're not going abroad."
The secretary calls her husband:
"The boss cancelled, we'll be together, my love."
The husband calls his lover:
"We can't spend the week together, my wife is staying."
The lover tells the kids:
"My problem was solved, school is back on."
The kid goes to the grandfather:
"Sorry grandpa, school is back on, I won't be able to go."
The CEO calls his secretary:
"My grandson won't be able to spend next week with me, rebook the flight abroad"
The secretary calls her husband....
You must be Army....
"I don't Care Who You Are That's Funny"
+1 x 1M that is funny :clap:
Quote from: LSThiker on November 03, 2014, 10:00:13 PM
Quote from: C/MSgt Pearman on November 03, 2014, 08:42:49 PM
Reacher your question raises MY question, what are we going to do about those senior members who smoke at meetings in uniform? Nicotine is an addictive thing, and has negative impacts on the body, and it is worse than drinking, so some extent.
I have been to/seen squadrons, where the Senior members are in a group, IN UNIFORM, smoking together right by the cadets (outside, of course).
These senior members have obviously been checked through Civil Air Patrol and are qualified to be senior members in the program, but they smoke! Are we going to dismiss all those senior members?
This phrase was in the 2012 CAPR 52-16, but has been removed from the 2014:
QuoteSeniors should avoid drinking alcohol or using tobacco when they are directly working with cadets or when they are in a confined space with cadets. Additionally, seniors who are not working with cadets should avoid excessive alcohol consumption when they can reasonably expect to encounter cadets thereafter. Commanders may establish designated smoking and non-smoking areas and designate areas as "off-limits" to cadets.
Basically, if there is a problem with a senior member smoking around cadets, the answer is to talk with your Deputy Commander for Cadets to address the issue with either the individual or the squadron commander.
There is no prohibition for seniors regarding tobacco products at CAP, therefore, no dismal is required.
I think the phrase here is "should avoid." If it meant "must not," I think it would say "must not."
If said member of CAP is
of legal age in his/her State/Territory to buy/consume alcohol/tobacco products, and they are not based on a military installation where the installation commander says otherwise, there is no grounds for dismissal unless their behaviour becomes dangerous/disruptive.
However, as a lifelong nonsmoker and 15+ years sober former drinker, and former DDR, I would say that trying to do such things away from cadets would be best policy.
CAPP 151, Page 4, Section 7
ALCOHOL ABUSEQuote7. Alcohol Abuse. You have the responsibility to exercise good judgment in the use of alcohol. Your use of alcohol must not adversely affect your duty performance or your conduct on or off duty. Civil Air Patrol policy is to discourage alcohol abuse and alcoholism among its personnel and their dependents. Moderation should be encouraged for those persons choosing to drink and nondrinkers are not pressured or ostracized for choosing not to drink. Intoxication while engaged in a CAP activity will not be tolerated. No alcohol will be served or consumed at cadet activities.
CAPR 52-16, Page 7, 2-4
POLICY ON DRUGS AND SUPPLEMENTS
Quotec. Alcohol & Recreational Drugs. Cadets will not possess alcohol nor use any drugs that are prohibited under federal law, even if local law permits their use. Further, tobacco products and e- cigarettes are prohibited for cadets at CAP activities.
Senior members will not consume alcohol at activities conducted primarily for cadets if they can reasonably expect to encounter cadets later that day.
These regulations talk about alcohol consumption and regulation of the amount, but nothing states the act of dismissing a cadet for drinking...
Also, with further reading in these regs, it mostly talks about senior members drinking, smoking, etc. And when it DOES bring up a cadet, I have yet to find a mention of kicking him out of the program.
Cadet Pearman.....the regs don't say "If he does XYZ then terminate".
The punishment is left up to the discretion of the commander.
Sometimes a stern talking to is all that is required.
Sometimes it may be a hold on promotion.
Sometimes it may be a demotion.
Sometimes it may be a suspension.
And sometimes it may be termination.
It all depends on the the situation. Nothing is cut into stone.
Quote from: C/MSgt Pearman on November 04, 2014, 12:57:01 PM
These regulations talk about alcohol consumption and regulation of the amount, but nothing states the act of dismissing a cadet for drinking...
Also, with further reading in these regs, it mostly talks about senior members drinking, smoking, etc. And when it DOES bring up a cadet, I have yet to find a mention of kicking him out of the program.
There is not a regulation that states, "if cadet is consuming alcohol, then the commander must terminate his/her membership". Punishment, for the most part, is up to the commander's discretion. Therefore, a commander may terminate a cadet for drinking alcohol under CAPR 35-5, 3d or if the issue is severe enough that it would bar his/her application for senior member, then under CAPR 35-5, 3e. However, it is not required and a commander may simply choose a counseling statement, demotion, or suspension.
Quote from: C/MSgt Pearman on November 04, 2014, 12:57:01 PM
CAPP 151, Page 4, Section 7 ALCOHOL ABUSE
Quote7. Alcohol Abuse. You have the responsibility to exercise good judgment in the use of alcohol. Your use of alcohol must not adversely affect your duty performance or your conduct on or off duty. Civil Air Patrol policy is to discourage alcohol abuse and alcoholism among its personnel and their dependents. Moderation should be encouraged for those persons choosing to drink and nondrinkers are not pressured or ostracized for choosing not to drink. Intoxication while engaged in a CAP activity will not be tolerated. No alcohol will be served or consumed at cadet activities.
CAPR 52-16, Page 7, 2-4 POLICY ON DRUGS AND SUPPLEMENTS
Quotec. Alcohol & Recreational Drugs. Cadets will not possess alcohol nor use any drugs that are prohibited under federal law, even if local law permits their use. Further, tobacco products and e- cigarettes are prohibited for cadets at CAP activities.
Senior members will not consume alcohol at activities conducted primarily for cadets if they can reasonably expect to encounter cadets later that day.
These regulations talk about alcohol consumption and regulation of the amount, but nothing states the act of dismissing a cadet for drinking...
Also, with further reading in these regs, it mostly talks about senior members drinking, smoking, etc. And when it DOES bring up a cadet, I have yet to find a mention of kicking him out of the program.
Cadet Pearman, while Lordmonar, LSThicker and others are correct about the commander's discretion in handling issues like this, may I remind you that drinking or possessing alcohol under age is not only against regulations, but it's against the law. If a cadet chooses to break the law, then the commander has every right to terminate his/her membership, among other possible disciplinary actions.
Quote from: C/MSgt Pearman on November 03, 2014, 08:42:49 PM
Quote from: Reacher on October 19, 2014, 12:31:58 AM
Would this be grounds for dismissal?
Reacher your question raises MY question, what are we going to do about those senior members who smoke at meetings in uniform? Nicotine is an addictive thing, and has negative impacts on the body, and it is worse than drinking, so some extent.
I have been to/seen squadrons, where the Senior members are in a group, IN UNIFORM, smoking together right by the cadets (outside, of course).
These senior members have obviously been checked through Civil Air Patrol and are qualified to be senior members in the program, but they smoke! Are we going to dismiss all those senior members?
While it may be inappropriate for senior members to smoke in front of cadets, it's not illegal. A cadet drinking or smoking underage is.
Quote from: Reacher on October 19, 2014, 12:31:58 AM
I purposely created a throwaway for this question.
I have a cadet who was caught drinking at a school function. Not sure of all the details, but he was sentenced to community service, and received a misdemeanor. Would this be grounds for dismissal? Cadet in question is 17, plans to join the Marines, but has to wait until he is 18 because of this. Your thoughts are appreciated.
I can divulge a few more details if the need arises. Just trying to keep privacy in check.
I will tell ya though, I would hate to have termination from CAP written on my resume. But if you think it is needed, I would do it. I am not saying under-age drinking is good, but it would suck to have a mistake in high school follow you for the rest of your life.
Quote from: CDT/SSgt Rivera on November 05, 2014, 10:18:43 PM
I am not saying under-age drinking is good, but it would suck to have a mistake in high school follow you for the rest of your life.
Then it's better not to make the "mistake" in the first place.
In real life, some "mistakes" do follow you for the rest of your life. Having your CAP membership terminated is the least of your concerns if you get arrested for breaking the law or, worst, get hurt or hurt someone by doing something stupid.
Quote from: CDT/SSgt Rivera on November 05, 2014, 10:18:43 PM
I will tell ya though, I would hate to have termination from CAP written on my resume.
One might advise against including this when applying for jobs.
A good commander would never have reluctance to direct Senior members to smoke, if necessary, outside the
purview of cadets, the same goes for chewing, ecigs, etc. (saw those things in casinos for the first time this
weekend. I was like "what the heck?..oh, yeah...).
With that said, smoking, in and of itself, would in most cases not be grounds for termination. The termination would
come after repeated insubordination in the act of continuing to smoke in the presence of cadets, since no adult
worth having in CAP is incapable of being discreet regarding these types of things.
It is remarkable what >adults< in the proper definition of the word, are capable of taking care of discreetly when necessary.
The same goes for drinking, legal or not, there are limits to what can be tolerated in uniform and/or on CAP
time. A beer or two with friends, wine with dinner, or a toast to the Great Seal are different from binge drinking
shots after a conference from your flight cap.
Quote from: CDT/SSgt Rivera on November 05, 2014, 10:18:43 PM
Quote from: Reacher on October 19, 2014, 12:31:58 AM
I purposely created a throwaway for this question.
I have a cadet who was caught drinking at a school function. Not sure of all the details, but he was sentenced to community service, and received a misdemeanor. Would this be grounds for dismissal? Cadet in question is 17, plans to join the Marines, but has to wait until he is 18 because of this. Your thoughts are appreciated.
I can divulge a few more details if the need arises. Just trying to keep privacy in check.
I will tell ya though, I would hate to have termination from CAP written on my resume. But if you think it is needed, I would do it. I am not saying under-age drinking is good, but it would suck to have a mistake in high school follow you for the rest of your life.
Why would anyone include it on their resume. Unless you are applying for a job where your CAP experience is relevant, activities, hobbies, etc should not be listed
That is what I meant. If someone asked more about his career in CAP, he might also contact his commander then he would talk about his misuse of drugs. This cadet would be a goner. He wants to join the marines! He will be dropped like a hot potato if an unhonorable dismissal from CAP was mentioned.
Quote from: CDT/SSgt Rivera on November 06, 2014, 03:43:11 AM
That is what I meant. If someone asked more about his career in CAP, he might also contact his commander then he would talk about his misuse of drugs. This cadet would be a goner. He wants to join the marines! He will be dropped like a hot potato if an unhonorable dismissal from CAP was mentioned.
The reality here is you simply do not mention your affiliation, any more then you would mention getting voted off
the condo association board, your local gardening club, or the PTA.
And no commander should be discussing a member, current or otherwise, to anyone outside the organization,
especially in regards to disciplinary actions.
With that said, in this highly connected world, it would not be out of the question for Google searches and background checks
to pop up related information, which an employer may feel it addressable.
For the record, termination from CAP, in and of itself, would not likely be a dis-qualifier for the Marines, or any other
military service, though if made aware of the fact, would be fair game during application interviews and the
reasoningbehind the termination might be an issue.
If the military disqualified every kid who'd ever had a drink or tried something harder, they'd be in a world of hurt, but when
enlistment quotas are full, services are in draw-down, or you are trying for a highly competitive MOS, it's not going to do you any favors.
In all fairness, unless the police were involved, the chances of the military giving a poop is very low. They do like it if you are honest and up front about stuff. If you do not tell them, and they find out, you're hosed.
Quote from: CDT/SSgt Rivera on November 06, 2014, 03:43:11 AM
That is what I meant. If someone asked more about his career in CAP, he might also contact his commander then he would talk about his misuse of drugs. This cadet would be a goner. He wants to join the Marines! He will be dropped like a hot potato if an unhonorable dismissal from CAP was mentioned.
Being a former Marine you know how many kids told me they wanted to join the Marines? In 2014 most kids are just talk. 8)
I don't want to downplay the significance of dismissal from CAP (unless you're trying to join one of the Armed Forces), but it really does not have the life-altering significance of an OTH Discharge from the military.
Many moons ago, when I was at Lackland, I remember walking past a room full of trainees being sent home on Entry-Level Separations for various things. There was a civilian addressing them and one sentence I remember is that all who were not being outprocessed for Fraudulent Enlistment would receive the NDSM. I briefly thought "oh, man, sucks to be them if they're getting booted for FE," because that
will be a thorn in their flesh.
Quote from: Garibaldi on November 06, 2014, 04:24:55 AM
In all fairness, unless the police were involved, the chances of the military giving a poop is very low. They do like it if you are honest and up front about stuff. If you do not tell them, and they find out, you're hosed.
Which is what I was told by my ANG recruiter when filling out my ancient DD398 (I still have it!) for my security clearance. For that reason I even listed an infraction from years before for an expired registration - just in case. It was never an issue, but if I
hadn't listed it, and it would have somehow popped up (even in that pre-Information Age setting) I probably would, as Garibaldi said, "been hosed."
Quote from: Private Investigator on November 06, 2014, 10:48:48 AM
Being a former Marine you know how many kids told me they wanted to join the Marines? In 2014 most kids are just talk. 8)
Meaning on how once they find out how they're going to soil themselves one second after going through the gates of Parris Island/San Diego and standing on the Yellow Footprints they bug out? ;)
The reason they didn't receive the NDSM or a DD-214 is that if you were fraudulently enlisted, you were never in the service to begin with
Quote from: MSG Mac on November 07, 2014, 04:42:16 AM
The reason they didn't receive the NDSM or a DD-214 is that if you were fraudulently enlisted, you were never in the service to begin with
Isn't that more on the order of an ELS (uncharacterised)? FE is bad news, while ELS is neutral news.
Reacher, when is this cadet due to discussion about his actions? If that is already happened, what were his consequences? If I may ask.
Quote from: CyBorg on November 07, 2014, 09:04:26 PM
Quote from: MSG Mac on November 07, 2014, 04:42:16 AM
The reason they didn't receive the NDSM or a DD-214 is that if you were fraudulently enlisted, you were never in the service to begin with
Isn't that more on the order of an ELS (uncharacterised)? FE is bad news, while ELS is neutral news.
No, Uncharacterized means they are discharged. FE were never legally in the service, because of age, physical, legal, etc reasons. If you weren't in you are not eligible for benefits which can last for 100 years or more for yourself, spouses, and children.
You guys can go on arguing hither and yon about the .mil and terminating the cadet, lemme tell you how this would go in real life.
Unit CC hears a rumor about Cadet Snuffy supposedly getting in trouble for drinking at a party. When confronted, cadet Snuffy respectfully tells the commander its none of his business. Unit commander calls the kid's parents, who politely thank him for his concern, but this is a family matter that they are handling and is none of his business. Unit commander then goes to the courthouse, whom the clerk tells him it's a juvenile matter, who the heck are you? After which he'll be told those records are sealed and it's none of his business.
So all the unit commander has is an allegation based on cadet hearsay. He knows something happened, but it didn't happen on CAP time and those involved believe that he has declined to discuss the matter any further.
If YOU were the commander, would you pursue sanction any further? You have nothing but rumor, the parents don't want your involvement and there's no public record of anything. It'll never get past the MARB and you'll likely end up with several long conversations with the Wing IG after the parents make the complaint against you.
Membership action in this case isn't worth the trouble and let's face it, if the law and the parents are bringing the kid to heel then CAP really needs to stay out of it. At best a word to the Chaplain to keep an eye on him and maybe a few weeks "volunteering" to help the DDR officer might be better efforts of one's time.
You can make up any scenario you like to support you opinion, however it does not relate to the OP, which
perhaps you didn't even read.
The OP indicated that the cadet was caught at a school function, and convicted of a misdemeanor. How he came about that information
was not divulged, but both are relevent to a cadets membership, and, at least as characterized, go well beyond "a rumor". It is possible,
and even likely the cadet divulged the information himself.
Whether membership action is "worth the trouble" depends on a number of factors not introduced in this discussion, and would be
primarily focused on whether the integrity and good order of the unit are negatively influenced.
Whether the cadet's parents feel they have "handled it" is a tangential concern at best. A commander has no business doing an "investigation", either.
If he doesn't have actionable, supportable information, then he can consult the Wing Legal Officer (>NOT< the IG) and if the JA wants to pursue it he
can, if not, it's been noted for the record. If the cadet is asked direct questions, and it comes out later he lied, he can be terminated on those grounds.
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on November 11, 2014, 02:48:55 AM...you'll likely end up with several long conversations with the Wing IG after the parents make the complaint against you.
Why would there be any conversation? The Wing CC would have already been involved - no one with sense would terminate a cadet in a circumstance like this
without involving the Wing CC.
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on November 11, 2014, 02:48:55 AMAt best a word to the Chaplain to keep an eye on him and maybe a few weeks "volunteering" to help the DDR officer might be better efforts of one's time.
A "word to the Chaplain?" Becaauusse? In your world you have a non-actionable rumor about a cadet which is confidential enough to involve
sealed records, but you're fine divulging the situation to the Chaplain who is otherwise not involved?
And what grounds would you have to "voluntell" a cadet to work with DDR?
You're going to wind up in a lot more trouble making up your own rules and divulging confidential information to non-involved parties
then simply taking the appropriate disciplinary action.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 11, 2014, 03:36:14 AM
You can make up any scenario you like to support you opinion, however it does not relate to the OP, which
perhaps you didn't even read.
The OP indicated that the cadet was caught at a school function, and convicted of a misdemeanor. How he came about that information
was not divulged, but both are relevent to a cadets membership, and, at least as characterized, go well beyond "a rumor". It is possible,
and even likely the cadet divulged the information himself.
Whether membership action is "worth the trouble" depends on a number of factors not introduced in this discussion, and would be
primarily focused on whether the integrity and good order of the unit are negatively influenced.
Whether the cadet's parents feel they have "handled it" is a tangential concern at best. A commander has no business doing an "investigation", either.
If he doesn't have actionable, supportable information, then he can consult the Wing Legal Officer (>NOT< the IG) and if the JA wants to pursue it he
can, if not, it's been noted for the record. If the cadet is asked direct questions, and it comes out later he lied, he can be terminated on those grounds.
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on November 11, 2014, 02:48:55 AM...you'll likely end up with several long conversations with the Wing IG after the parents make the complaint against you.
Why would there be any conversation? The Wing CC would have already been involved - no one with sense would terminate a cadet in a circumstance like this
without involving the Wing CC.
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on November 11, 2014, 02:48:55 AMAt best a word to the Chaplain to keep an eye on him and maybe a few weeks "volunteering" to help the DDR officer might be better efforts of one's time.
A "word to the Chaplain?" Becaauusse? In your world you have a non-actionable rumor about a cadet which is confidential enough to involve
sealed records, but you're fine divulging the situation to the Chaplain who is otherwise not involved?
And what grounds would you have to "voluntell" a cadet to work with DDR?
You're going to wind up in a lot more trouble making up your own rules and divulging confidential information to non-involved parties
then simply taking the appropriate disciplinary action.
The bottom line is that the matter is being handled by forces in better control of the situation than CAP or the unit commander. It's far better for the unit, the commander and CAP in general to let those actually involved in this deal with it and for CAP to keep its nose out.
I really don't understand why staying the hell out of CAP member's lives while they're away from CAP is such a foreign concept for so many of you.
BTW - A commander can ask the Chaplain to keep an eye on anyone he wants to, no one said he has to tell him why, or even have a reason to.
DDR officers often need help and no better help than cadets dedicated to the program of staying drug and alcohol free! Rumor? What rumor? Oh that rumor. Don't know anything about it and none of my business. Now here's some Red Ribbons, go take them over to the DDR officer and make yourself useful...
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on November 11, 2014, 04:04:57 AM
I really don't understand why staying the hell out of CAP member's lives while they're away from CAP is such a foreign concept for so many of you.
Clearly.
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on November 11, 2014, 02:48:55 AM
You guys can go on arguing hither and yon about the .mil and terminating the cadet, lemme tell you how this would go in real life.
Unit CC hears a rumor about Cadet Snuffy supposedly getting in trouble for drinking at a party. When confronted, cadet Snuffy respectfully tells the commander its none of his business. Unit commander calls the kid's parents, who politely thank him for his concern, but this is a family matter that they are handling and is none of his business. Unit commander then goes to the courthouse, whom the clerk tells him it's a juvenile matter, who the heck are you? After which he'll be told those records are sealed and it's none of his business.
So all the unit commander has is an allegation based on cadet hearsay. He knows something happened, but it didn't happen on CAP time and those involved believe that he has declined to discuss the matter any further.
If YOU were the commander, would you pursue sanction any further? You have nothing but rumor, the parents don't want your involvement and there's no public record of anything. It'll never get past the MARB and you'll likely end up with several long conversations with the Wing IG after the parents make the complaint against you.
Membership action in this case isn't worth the trouble and let's face it, if the law and the parents are bringing the kid to heel then CAP really needs to stay out of it. At best a word to the Chaplain to keep an eye on him and maybe a few weeks "volunteering" to help the DDR officer might be better efforts of one's time.
Or more likely....the commander is so busy doing his job (and his real life) he ignores it at "handled" by competent authority.
As a former commander......I have had to deal with cadets who got in trouble in "real life". I have had to deal with IG complaints against me on how I treat cadets. Not worth the trouble going out of my way to "deal" with a "problem" that has no impact on my operations.
If it does have an impact....I will deal with it.
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on November 11, 2014, 02:48:55 AM
At best a word to the Chaplain to keep an eye on him and maybe a few weeks "volunteering" to help the DDR officer might be better efforts of one's time.
QuoteRumor? What rumor? Oh that rumor. Don't know anything about it and none of my business. Now here's some Red Ribbons, go take them over to the DDR officer and make yourself useful...
Integrity issue for the commander
Quote from: Eclipse on November 11, 2014, 04:17:35 AM
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on November 11, 2014, 04:04:57 AM
I really don't understand why staying the hell out of CAP member's lives while they're away from CAP is such a foreign concept for so many of you.
Clearly.
Some CAP units/commanders are infused with a mindset like CAP is active-duty, or at least like the Reserve components, meaning: "all CAP, all the time."
CAP cadets are afforded opportunities which reach well into "real life". The entry fee for those opportunities is
an adherence to a number of rules and prohibitions which also reach beyond weekly meetings. It is a higher standard
then their non-member peers, by design.
None are onerous, they benefit everyone involved as well as the community in general, and all are voluntary.
You cannot separate one from the other and still maintain the organizational integrity which attracted
the person in the first place.
Quote from: CyBorg on November 11, 2014, 07:35:37 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 11, 2014, 04:17:35 AM
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on November 11, 2014, 04:04:57 AM
I really don't understand why staying the hell out of CAP member's lives while they're away from CAP is such a foreign concept for so many of you.
Clearly.
Some CAP units/commanders are infused with a mindset like CAP is active-duty, or at least like the Reserve components, meaning: "all CAP, all the time."
Therein lies a massive problem.
I apologize for resurrecting a dead thread, but I wanted to give closure to the discussion and make known the results.
1. Cadet in question was essentially told to "Go and sin no more". A serious talk with the Squadron CC and an SM who is a Police Officer was also had, including consequences for further violations. General idea was that he had paid enough already, and termination was not warranted yet.
2. The Cadet's family passively supports underage drinking, etc. My perspective was that the father was more disappointed that the son was caught, than that he was drinking (JMHO, not entirely factual).
Thank you for your meaningful dialogue and discussion. It was very insightful, and useful.
Reacher signing off
Quote from: Reacher on January 23, 2015, 04:52:52 PM2. The Cadet's family passively supports underage drinking, etc.
Gee-Zus...
Quote from: Eclipse on January 23, 2015, 05:52:22 PM
Quote from: Reacher on January 23, 2015, 04:52:52 PM2. The Cadet's family passively supports underage drinking, etc.
Gee-Zus...
I would not jump straight to a conclusion. Could be a cultural difference as there are plenty of countries around the world that have drinking ages less than 21 and even with less than 18 years of age.
Of course that does not make it legally correct, but to some people it is culturally correct.
http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/legaldrinkingage.html#.VMKNFWN0y70 (http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/legaldrinkingage.html#.VMKNFWN0y70)
Quote from: Eclipse on January 23, 2015, 05:52:22 PM
Quote from: Reacher on January 23, 2015, 04:52:52 PM2. The Cadet's family passively supports underage drinking, etc.
Gee-Zus...
Eh. Some areas of this country that's a crime; other areas, it's not only tradition, it's legal.
Quote from: jeders on January 23, 2015, 06:08:03 PM
Eh. Some areas of this country that's a crime; other areas, it's not only tradition, it's legal.
The following
map shows the exceptions to the minimum age of 21 for the consumption of alcohol as of January 1, 2011
(http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/images/underage_consumption_map_2011.gif)
I'm not sure I understand Eclipse's map.
Do the green states mean that one does not have to be 21 to drink?
It is much different in other countries. My aunt lived in Alsace-Lorraine back in the '60s with some of our extended family and they always had wine at meals.
My dad told me when he was stationed in (West) Germany that kids took beer to school in their lunchboxes, and when he did FTX with the West German Army they had it in their canteens.
I remember going to Canada before I turned 21 and could drink there (the highest age anywhere in that country is 19, and it's 18 in Alberta, Manitoba, and Quebec) - but it was HIGHLY recommended you crash at a friend's/family's place or rent a motel room, because the instant you came back through US Customs you were in violation of the law in whatever state you were crossing into (i.e.; crossing from British Columbia into Washington State) and subject to arrest.
All states in Australia are 18...and they can pound the stuff away like no-one I've ever seen.
Friends in the UK have told me that it's 18 there but very lightly enforced.
A friend of mine from Italy who opened a (superb!) Italian restaurant here said he just could not figure out U.S. liquor laws. He said, "in Italy nobody cares if a younger person has a drink with a meal."
So, I wonder, what our hangup is. I don't have a dog in the fight as I'm LONG past 21 and quit drinking many years ago...I just don't understand the reasoning.
Quote from: CyBorg on January 23, 2015, 08:44:28 PM
I'm not sure I understand Eclipse's map.
Do the green states mean that one does not have to be 21 to drink?
See above edit
Also this is the page it comes from: http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/LegalDrinkingAge.html#.VMKzSNLF9X8 (http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/LegalDrinkingAge.html#.VMKzSNLF9X8)[/quote]
Got it now.
I also didn't stop to think about religious settings. I wasn't 21 when I had my First Communion!
Not every state allows underage drinking for religious purposes. That said, I think they would have a difficult time prosecuting anyone under such law, unless they could prove neglect or abuse or some other damage caused to the minor.
I know where I was growing up, the law was that someone under 19 could not drink in a public place, and could only drink in a private place if provided by a parent or guardian. That said, I enjoyed a drink with dinner from time to time at home well before my 19th birthday.
Strict prohibition almost never works, and historically, tends to make things worse.
Was able to buy beer at 9. You got the money, you got the goods. Legal age was 18. Loosely enforced...
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 23, 2015, 10:18:52 PM
Was able to buy beer at 9. You got the money, you got the goods. Legal age was 18. Loosely enforced...
OK, smart-ass - where did you live when you were nine? >:D
I remember my one cadet encampment where we returned from our day to find a line of beer cans in the dorms -- found by the seniors during the day....
Quote from: SarDragon on January 23, 2015, 10:40:59 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 23, 2015, 10:18:52 PM
Was able to buy beer at 9. You got the money, you got the goods. Legal age was 18. Loosely enforced...
OK, smart-ass - where did you live when you were nine? >:D
Latvia post Soviet collapse.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 23, 2015, 11:25:09 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on January 23, 2015, 10:40:59 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 23, 2015, 10:18:52 PM
Was able to buy beer at 9. You got the money, you got the goods. Legal age was 18. Loosely enforced...
OK, smart-ass - where did you live when you were nine? >:D
Latvia post Soviet collapse.
You just had to ask, didn't you!
Quote from: flyboy53 on January 23, 2015, 11:32:22 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 23, 2015, 11:25:09 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on January 23, 2015, 10:40:59 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 23, 2015, 10:18:52 PM
Was able to buy beer at 9. You got the money, you got the goods. Legal age was 18. Loosely enforced...
OK, smart-ass - where did you live when you were nine? >:D
Latvia post Soviet collapse.
You just had to ask, didn't you!
It wasn't any better in 2007 when I was there last time. Nor is it any better now.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 23, 2015, 09:32:02 PM
Not every state allows underage drinking for religious purposes. That said, I think they would have a difficult time prosecuting anyone under such law, unless they could prove neglect or abuse or some other damage caused to the minor.
Point taken, but I would really doubt that the police in those states would be interested in prosecuting someone under 21 going to the altar rail and taking either a small cup of wine or being communed from a common cup (we do both).
My former, now-retired pastor was a lawyer in a previous life. I had a pretty lengthy discussion with him about it. He said that when he would take the Sacrament into correctional institutions, he would sometimes get some grief from the officials, until he would give them a rundown on how the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment does not stop at the gates of a prison.
Quote from: CyBorg on January 24, 2015, 12:34:11 AMI had a pretty lengthy discussion with him about it. He said that when he would take the Sacrament into correctional institutions, he would sometimes get some grief from the officials, until he would give them a rundown on how the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment does not stop at the gates of a prison.
The Rastas would probably disagree.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 24, 2015, 12:40:24 AM
Quote from: CyBorg on January 24, 2015, 12:34:11 AMI had a pretty lengthy discussion with him about it. He said that when he would take the Sacrament into correctional institutions, he would sometimes get some grief from the officials, until he would give them a rundown on how the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment does not stop at the gates of a prison.
The Rastas would probably disagree.
Good point, but their sacrament is still largely illegal anyway, though that is changing.
I believe exceptions can be made for Native Americans using peyote sacramentally.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 23, 2015, 11:25:09 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on January 23, 2015, 10:40:59 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 23, 2015, 10:18:52 PM
Was able to buy beer at 9. You got the money, you got the goods. Legal age was 18. Loosely enforced...
OK, smart-ass - where did you live when you were nine? >:D
Latvia post Soviet collapse.
Great, I thought you were going to say Toms River, NJ. ;)
Quote from: Private Investigator on January 26, 2015, 01:15:30 AM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 23, 2015, 11:25:09 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on January 23, 2015, 10:40:59 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 23, 2015, 10:18:52 PM
Was able to buy beer at 9. You got the money, you got the goods. Legal age was 18. Loosely enforced...
OK, smart-ass - where did you live when you were nine? >:D
Latvia post Soviet collapse.
Great, I thought you were going to say Toms River, NJ. ;)
;D I used to live right next door.
Quote from: SarDragon on January 26, 2015, 05:07:27 AM
Quote from: Private Investigator on January 26, 2015, 01:15:30 AM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 23, 2015, 11:25:09 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on January 23, 2015, 10:40:59 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 23, 2015, 10:18:52 PM
Was able to buy beer at 9. You got the money, you got the goods. Legal age was 18. Loosely enforced...
OK, smart-ass - where did you live when you were nine? >:D
Latvia post Soviet collapse.
Great, I thought you were going to say Toms River, NJ. ;)
;D I used to live right next door.
Dave all I can say is, "what a place!" >:D
I love all this willingness to forgive. One of my reasons for rethinking CAP and its place in disaster response participation is this happy clappy willingness to overlook basic moral issues on cadets and seniors. I especially do not happy face on when called by the authorities to pickup passed out members.
Quote from: Cherokeepilot on January 27, 2015, 06:43:27 AM
I love all this willingness to forgive. One of my reasons for rethinking CAP and its place in disaster response participation is this happy clappy willingness to overlook basic moral issues on cadets and seniors. I especially do not happy face on when called by the authorities to pickup passed out members.
Having been on both sides of that situation when I was younger, I can see your point. However, the cadet in question has been counseled about his (apparently one time) behaviour, and has been allowed to continue participation. Is he not entitled to that, especially since it appears to be a "no harm, no foul" occurrence?
This is 'Murica, with all of our modest, prudish, moral values. No.
Quote from: SarDragon on January 27, 2015, 07:24:57 AMit appears to be a "no harm, no foul" occurrence?
Being busted for underage drinking which results in a misdemeanor conviction is hardly "no harm no foul".
It some cases it could be career-ending (or more likely "career not-starting").
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 27, 2015, 02:41:52 PM
This is 'Murica, with all of our modest, prudish, moral values. No.
Whether something
should be legal, doesn't change whether things
are legal.
That nuance is lost on a lot of people, including many politicians.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 27, 2015, 03:14:28 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on January 27, 2015, 07:24:57 AMit appears to be a "no harm, no foul" occurrence?
Being busted for underage drinking which results in a misdemeanor conviction is hardly "no harm no foul".
It some cases it could be career-ending (or more likely "career not-starting").
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 27, 2015, 02:41:52 PM
This is 'Murica, with all of our modest, prudish, moral values. No.
Whether something should be legal, doesn't change whether things are legal.
That nuance is lost on a lot of people, including many politicians.
I'm not arguing for the change in the law, simply stating that I've driven through a red, and maybe even rolled a stop sign once or twice in my life.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 27, 2015, 03:23:10 PM
I'm not arguing for the change in the law, simply stating that I've driven through a red, and maybe even rolled a stop sign once or twice in my life.
Who hasn't?
The reason you get a ticket for it is because those behaviors are inherently dangerous and potentially lethal.
Just like underage drinking.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 27, 2015, 03:31:02 PM
Just like underage drinking.
I don't see anyone submitting a 2B over a SM blowing though a red.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 27, 2015, 03:33:25 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 27, 2015, 03:32:00 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 27, 2015, 03:31:02 PM
Just like underage drinking.
I don't see anyone submitting a 2B over a SM blowing though a red.
Come on...
I get that you (and everyone else) think it's "apples and oranges". So do I.
My point is that everyone makes mistakes, especially teenagers.
Look at the numbers.
According to the CDC 12-20 year olds consume 11% of Alcohol in the US. But because of the laws, it comes and goes in waves, thus 90% is consumed in the form of Binge drinking.
4300 annual deaths are alcohol related among the group and 189,000 ER visits are directly or indirectly related to alcohol use.
A 2013 survey said that 35% drank at least some alcohol with 30 days.
Another survey reported 28% of 8th graders and 68% of 12th graders have at least tried alcohol. 10% of 8th and 39% of 12th drank within the previous month.
Even the latest studies apparently point to 25 as being the age where the judgement centers of the brain are not fully formed, and alcohol does damage to exactly that part (not just the "drunk" itself, on a biological/development level). But this country has picked (for better or worse) the age of 21 as the magical number.
But I'm more interested in the numbers, and not a policy debate.
If 35% drank within the last month, and 68% have tried it, that means that, at least in theory, 1/3 of our cadets have tasted alcohol within the last 30 days, and 7 out of 10 have tried it. So do we get rid of them?
When I was a new Senior Member, one of our college cadets came back for a visit. Before leaving the meeting, some of the older cadets (17+) who knew him well were outside talking with him, and this being around the winter break season, seemed to forget that I'm no longer a cadet, but a SM 1st Lt. Once the words were out, they realized their mistake (what was that part about judgement?). These are good cadets, good kids. All of the ones present went on to colleges, some to military flavored/academies. All are doing good in school. I told them the party line - you shouldn't do it, it's an integrity issue, it's a health issue, it's a legal issue. I also told them, that if they find themselves in that situation, to at least be safe, not over do it, and please please please do not drive, but stay the night or call someone. I think the statistics speak for themselves, and much like abstinence sex education, what sounds good in theory, just creates a problem for teens due to a lack of knowledge of the reality.
If this were an ongoing issue, which leads to behavior problems, poor grades, poor attendance, etc., this issue would need to be discussed with some serious thoughts about termination. But if it's a youthful mistake, one that hopefully won't be repeated? Why would we penalize a kid and kick them out?
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 27, 2015, 03:53:00 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 27, 2015, 03:33:25 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 27, 2015, 03:32:00 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 27, 2015, 03:31:02 PM
Just like underage drinking.
I don't see anyone submitting a 2B over a SM blowing though a red.
Come on...
My point is that everyone makes mistakes, especially teenagers.
I understand what you're saying (and believe this incident has already been handled), but not all "mistakes" are created equal. Some mistakes have consequences that live with you for the rest of your life. We need to be teaching our youth that, so they don't learn this lesson the hard way.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 27, 2015, 04:34:40 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 27, 2015, 03:53:00 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 27, 2015, 03:33:25 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 27, 2015, 03:32:00 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 27, 2015, 03:31:02 PM
Just like underage drinking.
I don't see anyone submitting a 2B over a SM blowing though a red.
Come on...
My point is that everyone makes mistakes, especially teenagers.
I understand what you're saying (and believe this incident has already been handled), but not all "mistakes" are created equal. Some mistakes have consequences that live with you for the rest of your life. We need to be teaching our youth that, so they don't learn this lesson the hard way.
Which, presumably, is why the teen was counseled.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 27, 2015, 03:14:28 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on January 27, 2015, 07:24:57 AMit appears to be a "no harm, no foul" occurrence?
Being busted for underage drinking which results in a misdemeanor conviction is hardly "no harm no foul".
It some cases it could be career-ending (or more likely "career not-starting").
He got busted. He served his sentence for an instance of bad judgement. Nobody got hurt; there was no property damage. If it's treated as a juvie offense, then it likely won't go on to haunt him. That's what I meant by "no harm no foul". We don't really know enough about the details to say more than that.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 27, 2015, 02:41:52 PM
This is 'Murica, with all of our modest, prudish, moral values. No.
If "'Murica's" values bother you so much, there are plenty of "progressive" utopias you can move to. Some of them even have 57 states, maybe even 59, depending on which president is counting...
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 28, 2015, 01:18:20 AM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 27, 2015, 02:41:52 PM
This is 'Murica, with all of our modest, prudish, moral values. No.
If "'Murica's" values bother you so much, there are plenty of "progressive" utopias you can move to. Some of them even have 57 states, maybe even 59, depending on which president is counting...
Your political spectrum is bleeding through. My way or the highway is a nice view except when most of the country doesn't agree.
Where does this goofy "Murica" thing come from?
Quote from: Flying Pig on January 28, 2015, 11:23:59 AM
Where does this goofy "Murica" thing come from?
Meme's. Common usage now is a sarcastic positive.
Quote from: Flying Pig on January 28, 2015, 11:23:59 AM
Where does this goofy "Murica" thing come from?
As with all goofy things these days, the internet.
Quote from: Flying Pig on January 28, 2015, 11:23:59 AM
Where does this goofy "Murica" thing come from?
In 2003 when it was used to mock rednecks and extreme patriotism. Just think of a "stereotypical" redneck and how they would say America in the phrase "if you don't like America, then get out". It took a number of years to really catch on though. I think it became a household word in ~2010-2011.
Ive seen it around... I guess working night shift doing something useful has kept me out of the slang loop >:D
Quote from: LSThiker on January 28, 2015, 03:19:14 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on January 28, 2015, 11:23:59 AM
Where does this goofy "Murica" thing come from?
In 2003 when it was used to mock rednecks and extreme patriotism. Just think of a "stereotypical" redneck and how they would say America in the phrase "if you don't like America, then get out". It took a number of years to really catch on though. I think it became a household word in ~2010-2011.
Yep, those are the roots.
It can certainly be used at times as a "positive". As in "The US consumes the most beef per capita", and someone responds with the "original" "redneck" 'Murica! But lately, outside of the positive, it is used to mock the jingoism.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/murica (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/murica)
And some are actually quite funny:
(http://i.imgur.com/xUiI0.png)
I'd say Trey Parker and Matt Stone helped with "Team America: World Police".
Also, in parts of North Carolina, they pronounce it Amurica, so I think it's been shortened. I've heard Brits use another appellation, 'merkin, not to be confused with a popular....hair product not for the head.
I love when Brits throw around "colonist/colonial".
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 28, 2015, 07:02:33 AM
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 28, 2015, 01:18:20 AM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 27, 2015, 02:41:52 PM
This is 'Murica, with all of our modest, prudish, moral values. No.
If "'Murica's" values bother you so much, there are plenty of "progressive" utopias you can move to. Some of them even have 57 states, maybe even 59, depending on which president is counting...
Your political spectrum is bleeding through. My way or the highway is a nice view except when most of the country doesn't agree.
"Kettle, this is Pot. You're black, over."
Most of the country doesn't agree with moral values? :-\
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 29, 2015, 02:00:11 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 28, 2015, 07:02:33 AM
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 28, 2015, 01:18:20 AM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 27, 2015, 02:41:52 PM
This is 'Murica, with all of our modest, prudish, moral values. No.
If "'Murica's" values bother you so much, there are plenty of "progressive" utopias you can move to. Some of them even have 57 states, maybe even 59, depending on which president is counting...
Your political spectrum is bleeding through. My way or the highway is a nice view except when most of the country doesn't agree.
"Kettle, this is Pot. You're black, over."
Most of the country doesn't agree with moral values? :-\
Making my point. Grey =/= Black.
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 29, 2015, 02:00:11 PM
Most of the country doesn't agree with moral values?
Everyone agrees with "Moral Values", mostly because here's lots to choose from!
Quote from: Eclipse on January 29, 2015, 02:44:46 PM
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 29, 2015, 02:00:11 PM
Most of the country doesn't agree with moral values?
Everyone agrees with "Moral Values", mostly because here's lots to choose from!
And for the record, in most cultures, drinking alcohol has nothing at all to do with morality. Even then, simply because something is illegal does not, by any stretch, make it immoral--in exactly the same sense that just because something is legal, that it is, thus, moral.
BTW, I believe a "federal" (debate that if you must, but for all intents and purposes it is) legal drinking age of 21 is absolutely stupid and
wrong. Impaired driving aside (which should also remain solely a State issue), enacting a law prohibiting an 18-year-old from drinking alcohol within the confines of the very country for which he can be forcibly compelled to give his life defending, is the true immorality.
If a
parent is okay with allowing his 15-y/o to have a glass of wine or beer with her dinner (particularly within the confines of a private residence!), it's absolutely none of the nanny-state government's [darn] business.
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 29, 2015, 08:54:11 PMenacting a law prohibiting an 18-year-old from drinking alcohol within the confines of the very country for which he can be forcibly compelled to give his life defending, is the true immorality.
Agreed. Which country is that?
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 29, 2015, 08:54:11 PM
If a parent is okay with allowing his 15-y/o to have a glass of wine or beer with her dinner (particularly within the confines of a private residence!), it's absolutely none of the nanny-state government's [darn] business.
Not all parents are created equal, either. Common sense,
isn't.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 29, 2015, 09:00:08 PM
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 29, 2015, 08:54:11 PMenacting a law prohibiting an 18-year-old from drinking alcohol within the confines of the very country for which he can be forcibly compelled to give his life defending, is the true immorality.
Agreed. Which country is that?
Our beloved US of A. Any state or locality that has a minimum legal drinking age of 21 imposes that injustice on all 18-y/o men who are required to register with the Selective Service System.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 29, 2015, 09:00:08 PM
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 29, 2015, 08:54:11 PM
If a parent is okay with allowing his 15-y/o to have a glass of wine or beer with her dinner (particularly within the confines of a private residence!), it's absolutely none of the nanny-state government's [darn] business.
Not all parents are created equal, either. Common sense, isn't.
I agree completely, but I also believe most parents are better suited to raise their own children than the gubmint is. Just because there are incompetent parents does not mean we need a nanny state imposing laws intended for the lowest-common-denominator on the rest of us.
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 29, 2015, 09:29:43 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 29, 2015, 09:00:08 PM
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 29, 2015, 08:54:11 PMenacting a law prohibiting an 18-year-old from drinking alcohol within the confines of the very country for which he can be forcibly compelled to give his life defending, is the true immorality.
Agreed. Which country is that?
Our beloved US of A. Any state or locality that has a minimum legal drinking age of 21 imposes that injustice on all 18-y/o men who are required to register with the Selective Service System.
Registering for selective service is the same as being compelled to serve, and if the military thought it was a good idea for their
people to drink, they could change the drinking age on base any time they wanted to, but they don't, for very good reason.
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 29, 2015, 09:29:43 PM
I agree completely, but I also believe most parents are better suited to raise their own children than the gubmint is. Just because there are incompetent parents does not mean we need a nanny state imposing laws intended for the lowest-common-denominator on the rest of us.
LCD is pretty much the only reason to >have< laws in the first place.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 29, 2015, 09:51:07 PM
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 29, 2015, 09:29:43 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 29, 2015, 09:00:08 PM
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 29, 2015, 08:54:11 PMenacting a law prohibiting an 18-year-old from drinking alcohol within the confines of the very country for which he can be forcibly compelled to give his life defending, is the true immorality.
Agreed. Which country is that?
Our beloved US of A. Any state or locality that has a minimum legal drinking age of 21 imposes that injustice on all 18-y/o men who are required to register with the Selective Service System.
Registering for selective service is the same as being compelled to serve, and if the military thought it was a good idea for their
people to drink, they could change the drinking age on base any time they wanted to, but they don't, for very good reason.
No, actually they cannot. Unless they are within 50 miles of the Canadian or Mexican border.
10 U.S. Code § 2683
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2683 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2683)
Legal trivia.
DUI laws are indeed creatures of state law. As are "possession and consumption by minors" laws.
The Federal aspect begins and ends with The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 (23 USC 158) which "merely" punishes states that do set their public possession and drinking laws at age 21 by reducing their Federal Highway funds by 10%. The federal law does not mandate any specific ages for private possession or consumption.
State laws vary considerably in that area. In California, at least, it is not unlawful for a minor to possess or consume alcohol in a private residence or during a religious ceremony. YMMV.
And although we have discussed it before, the drinking age is just one of a large group of age-related restrictions in federal and state law. There are widely varying state laws that govern when someone can consent to sexual activities, gamble, buy a firearm, marry without permission, possess tobacco, get a drivers' license, consent to certain kinds of medical treatment, etc.
And of course, the age of majority (generally defined as the age at which a child assumes control and responsibility over their persons, actions, and decisions) is 18 in most -- but not all -- states. The voting age is generally fixed at age 18.
There are even age-related restrictions found in the US Constitution (minimum ages for Representative, Senator, and President.)
Many businesses set minimum ages for certain transactions. Try to rent a car before age 25, for instance.
It does seem like a veritable hodgepodge of age restrictions when viewed from 20,000 feet. But the majority of the restrictions were enacted by local politicians responding to local concerns.
Anyway, fun legal trivia.
Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer
Quote from: Eclipse on January 29, 2015, 09:52:20 PM
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 29, 2015, 09:29:43 PM
I agree completely, but I also believe most parents are better suited to raise their own children than the gubmint is. Just because there are incompetent parents does not mean we need a nanny state imposing laws intended for the lowest-common-denominator on the rest of us.
LCD is pretty much the only reason to >have< laws in the first place.
Once again you are wise beyond your years ;), and though I know it's hyperbole, I agree with you. However, when laws that are intended to prevent the LCD from harming themselves are imposed on
all of us is where I bristle.
There are stupid people in this world. Provided there's not an overwhelming risk of them hurting innocent uninvolveds, sometimes you just have to
let them be stupid and learn for themselves (or not).
Quote from: Eclipse on January 29, 2015, 09:51:07 PM
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 29, 2015, 09:29:43 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 29, 2015, 09:00:08 PM
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 29, 2015, 08:54:11 PMenacting a law prohibiting an 18-year-old from drinking alcohol within the confines of the very country for which he can be forcibly compelled to give his life defending, is the true immorality.
Agreed. Which country is that?
Our beloved US of A. Any state or locality that has a minimum legal drinking age of 21 imposes that injustice on all 18-y/o men who are required to register with the Selective Service System.
Registering for selective service is the same as being compelled to serve, and if the military thought it was a good idea for their
people to drink, they could change the drinking age on base any time they wanted to, but they don't, for very good reason.
I think we're talking past each other here. But,
any 18-y/o man (particularly those who have fulfilled their
legal obligation and registered with SSS),
even if not in the military, should not, repeat not, be legally prohibited from consuming a substance that is otherwise legal for anyone of an older age. To be clear, I am saying that if an 18-y/o high-school dropout who has registered with SSS and is thus eligible to be forcibly drafted into the service of his nation, the government,
any government, has no moral right to prohibit him from consuming alcohol at any time or place of his choosing (ok, not while driving, flying, etc.). Assuming he still lives with his parents, they of course have the prerogative to allow or disallow whatever they want under their roof, but the government, no way.
Quote from: Ned on January 29, 2015, 10:08:51 PM
Ned's legal trivia...
Copy all, and I agree the situation is how you describe it. Whether all of those items, particularly the governmental ones,
should be that way is a different question. One of our biggest problems as a society is that parents, teachers, mentors, etc. ("it takes a village," right?), have abdicated too much of their roles in guiding our youth as to what is right or wrong, acceptable or not. Instead, we've deferred those parenting and guiding functions to an over-reaching government, who "altruistically" or not has its fingers way, way too deep in our personal lives. [/rant]
On the other hand, I also believe it is CAP's right as an organization to prescribe standards and conditions for membership, and if cadets not drinking alcohol is a condition CAP believes is important, I think they have the right to enforce that regardless of what a parent may allow in the privacy of their own home, even if I as a parent disagree with that wholeheartedly. Except when it comes to not making an accomodation/exemption for religious reasons...
Going by the quoted reg above, CAP makes no provision for the allowance of alcohol consumption by cadets in religious practice. Given CAP's nature as an at-least-somewhat (not going down that rabbit hole in this thread) public/pseudo-governmentally-related-ish organization, to deny members of their free practice of religion is, at the least, problematic and could/should get CAP into some trouble if it's not changed. And I definitely believe they should change that.
There: World Peace. You're welcome.
Or....we can execute some common sense at the unit level and bother.
The purposes of regulations is good order and discipline, keeping our people safe, keeping our reputation safe, and being fair and equable where possible.
No provision for religious exception.......use your common sense.
Little Johnny got busted drinking at the prom.....use your common sense.
Little johnny gets busted drinking at the CAP meeting....use your common sense.
use your common sense....use the regulations......use your chain of command and peer network to find out what is the best course of action.
You talk about government hand holding.....but you want to replace it with CAP hand holding.
If Little Johnny is not right for CAP because of his actions.....then by all means 2b him.
But let's not say that everyone who has a drink under age needs to be 2b'ed.
We have to the tools to take action if we need to. But just becaus we got a sledge hammer does not mean we got to use it every time.....all the time. [/rant]
You can't fall back on "common sense" when you pull people off the street with no
relevent experience and put them in positions of authority.
CAP does not train it's commanders and staff to a level that imbues this mystical "sense",
and many of the average parents I deal with regularly certainly don't have it, or have it in
fits and starts.
"Common sense" is also relative, which means if you leave it up to the decision maker,
you can't complain later if one commander is imposing a zero-tolerance termination on
your favorite Spaatz cadet while the slackers in another unit get a "can't be bothered" pass.
You can train and vet people internally to a high consistent standard, and then expect them
to make consistent decisions, or you can define the situation tightly and expect people to
"read and heed", but you can't have it both ways and not expect issues.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 29, 2015, 11:47:51 PM
You can't fall back on "common sense" when you pull people off the street with no
relevent experience and put them in positions of authority.
It's a good thing we try not to do that.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 29, 2015, 11:48:36 PM
It's a good thing we try not to do that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ4yd2W50No# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ4yd2W50No#)
Quote from: Eclipse on January 29, 2015, 11:52:12 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 29, 2015, 11:48:36 PM
It's a good thing we try not to do that.
If it ever happens, let us know.
Well...they made you a commander.....are you saying you were not suited for the job?
Check
and
Mate
Quote from: lordmonar on January 29, 2015, 11:53:31 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 29, 2015, 11:52:12 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 29, 2015, 11:48:36 PM
It's a good thing we try not to do that.
If it ever happens, let us know.
Well...they made you a commander.....are you saying you were not suited for the job?
Assuming I was a good CC (there are those who would disagree), I had already been
in CAP 5 or 6 years, had been mentored by good (and bad) CCs and staff, and was commanding
a large cadet activity. I had also attended and presented at SLS and CLC, and had management
and teaching experience and training external to CAP. Hardly typical.
The random exception that proves the rule.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 29, 2015, 11:28:44 PM
Or....we can execute some common sense at the unit level and bother.
The purposes of regulations is good order and discipline, keeping our people safe, keeping our reputation safe, and being fair and equable where possible.
No provision for religious exception.......use your common sense.
Little Johnny got busted drinking at the prom.....use your common sense.
Little johnny gets busted drinking at the CAP meeting....use your common sense.
use your common sense....use the regulations......use your chain of command and peer network to find out what is the best course of action.
I wholeheartedly agree that we should both use (
un)common sense
and bother, whenever possible/appropriate and that your description of the purposes of regulations is reasonably stated. But CAP's regulations are clear (and, I believe, clearly in violation of the law vis-a-vis religious use) and using "common sense" is no excuse to ignore or disregard the regs. That particular reg needs to be fixed. ASAP if not sooner.
QuoteYou talk about government hand holding.....but you want to replace it with CAP hand holding.
You misunderstand: I absolutely
don't want to replace government hand holding with CAP hand holding. At all. I said I believe CAP
has a right, within certain parameters (i.e., to not discriminate against specific protected groups), to set its own conditions and standards for who is allowed to become/remain a CAP member--that is, CAP
has a right to freedom of association. I believe CAP has that right whether I agree with the particular standards and conditions CAP sets or not. (And I don't in this case.)
QuoteBut let's not say that everyone who has a drink under age needs to be 2b'ed.
I would never say that. I don't agree with doing so. Having been around the block a time or two, I fully believe a responsible introduction to alcohol during the teen years is a crucial life lesson. So, so much better to learn those lessons in a safe and controlled environment under the watchful eye of responsible parents or parent-trusted relatives/mentors than on one's own away from home with no "adult supervision," as many a college student does today. As a former cadet who certainly consumed my share of alcohol while at college and maybe (or maybe not, you can't
prove anything ;)) consumed alcohol while participating in a certain CAP NCSA (or two) far, far away from home, I disagree with CAP's cadet alcohol policies (don't even get me started on the current IACE prohibitions). But I still maintain CAP's
right to have those policies. Except for the lack of a religious accommodation. That's got lawsuit written all over it, if someone ever wanted to push that button.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 30, 2015, 12:39:15 AM
[Eclipse says he is] Hardly typical.
I think we can all agree on that! ;D
Quote from: Eclipse on January 30, 2015, 12:39:15 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 29, 2015, 11:53:31 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 29, 2015, 11:52:12 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 29, 2015, 11:48:36 PM
It's a good thing we try not to do that.
If it ever happens, let us know.
Well...they made you a commander.....are you saying you were not suited for the job?
Assuming I was a good CC (there are those who would disagree), I had already been
in CAP 5 or 6 years, had been mentored by good (and bad) CCs and staff, and was commanding
a large cadet activity. I had also attended and presented at SLS and CLC, and had management
and teaching experience and training external to CAP. Hardly typical.
The random exception that proves the rule.
In my experience.....that seems to be more of the pattern....not the exception. Do we have commanders thrown in without proper training.....yep we do.
But burdening us with more regulations is not the answer.
An inexperinced/incompetant leader is not any more likely to read and head it than anyone else.
Point being....CAP.....TRIES.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 30, 2015, 01:08:07 AM
Point being....CAP.....TRIES.
I wish I could agree wholeheartedly, but I can't. Other then the rhetoric about mentorship,
there is little culture of it, nor any formal development program or plan, in most cases
CCs are selected based as much on willingness and presence as any innate ability, and in
far too many cases, they are selected because there is no one else who will take the job.
You can't develop talent you don't have, and with a churn rate like CAP's, those who stick around
are too busy to mentor or develop, and the new guys aren't sticking around to be developed.
CAP today, at all levels, is mostly about station keeping, it's one of the core problems in CAP.
It's funny how some of this stuff works in CAP. Let me relate the story of Squadron A. This actually happened (and is happening) within the past year.
Squadron A was commanded for a very long time by the same commander. During 2014, it was decided that Old Commander had served long enough and it was time for some new blood. Consequently a search for the new commander was initiated. Two current squadron members were interested in the post: One was B who had just been promoted to the grade of Captain. Who has a son in the program, but who has never been in any position of management or authority in any of his previous experience, including military or work outside of CAP. He was close friends with Old Commander. The second one was Major C who was an officer in the military and professionally works as a manager in a very large organization. Looking at the two from the outside, there was no question that Major C was much more highly qualified and ready for the job than Captain B.
The ultimate decision made by Old Commander was to have Captain B take on the role.
Old Commander was not ready to release the reigns of command and even after the Change of Command ceremony kept coming back to the squadron meetings in uniform and provided "consulting" to New Commander. Eventually, Old Commander was told to back off and let New Commander establish themselves, and Old Commander grudgingly did (although they still show up at squadron meetings although no longer part of the squadron).
What is interesting about this scenario is that New Commander has realized very quickly that they are not really ready for the role they took on and has reached out to Major C and other Senior Members with management experience and asked for help. New Commander is being mentored by some of them outside of CAP and is quickly improving in his new role.
To avoid this kind of scenario in the future, New Commander has mandated mentoring for all new Senior Members starting from their orientation and going on in their Specialty Tracks and Qualifications. That squadron is now grooming future leaders in a very hands-on fashion and not just letting it "happen".
So, maybe there is hope?
Quote from: MacGruff on January 30, 2015, 03:25:25 PM
It's funny how some of this stuff works in CAP. Let me relate the story of Squadron A. This actually happened (and is happening) within the past year.
Squadron A was commanded for a very long time by the same commander. During 2014, it was decided that Old Commander had served long enough and it was time for some new blood. Consequently a search for the new commander was initiated. Two current squadron members were interested in the post: One was B who had just been promoted to the grade of Captain. Who has a son in the program, but who has never been in any position of management or authority in any of his previous experience, including military or work outside of CAP. He was close friends with Old Commander. The second one was Major C who was an officer in the military and professionally works as a manager in a very large organization. Looking at the two from the outside, there was no question that Major C was much more highly qualified and ready for the job than Captain B.
The ultimate decision made by Old Commander was to have Captain B take on the role.
Old Commander was not ready to release the reigns of command and even after the Change of Command ceremony kept coming back to the squadron meetings in uniform and provided "consulting" to New Commander. Eventually, Old Commander was told to back off and let New Commander establish themselves, and Old Commander grudgingly did (although they still show up at squadron meetings although no longer part of the squadron).
What is interesting about this scenario is that New Commander has realized very quickly that they are not really ready for the role they took on and has reached out to Major C and other Senior Members with management experience and asked for help. New Commander is being mentored by some of them outside of CAP and is quickly improving in his new role.
To avoid this kind of scenario in the future, New Commander has mandated mentoring for all new Senior Members starting from their orientation and going on in their Specialty Tracks and Qualifications. That squadron is now grooming future leaders in a very hands-on fashion and not just letting it "happen".
So, maybe there is hope?
There's a major fault right there.
It is the role of higher echelons to appoint commanders, not the role of the current commander to appoint their successor. Can they use whatever influence they have to recommend? Sure. But the
decision is not theirs to make.
I assume Group/Wing were involved, but in this case, the major influencer was Old Commander.
Quote from: MacGruff on January 30, 2015, 03:35:16 PM
I assume Group/Wing were involved, but in this case, the major influencer was Old Commander.
Big mistake, and an abdication by the next echelon.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 30, 2015, 03:42:42 PM
Quote from: MacGruff on January 30, 2015, 03:35:16 PM
I assume Group/Wing were involved, but in this case, the major influencer was Old Commander.
Big mistake, and an abdication by the next echelon.
Yea, the flags turned red when I heard that the old CC "picked" his successor.
Certainly commanders get to pick a person, and recommend them to the board, but not actually make it happen, unless higher HQ is disinterested.
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 29, 2015, 08:54:11 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 29, 2015, 02:44:46 PM
Quote from: Nuke52 on January 29, 2015, 02:00:11 PM
Most of the country doesn't agree with moral values?
Everyone agrees with "Moral Values", mostly because here's lots to choose from!
And for the record, in most cultures, drinking alcohol has nothing at all to do with morality. Even then, simply because something is illegal does not, by any stretch, make it immoral--in exactly the same sense that just because something is legal, that it is, thus, moral.
BTW, I believe a "federal" (debate that if you must, but for all intents and purposes it is) legal drinking age of 21 is absolutely stupid and wrong. Impaired driving aside (which should also remain solely a State issue), enacting a law prohibiting an 18-year-old from drinking alcohol within the confines of the very country for which he can be forcibly compelled to give his life defending, is the true immorality.
If a parent is okay with allowing his 15-y/o to have a glass of wine or beer with her dinner (particularly within the confines of a private residence!), it's absolutely none of the nanny-state government's [darn] business.
That's true in my state, and I think that's the way it should be. If I am okay with my <21 year old to have a glass of wine on the Sabbath, or at Passover, I should be able to. If CAP feels that such behavior is contrary to their membership ideals, then by all means CAP should put that in the rules and kick those people out. Why we are still debating it, when the matter with the cadet has obviously been settled to the satisfaction of the law, and his local unit is what I dont understand
Quote from: Alaric on January 30, 2015, 07:01:42 PM
That's true in my state, and I think that's the way it should be. If I am okay with my <21 year old to have a glass of wine on the Sabbath, or at Passover, I should be able to. If CAP feels that such behavior is contrary to their membership ideals, then by all means CAP should put that in the rules and kick those people out.
Why we are still debating it, when the matter with the cadet has obviously been settled to the satisfaction of the law, and his local unit is what I dont understand
Because this is CAP Talk--it's what we do! (Well, that and turn everything into a uniform thread...). And admit it: if you had anything better to do right now, you'd be doing it instead of posting here! :P
This is an old thread but keep in mind in some areas the powers that be are very aggressive as far as charging teens. Juvenile justice is big business here and there is a lot of nepotism as far as who gets contracts and jobs. I see teens with so many (ridiculous IMO) charges while on the other hand they seem to be hesitant to charge adults unless they already have a record. I'm not sympathetic to thugs or kids who are really up to no good like shoplifting or drugs. Entering a kid into the system because of a pocket knife (after camping that weekend) at school or being out after curfew seems too far reaching. Then they tack on more charges for things like using profanity when they are confronted.
I agree 100% There are A LOT of services battling for funds. There are times I feel like juveniles are pushed in simply for numbers. Years ago I had a girl I was dealing with as a cop who had some behavioral issues. Im sure it had nothing to do with mom being single living in a run down HUD complex with no dad.... But I swear, juvenile probation messed this kid up. There was absolutely ZERO tolerance for any mistakes that it really set her up for failure to the point where even I thought to myself "I would just quite and go to juvi and do my time." Social workers afraid to make any decision except for "Get in the car... back to Juvi." Ive seen a few kids make legit mistakes who actually had goals in life. And after the punishment really lost all hope at ever climbing out of the hole.
Give the kid a chance. I know of several individuals in the past who were rebels and mischievous as teens, who ended up being real leaders.
I successfully fought a 2b myself. The losing unit tried to slap me with the form for insubordination and lying (CAP Core Values and Reg 1-1, they tried throwing the ethics reg in there too) I had evidence that said I wasn't lying, I had evidence that supported I told the truth, they didn't have ANY whatsoever. While the discussion got heated, in the end, my Wing King got involved (he would have anyways, approving authority as it was my local squadron who tried to pull this), because I had every single commander in my area and MOST wing staff vouching for me as they've seen my work ethic and my professionalism, and how I perform at SAREXes and the like. He decided it was in the best interests of the wing and program to keep me in. As NIN mentioned in page one however, not only was the commander ordered to let the transfer go (I tried transferring out of Unit A which was what started this whole situation in the first place, they accused me of running away from a problem, it was an open and shut thing in reality) but I took a 2 grade demotion at the time (which was then an C/A1C, I was a SSgt at the time I was suspended due to the 2B per regulations).
Termination should always be a last resort. When everything else has been exhausted. When the counseling and such doesn't work, THEN you should try 2B'ing. and I say "try 2B'ing" only for the mere fact that the cadet has the RIGHT to appeal, just like I did. But it's not easy fighting an appeal, I don't think most will do it. I only did it because I knew I could fight it, I had evidence and supporting documents and I knew Unit A was in the wrong.
Quote from: Shieldel on June 29, 2015, 12:20:43 AM
I successfully fought a 2b myself. The losing unit tried to slap me with the form for insubordination and lying (CAP Core Values and Reg 1-1, they tried throwing the ethics reg in there too) I had evidence that said I wasn't lying, I had evidence that supported I told the truth, they didn't have ANY whatsoever. While the discussion got heated, in the end, my Wing King got involved (he would have anyways, approving authority as it was my local squadron who tried to pull this), because I had every single commander in my area and MOST wing staff vouching for me as they've seen my work ethic and my professionalism, and how I perform at SAREXes and the like. He decided it was in the best interests of the wing and program to keep me in. As NIN mentioned in page one however, not only was the commander ordered to let the transfer go (I tried transferring out of Unit A which was what started this whole situation in the first place, they accused me of running away from a problem, it was an open and shut thing in reality) but I took a 2 grade demotion at the time (which was then an C/A1C, I was a SSgt at the time I was suspended due to the 2B per regulations).
Termination should always be a last resort. When everything else has been exhausted. When the counseling and such doesn't work, THEN you should try 2B'ing. and I say "try 2B'ing" only for the mere fact that the cadet has the RIGHT to appeal, just like I did. But it's not easy fighting an appeal, I don't think most will do it. I only did it because I knew I could fight it, I had evidence and supporting documents and I knew Unit A was in the wrong.
I have been watching this thread from a distance for quite some time now, but this is the first time I've posted on it.
For the alcohol misdemeanor, I am hesitant to 2b the guy without looking back. However, from a cadet 's perspective, I'm not sure I would want him around. I feel that if I let him go without a 2b, it would set a bad example to the other cadets. In this instance, I think that demotion with set counseling would be ok, or at least in the ballpark.
I think that Shieldel right to an extent. 2b is a last resort. However, in his instance, he had evidence to support his cause.
It boils down to how much promise this particular cadet has, and what his attitude is. If he has potential and has a positive attitude, I think punishment to put him on the right track again would be fine. If the cadet had a record of being disruptive, has a negative attitude, and had not responded well to counseling before, a 2b would be fine IMHO. Not much of a defense can be put up to face an alcohol misdemeanor. I think a 2b would be upheld in this case.
Any thoughts about my post would be great. Always looking to learn.
EDIT: Phrasing
Quote from: Shieldel on June 29, 2015, 12:20:43 AM
Termination should always be a last resort. When everything else has been exhausted. When the counseling and such doesn't work, THEN you should try 2B'ing. and I say "try 2B'ing" only for the mere fact that the cadet has the RIGHT to appeal, just like I did. But it's not easy fighting an appeal, I don't think most will do it. I only did it because I knew I could fight it, I had evidence and supporting documents and I knew Unit A was in the wrong.
Concur with a 2B as the absolute last resord.
Non-concur on "try 2Bing". If your reasoning for termination is not rock-solid, you shouldn't "try" it. Your example is why...you were suspended pending appeal, and I'll bet you spent a metric-ton of time messing with your appeal that you could have poured into the program, for a shaky case.
If it gets to the point of a 2B, the commander should have a stack of documentation justifying the action a foot thick, and an appeal will be a formality because of it.
The fact that a commander can 2B without that level of documentation is why there needs to remain a robust appeals process.
Cadet Kiss,
First, I would say that an "automatic" 2B for an alcohol misdemeanor without additional factors at play would be something that I would advise a cadet to appeal, and such an appeal should be successful, and here's why:
The termination regulations, specifically the ones about members ineligible to be senior members, calls out felony convictions. By, presumably, purposefully excluding misdemeanors from the list of infractions that are automatic denials of membership, CAP HQ has, implicitly, stated that a misdemeanor on its own is insufficient grounds to exclude someone. As such, were a commander to 2B a cadet for solely that reason, with no other justification, it would be a pretty straightforward argument that the commander exceeded his authority and the directives of higher headquarters.
That said, misdemeanor + an incident of insubordination, or any other disciplinary matter, change the equation entirely.
I would also like to add for the record (just for this conversation, as clarification) I did not drink, I was accused of lying and insubordination and such as mentioned in my reply
Agreed with C/Kiss
I was squeaky clean until this incident (my 2B) therefore because people knew my performance and they knew I busted my butt, I was allowed to stay in the program.
JeffDG sir,
On your non-concur: yes the seniors who 2B'ed me had a "shaky" case, with the evidence I had the case was thrown out. I had supporting documents, they just had their reports with nothing to support them with.
If it gets to a 2B: I myself concur with that statement.
Level of documentation: I concur there as well.
On your reply to C/Kiss:
Agreed wholeheartedly with insufficient grounds to exclude someone (very nice point to make might I add) and agree with the authority exceeded statement as well
1000% +1 on your very last statement regarding the equation being changed.
As a side note this is how I was taught to speak while in speech and debate: I respond through organized bullets
To JeffDG: Hmmmm. I see your point. Haven't really gone over to many of the termination regs. Just going with my gut, which isn't always the best thing to do. ;) An alcohol misdemeanor would be grounds for demotion, would it not?
The use of alcohol violates the zero tolerance policy for cadets. And I can't get into the ternination reg but there are instances where membership can be terminated and there is no appeal.
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 29, 2015, 03:10:30 AM
The use of alcohol violates the zero tolerance policy for cadets. And I can't get into the ternination reg but there are instances where membership can be terminated and there is no appeal.
Just out if curiosity, where could I find this policy? I was holding a class on leadership when the issue of smoking came up. I asked "what would your opinion be of a leader who smoked or did drugs?" One cadet cleverly answered "we'll, isn't that a personal choice?" It caught me off guard, as I didn't have a specific regs to back it up. I want to clarify this, for my personal education and for the rest of the cadets.
Thanks, and don't let me distract anyone from hr rest of this thread. ;)
Check 52-16. I'm about 90% sure there is a blurb in there about smoking, drugs and alcohol.
Quote from: CAPR 52-16c. Alcohol & Recreational Drugs. Cadets will not possess alcohol nor use any drugs that are prohibited under federal law, even if local law permits their use. Further, tobacco products and e- cigarettes are prohibited for cadets at CAP activities.
Nothing in there states a zero tolerance.
It's implied. Plus CAPR35-3 says a cadet maybe terminated for not obeying regulations. Cadets may only appeal a 2b if the 2b is for cause or misconduct.
Without going back through a few hundred posts.... did we ever get an outcome update?
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 29, 2015, 04:29:37 AM
It's implied. Plus CAPR35-3 says a cadet maybe terminated for not obeying regulations. Cadets may only appeal a 2b if the 2b is for cause or misconduct.
Implied? No. Command decision? Yes.
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 29, 2015, 04:29:37 AM
It's implied. Plus CAPR35-3 says a cadet maybe terminated for not obeying regulations.
So, if a cadet shows up with the name tape on his BDU slightly askew, 2b? Because that cadet is "not obeying regulations".
Nametape askew and use of unlawful substances are apples and oranges.
Quote from: C/Maj Kiss on June 29, 2015, 02:30:29 AM
To JeffDG: Hmmmm. I see your point. Haven't really gone over to many of the termination regs. Just going with my gut, which isn't always the best thing to do. ;) An alcohol misdemeanor would be grounds for demotion, would it not?
Honestly, if it's unconnected with CAP activities, and the member doesn't act inappropriately around CAP members, what business is it of CAP's?
Regulations do not require it to be reported, it's not an exclusionary criteria for membership.
Quote from: LSThiker on June 29, 2015, 01:33:28 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 29, 2015, 04:29:37 AM
It's implied. Plus CAPR35-3 says a cadet maybe terminated for not obeying regulations. Cadets may only appeal a 2b if the 2b is for cause or misconduct.
Implied? No. Command decision? Yes.
To me its implied at CAP events, but no where else. If a cadet has a glass of wine at dinner, with his parents permission in a state where it is allowed, don't see how CAP gets involved
Quote from: JeffDG on June 29, 2015, 01:52:28 PM
Quote from: C/Maj Kiss on June 29, 2015, 02:30:29 AM
To JeffDG: Hmmmm. I see your point. Haven't really gone over to many of the termination regs. Just going with my gut, which isn't always the best thing to do. ;) An alcohol misdemeanor would be grounds for demotion, would it not?
Honestly, if it's unconnected with CAP activities, and the member doesn't act inappropriately around CAP members, what business is it of CAP's?
Regulations do not require it to be reported, it's not an exclusionary criteria for membership.
Agree. However once reported it's a different story. 52-16 says cadets cannot touch it.
35-3 defines not obeying rgulations as misconduct and grounds for termination. So if Cadet Snuffy gets repirted for drinking he/she is violating 52-16. Does this mean automatic termination no but can used as grounds for it.
So here's something for you what if the state defines alcohol possesion and consumptiom by a minor to be a felony then what?
Zero tolerance for use, possesion and consumption of illicit/illegal substances is implied within 52-16. And let's be honest to many teenagers want to make adult decisions without the adult consequences.
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 12:23:55 AM
Agree. However once reported it's a different story. 52-16 says cadets cannot touch it.
Why, exactly, do you think that 52-16 applies to a member's conduct outside of CAP?
By the standard you expose, we cannot have Catholic cadets, because wine is an integral part of their communion. Many other denominations as well.
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 12:30:04 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 12:23:55 AM
Agree. However once reported it's a different story. 52-16 says cadets cannot touch it.
Why, exactly, do you think that 52-16 applies to a member's conduct outside of CAP?
By the standard you expose, we cannot have Catholic cadets, because wine is an integral part of their communion. Many other denominations as well.
Not my standard it's the orgs. But by your own statements I guess you're encouraging ubderage drinking and illicit drug use.
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 12:38:17 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 12:30:04 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 12:23:55 AM
Agree. However once reported it's a different story. 52-16 says cadets cannot touch it.
Why, exactly, do you think that 52-16 applies to a member's conduct outside of CAP?
By the standard you expose, we cannot have Catholic cadets, because wine is an integral part of their communion. Many other denominations as well.
Not my standard it's the orgs. But by your own statements I guess you're encouraging ubderage drinking and illicit drug use.
Then it should be easy to cite a source for that.
And please refrain from putting words in my mouth.
By your own statements not mine. 52-16 says no use or possesion of illicit substances even if the state allows it. It's there in black and white and the verbage is pretty clear.
Since we are CAP members daily then the reg applies daily not when we want it to.
But hey if you are cool with cadets using such things then more power to you.
JeffDG,
Our standards and rules do cross over to non-CAP time.
And it is good that it does so.
I mean we don't want any child molesters.....not just the one who molest on CAP's time.
While I agree that what CAP don't know...CAP don't know....but then again if CAP don't know...then they can't take action.
When CAP does know......it then become the command decision of the leaders involved to take appropriate action.
Does this mean "ZERO TOLERANCE"...not in my book....but other commanders may interpret the regulations differently.
Anyone who thinks this is wrong....are free to take the issue up with THAT commander and his/her chain of command.
But bottom line.....CAP commands, regulations and policies are in force 24-7 in or out of uniform.
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 12:57:42 AM
By your own statements not mine. 52-16 says no use or possesion of illicit substances even if the state allows it. It's there in black and white and the verbage is pretty clear.
Yep, cadet brings a beer to a meeting, or encampment, definitely CAP's business.
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 12:57:42 AM
But hey if you are cool with cadets using such things then more power to you.
So, how do you handle Catholic cadets?
More specifically, I think what members do on their own time, unless it brings disrepute upon CAP, is none of CAP's business.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 01:03:40 AM
But bottom line.....CAP commands, regulations and policies are in force 24-7 in or out of uniform.
That's utterly false, and you know it.
If I go fly a private aircraft, I don't need a flight release, I don't need to file a flight plan if I'm going >50nm, or any of that.
CAP regulations apply on CAP time. Hell, this message is in violation of CAPR 10-1, in that it lacks the appropriate header and footers for a message.
Hmmm...seems that NHQ thinks that the prohibition of alcohol applies to cadet activities only too:
From the "changes" section:
QuoteIn 2-4c, the longstanding prohibitions on
the possession of alcohol at cadet activities are restored.
1) I don't inquire about religon.
2) Agree to a point. Once it's known it becomes CAPs business.
One of the key aspects of this program is leadership and responsibility. Make an adult decision deal with adult consequences.
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 01:45:43 AM
1) I don't inquire about religon.
2) Agree to a point. Once it's known it becomes CAPs business.
One of the key aspects of this program is leadership and responsibility. Make an adult decision deal with adult consequences.
So if a cadet talks about taking communion over the previous weekend, you whip out a 2B then, because, "ZERO TOLLERANCE", even though the regulations specifically mentions "at cadet activities".
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 01:41:46 AM
Hmmm...seems that NHQ thinks that the prohibition of alcohol applies to cadet activities only too:
From the "changes" section:
QuoteIn 2-4c, the longstanding prohibitions on
the possession of alcohol at cadet activities are restored.
Really what reg because what I see in 52-16 says otherwise
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 01:49:04 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 01:41:46 AM
Hmmm...seems that NHQ thinks that the prohibition of alcohol applies to cadet activities only too:
From the "changes" section:
QuoteIn 2-4c, the longstanding prohibitions on
the possession of alcohol at cadet activities are restored.
Really what reg because what I see in 52-16 says otherwise
Here ya go:
http://capmembers.com/media/cms/R052_016_2011_02_BFAB729553AB1.pdf (http://capmembers.com/media/cms/R052_016_2011_02_BFAB729553AB1.pdf)
Page 1: Summary of changes.
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 01:47:42 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 01:45:43 AM
1) I don't inquire about religon.
2) Agree to a point. Once it's known it becomes CAPs business.
One of the key aspects of this program is leadership and responsibility. Make an adult decision deal with adult consequences.
So if a cadet talks about taking communion over the previous weekend, you whip out a 2B then, because, "ZERO TOLLERANCE", even though the regulations specifically mentions "at cadet activities".
The reg says cadets will not posses alcohol period. It says nothing about at activities only. And that is straight from 52-16 published 19 Jun 14 the same para you have just cited. And there is no ICL published.
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 01:54:06 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 01:47:42 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 01:45:43 AM
1) I don't inquire about religon.
2) Agree to a point. Once it's known it becomes CAPs business.
One of the key aspects of this program is leadership and responsibility. Make an adult decision deal with adult consequences.
So if a cadet talks about taking communion over the previous weekend, you whip out a 2B then, because, "ZERO TOLLERANCE", even though the regulations specifically mentions "at cadet activities".
The reg says cadets will not posses alcohol period. It says nothing about at activities only. And that is straight from 52-16 published 19 Jun 14 the same para you have just cited. And there is no ICL published.
You're working on an old version. Change 1 to that version was published on 6-October-2014 (see link)
Did you check the link:
"19 JUNE 2014
INCLUDES CHANGE 1, 6 OCTOBER 2014"
The "Summary of Changes" is right there on page 1. Try reading it. I wholly contradicts your position.
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 01:50:03 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 01:49:04 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 01:41:46 AM
Hmmm...seems that NHQ thinks that the prohibition of alcohol applies to cadet activities only too:
From the "changes" section:
QuoteIn 2-4c, the longstanding prohibitions on
the possession of alcohol at cadet activities are restored.
Really what reg because what I see in 52-16 says otherwise
Here ya go:
http://capmembers.com/media/cms/R052_016_2011_02_BFAB729553AB1.pdf (http://capmembers.com/media/cms/R052_016_2011_02_BFAB729553AB1.pdf)
Page 1: Summary of changes.
Just looked at it try again. Previous prohibition was for senior members. But nice try at a spin.
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 01:57:08 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 01:50:03 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 01:49:04 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 01:41:46 AM
Hmmm...seems that NHQ thinks that the prohibition of alcohol applies to cadet activities only too:
From the "changes" section:
QuoteIn 2-4c, the longstanding prohibitions on
the possession of alcohol at cadet activities are restored.
Really what reg because what I see in 52-16 says otherwise
Here ya go:
http://capmembers.com/media/cms/R052_016_2011_02_BFAB729553AB1.pdf (http://capmembers.com/media/cms/R052_016_2011_02_BFAB729553AB1.pdf)
Page 1: Summary of changes.
Just looked at it try again.
Seriously?
QuoteSUMMARY OF CHANGES. Change 1 modifies two sections. In 2-4c, the longstanding prohibitions on
the possession of alcohol at cadet activities are restored. In 8-2, the requirement for cadets to obtain
region commander approval to participate in activities outside the cadet's home region is rescinded. All
other shaded areas identify substantive changes to the December 2012 edition. Note: Shaded areas
identify new or revised material. For a summary of changes, see page 40.
Do I need to post a picture?
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 01:58:43 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 01:57:08 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 01:50:03 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 01:49:04 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 01:41:46 AM
Hmmm...seems that NHQ thinks that the prohibition of alcohol applies to cadet activities only too:
From the "changes" section:
QuoteIn 2-4c, the longstanding prohibitions on
the possession of alcohol at cadet activities are restored.
Really what reg because what I see in 52-16 says otherwise
Here ya go:
http://capmembers.com/media/cms/R052_016_2011_02_BFAB729553AB1.pdf (http://capmembers.com/media/cms/R052_016_2011_02_BFAB729553AB1.pdf)
Page 1: Summary of changes.
Just looked at it try again.
Seriously?
QuoteSUMMARY OF CHANGES. Change 1 modifies two sections. In 2-4c, the longstanding prohibitions on
the possession of alcohol at cadet activities are restored. In 8-2, the requirement for cadets to obtain
region commander approval to participate in activities outside the cadet's home region is rescinded. All
other shaded areas identify substantive changes to the December 2012 edition. Note: Shaded areas
identify new or revised material. For a summary of changes, see page 40.
Do I need to post a picture?
The verbage on cadet use and possesion is the same. Cadets will not...even if local laws allow. Which is what this thread was about. The portion you focused on governs senior member ise of alcohol at cadet activities.
52-16 says no posession period, violation of it is grounds for termination per 35-3. It all comes down to what the commander wants to do.
It's there in black and white.
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 01:57:08 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 01:50:03 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 01:49:04 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 01:41:46 AM
Hmmm...seems that NHQ thinks that the prohibition of alcohol applies to cadet activities only too:
From the "changes" section:
QuoteIn 2-4c, the longstanding prohibitions on
the possession of alcohol at cadet activities are restored.
Really what reg because what I see in 52-16 says otherwise
Here ya go:
http://capmembers.com/media/cms/R052_016_2011_02_BFAB729553AB1.pdf (http://capmembers.com/media/cms/R052_016_2011_02_BFAB729553AB1.pdf)
Page 1: Summary of changes.
Just looked at it try again. Previous prohibition was for senior members. But nice try at a spin.
I'm not spinning. Did you see the part about "at cadet activities"? Are you seriously this dense that you can't see something that, in BLACK AND WHITE, contradicts your position.
Regardless, I see precisely nothing in 52-16 about its rules applying outside of CAP. Do cadets that go with their families to a whitewater rafting trip need permission for HAA? Or is it just, mysteriously, this one provision that applies extraterritorially?
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 01:36:58 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 01:03:40 AM
But bottom line.....CAP commands, regulations and policies are in force 24-7 in or out of uniform.
That's utterly false, and you know it.
If I go fly a private aircraft, I don't need a flight release, I don't need to file a flight plan if I'm going >50nm, or any of that.
CAP regulations apply on CAP time. Hell, this message is in violation of CAPR 10-1, in that it lacks the appropriate header and footers for a message.
True.....but if you touch a child on your one time.....you are out of CAP. If you get a DUI on your own time you loose your CAP driver's license. You drink under age and you could be out of CAP.
"It was on my own time" is not an excuse for violating the regulations. And you know that as well.
Sure....you go fly your own plane you don't need a flight release...because 60-1 does not cover your own private aircraft. It only applies to CAP aircraft and to member owned aircraft on CAP time. But if you fly your private aircraft like a maniac on your own time......and you violate FARs on your own time.....CAP can and should deal with that as appropriate.
You can yell and holler all day long......but you know this to be true.
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 02:01:14 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 01:58:43 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 01:57:08 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 01:50:03 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 01:49:04 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 01:41:46 AM
Hmmm...seems that NHQ thinks that the prohibition of alcohol applies to cadet activities only too:
From the "changes" section:
QuoteIn 2-4c, the longstanding prohibitions on
the possession of alcohol at cadet activities are restored.
Really what reg because what I see in 52-16 says otherwise
Here ya go:
http://capmembers.com/media/cms/R052_016_2011_02_BFAB729553AB1.pdf (http://capmembers.com/media/cms/R052_016_2011_02_BFAB729553AB1.pdf)
Page 1: Summary of changes.
Just looked at it try again.
Seriously?
QuoteSUMMARY OF CHANGES. Change 1 modifies two sections. In 2-4c, the longstanding prohibitions on
the possession of alcohol at cadet activities are restored. In 8-2, the requirement for cadets to obtain
region commander approval to participate in activities outside the cadet's home region is rescinded. All
other shaded areas identify substantive changes to the December 2012 edition. Note: Shaded areas
identify new or revised material. For a summary of changes, see page 40.
Do I need to post a picture?
The verbage on cadet use and possesion is the same. Cadets will not...even if local laws allow. Which is what this thread was about. The portion you focused on governs senior member ise of alcohol at cadet activities.
Absolutely. No possession "at cadet activities", right there on Page 1.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 02:01:57 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 01:36:58 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 01:03:40 AM
But bottom line.....CAP commands, regulations and policies are in force 24-7 in or out of uniform.
That's utterly false, and you know it.
If I go fly a private aircraft, I don't need a flight release, I don't need to file a flight plan if I'm going >50nm, or any of that.
CAP regulations apply on CAP time. Hell, this message is in violation of CAPR 10-1, in that it lacks the appropriate header and footers for a message.
True.....but if you touch a child on your one time.....you are out of CAP. If you get a DUI on your own time you loose your CAP driver's license. You drink under age and you could be out of CAP.
"It was on my own time" is not an excuse for violating the regulations. And you know that as well.
Sure....you go fly your CAP plane you don't need a flight release...because 60-1 does not cover your own private aircraft. It only applies to CAP aircraft and to POA's on CAP time. But if you fly your private aircraft like a maniac on your own time......and you violate FARs on your own time.....CAP can and should deal with that as appropriate.
You can yell and holler all day long......but you know this to be true.
No, I don't. Can you point out where 60-1 says it only applies to CAP aircraft?
Unless a regulation specifically calls out outside conduct, it doesn't apply. The concept in law is called "extraterritoriality". For example, if you as a US Citizen go to Mexico and kill someone, you cannot be prosecuted under US law, because murder laws are not extraterritorial. You can be prosecuted under Mexican law.
On the other hand, the Tax Code applies to US Citizens wherever they may be. It has explicit provisions making it apply extraterritoriality. The basic principle is that absent such explicit provisions, laws only apply within the domain of the lawmaker. In CAPs case, our "laws" apply only to CAP activities, unless they specifically state otherwise.
NHQ has even gone further and specifically said that the prohibition of alcohol is applicable "at cadet activities".
Bottom line its not allowed period. If a cadet wants to drink underage then they don't have to be a member.
But again you're ok with it more power to you.
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 02:06:04 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 02:01:57 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 01:36:58 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 01:03:40 AM
But bottom line.....CAP commands, regulations and policies are in force 24-7 in or out of uniform.
That's utterly false, and you know it.
If I go fly a private aircraft, I don't need a flight release, I don't need to file a flight plan if I'm going >50nm, or any of that.
CAP regulations apply on CAP time. Hell, this message is in violation of CAPR 10-1, in that it lacks the appropriate header and footers for a message.
True.....but if you touch a child on your one time.....you are out of CAP. If you get a DUI on your own time you loose your CAP driver's license. You drink under age and you could be out of CAP.
"It was on my own time" is not an excuse for violating the regulations. And you know that as well.
Sure....you go fly your CAP plane you don't need a flight release...because 60-1 does not cover your own private aircraft. It only applies to CAP aircraft and to POA's on CAP time. But if you fly your private aircraft like a maniac on your own time......and you violate FARs on your own time.....CAP can and should deal with that as appropriate.
You can yell and holler all day long......but you know this to be true.
No, I don't. Can you point out where 60-1 says it only applies to CAP aircraft?
Unless a regulation specifically calls out outside conduct, it doesn't apply. The concept in law is called "extraterritoriality". For example, if you as a US Citizen go to Mexico and kill someone, you cannot be prosecuted under US law, because murder laws are not extraterritorial. You can be prosecuted under Mexican law.
On the other hand, the Tax Code applies to US Citizens wherever they may be. It has explicit provisions making it apply extraterritoriality. The basic principle is that absent such explicit provisions, laws only apply within the domain of the lawmaker. In CAPs case, our "laws" apply only to CAP activities, unless they specifically state otherwise.
NHQ has even gone further and specifically said that the prohibition of alcohol is applicable "at cadet activities".
No it doesn't but again nice attempt at a spin..
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 02:07:26 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 02:06:04 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 02:01:57 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 01:36:58 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 01:03:40 AM
But bottom line.....CAP commands, regulations and policies are in force 24-7 in or out of uniform.
That's utterly false, and you know it.
If I go fly a private aircraft, I don't need a flight release, I don't need to file a flight plan if I'm going >50nm, or any of that.
CAP regulations apply on CAP time. Hell, this message is in violation of CAPR 10-1, in that it lacks the appropriate header and footers for a message.
True.....but if you touch a child on your one time.....you are out of CAP. If you get a DUI on your own time you loose your CAP driver's license. You drink under age and you could be out of CAP.
"It was on my own time" is not an excuse for violating the regulations. And you know that as well.
Sure....you go fly your CAP plane you don't need a flight release...because 60-1 does not cover your own private aircraft. It only applies to CAP aircraft and to POA's on CAP time. But if you fly your private aircraft like a maniac on your own time......and you violate FARs on your own time.....CAP can and should deal with that as appropriate.
You can yell and holler all day long......but you know this to be true.
No, I don't. Can you point out where 60-1 says it only applies to CAP aircraft?
Unless a regulation specifically calls out outside conduct, it doesn't apply. The concept in law is called "extraterritoriality". For example, if you as a US Citizen go to Mexico and kill someone, you cannot be prosecuted under US law, because murder laws are not extraterritorial. You can be prosecuted under Mexican law.
On the other hand, the Tax Code applies to US Citizens wherever they may be. It has explicit provisions making it apply extraterritoriality. The basic principle is that absent such explicit provisions, laws only apply within the domain of the lawmaker. In CAPs case, our "laws" apply only to CAP activities, unless they specifically state otherwise.
NHQ has even gone further and specifically said that the prohibition of alcohol is applicable "at cadet activities".
No it doesn't but again nice attempt at a spin..
"Spin"? So the reg doesn't have the words "at cadet activities" right on Page 1? Hmmm...who's spinning?
I have it in black and white. You have bluster. Glad you're not in my wing, because a 2B initiated for that would be dumped in the tank pretty quick.
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 02:06:33 AM
Bottom line its not allowed period. If a cadet wants to drink underage then they don't have to be a member.
But again you're ok with it more power to you.
If a cadet wants to drink underage, that's between them and their parents. CAP is not a party to that conversation unless it's "at a cadet activity" as specified on Page 1 of CAPR 52-16.
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 02:08:32 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 02:07:26 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 02:06:04 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 02:01:57 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 01:36:58 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 01:03:40 AM
But bottom line.....CAP commands, regulations and policies are in force 24-7 in or out of uniform.
That's utterly false, and you know it.
If I go fly a private aircraft, I don't need a flight release, I don't need to file a flight plan if I'm going >50nm, or any of that.
CAP regulations apply on CAP time. Hell, this message is in violation of CAPR 10-1, in that it lacks the appropriate header and footers for a message.
True.....but if you touch a child on your one time.....you are out of CAP. If you get a DUI on your own time you loose your CAP driver's license. You drink under age and you could be out of CAP.
"It was on my own time" is not an excuse for violating the regulations. And you know that as well.
Sure....you go fly your CAP plane you don't need a flight release...because 60-1 does not cover your own private aircraft. It only applies to CAP aircraft and to POA's on CAP time. But if you fly your private aircraft like a maniac on your own time......and you violate FARs on your own time.....CAP can and should deal with that as appropriate.
You can yell and holler all day long......but you know this to be true.
No, I don't. Can you point out where 60-1 says it only applies to CAP aircraft?
Unless a regulation specifically calls out outside conduct, it doesn't apply. The concept in law is called "extraterritoriality". For example, if you as a US Citizen go to Mexico and kill someone, you cannot be prosecuted under US law, because murder laws are not extraterritorial. You can be prosecuted under Mexican law.
On the other hand, the Tax Code applies to US Citizens wherever they may be. It has explicit provisions making it apply extraterritoriality. The basic principle is that absent such explicit provisions, laws only apply within the domain of the lawmaker. In CAPs case, our "laws" apply only to CAP activities, unless they specifically state otherwise.
NHQ has even gone further and specifically said that the prohibition of alcohol is applicable "at cadet activities".
No it doesn't but again nice attempt at a spin..
"Spin"
I have it in black and white. You have bluster. Glad you're not in my wing, because a 2B initiated for that would be dumped in the tank pretty quick.
I have it in black and white as well it says cadets will not posses alcohol period. The prohibition applies to senior members at cadet activities.
But I see the example you set for your cadets. Go ahead and drink and smoke and toke the freen grass as long as it's not on CAP time.
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 02:10:19 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 02:06:33 AM
Bottom line its not allowed period. If a cadet wants to drink underage then they don't have to be a member.
But again you're ok with it more power to you.
If a cadet wants to drink underage, that's between them and their parents. CAP is not a party to that conversation unless it's "at a cadet activity" as specified on Page 1 of CAPR 52-16.
Go back and read that paragraph the first line of it then read rhe rest of it. It does not apply just to cadet activities only. But hey when your cadets show up under the influence or at a mission that way who cares right wasn't on CAP's time.
Jeff....you can play regs lawyer all day long.
But bottom line.
Your conduct outside of CAP does affect your membership, your position, you rank and your decorations in CAP.
That is the end of story. You can't argue that it does not...because we all know from the three things I just mentioned can get you canned from CAP.
Touch a child.....out you go!
If you are disrespectful to a senior member (like on CT) and it does reflect.
Post some bad CAP pictures on Face Book and you can be ordered to take them down.
Drive bad in your own car....and it can result in your driving privileges taken away.
Fly bad in your own plane....and you can get grounded from flying from CAP.
Violate a direct order from you commander (such as "don't talk to cadets in chat rooms") and you are out...even if it was on your own time.
You can talk about the law all day long...but this is not the law....this is CAP. What the government can and can't do has little bearing on what CAP can or can't do.
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 02:12:06 AM
I have it in black and white as well it says cadets will not posses alcohol period. The prohibition applies to senior members at cadet activities.
But I see the example you set for your cadets. Go ahead and drink and smoke and toke the freen grass as long as it's not on CAP time.
Where do you have it that the reg applies outside cadet activities? You might want to check some law on the matter. What I wrote about extraterritoriality is well established law. Absent an explicit statement that the regulation applies outside of CAP activities, it simply does not.
Your example to cadets is that you don't care what the rules actually are, you just make things up as you go. You would remove a cadet who receives wine for communion, or who legally has a glass of wine with Thanksgiving dinner (in compliance with both federal and state law). You would butt your nose in where it doesn't belong.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 02:14:00 AM
Jeff....you can play regs lawyer all day long.
But bottom line.
Your conduct outside of CAP does affect your membership, your position, you rank and your decorations in CAP.
There it is end of story. You can't argue that it does not...because we all know from the three things I just mentioned can get you canned from CAP.
Touch a child.....out you go!
Yep, that role is explicitly spelled out as applying outside of CAP, just like the felony rule.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 02:14:00 AM
If you are disrespectful to a senior member (like on CT) and it does reflect.
Post some bad CAP pictures on Face Book and you can be ordered to take them down.
Again explicitly spelled out in ES and PA regs.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 02:14:00 AMDrive bad in your own car....and it can result in your driving privileges taken away.
Expressly covered in transportation regulations as covering outside activities
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 02:14:00 AMFly bad in your own plane....and you can get grounded from flying from CAP.
Same thing. Notice a pattern. Regulations that call out outside conduct are clear and explicit about doing so.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 02:14:00 AMViolate a direct order from you commander (such as "don't talk to cadets in chat rooms") and you are out...even if it was on your own time.
Again, the order is clear that it applies to outside conduct.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 02:14:00 AMYou can talk about the law all day long...but this is not the law....this is CAP. What the government can and can't do has little bearing on what CAP can or can't do.
Actually, the principles carry over to civil situations quite easily. An effective reader of the regs will apply outside precedent to the situation.
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 02:15:05 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 02:12:06 AM
I have it in black and white as well it says cadets will not posses alcohol period. The prohibition applies to senior members at cadet activities.
But I see the example you set for your cadets. Go ahead and drink and smoke and toke the freen grass as long as it's not on CAP time.
Where do you have it that the reg applies outside cadet activities? You might want to check some law on the matter. What I wrote about extraterritoriality is well established law. Absent an explicit statement that the regulation applies outside of CAP activities, it simply does not.
Your example to cadets is that you don't care what the rules actually are, you just make things up as you go. You would remove a cadet who receives wine for communion, or who legally has a glass of wine with Thanksgiving dinner (in compliance with both federal and state law). You would butt your nose in where it doesn't belong.
1) I do not dig period.
2) If it is brought to my attention then it will be dealt with period.
Make things up hardly I abide by the laws and regs set down. The reg does not say at cadet activities only so there is the spin you are trying to put on it.
Federal law says you have to be 21 to consume and posses alcohol.
But again as long as it's not on CAP's time it's all kosher got it.
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 02:21:22 AM
Federal law says you have to be 21 to consume and posses alcohol.
Can you cite that law?
Burden of proof is on you.
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 02:24:03 AM
Burden of proof is on you.
You're the one making the claim that Federal law prohibits the purchase or possession, so I presume you can tell me where in the US Code that prohibition exists.
You made the claim, not me, and you made it in the context of saying that you don't make things up, so prove that you aren't making this up.
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 02:24:51 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 02:24:03 AM
Burden of proof is on you.
You're the one making the claim that Federal law prohibits the purchase or possession, so I presume you can tell me where in the US Code that prohibition exists.
You made the claim, not me, and you made it in the context of saying that you don't make things up, so prove that you aren't making this up.
You made the initial claim, so vurden of proof is on you.
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 02:30:08 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 02:24:51 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 02:24:03 AM
Burden of proof is on you.
You're the one making the claim that Federal law prohibits the purchase or possession, so I presume you can tell me where in the US Code that prohibition exists.
You made the claim, not me, and you made it in the context of saying that you don't make things up, so prove that you aren't making this up.
You made the initial claim, so vurden of proof is on you.
OK, I'll take that as you made that claim up then.
(http://www.colganmarketing.com/img/clock1.gif)
I'll even be generous and point you in the right direction:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/23/158 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/23/158)
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 02:24:51 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 02:24:03 AM
Burden of proof is on you.
You're the one making the claim that Federal law prohibits the purchase or possession, so I presume you can tell me where in the US Code that prohibition exists.
You made the claim, not me, and you made it in the context of saying that you don't make things up, so prove that you aren't making this up.
This arguing the non-sequitur......the fact remains.....CAP's regs and policies do in fact extend beyond "CAP TIME".
A commander is charged with maintain the safety, orderly running of the program and good order and discipline. Whether the regs specifically state that one rule does or does not apply outside of CAP does not mean that principle that it could does not exist.
A member's conduct out side of CAP can and does affect their membership inside of CAP. Period. End of Story.
If you want argue a specific instance, a specific situation....well we there is always a lot of gray area.
Now...on the alcohol issue
Quote from: CAPR 52-16 Para 4-2 c.c. Alcohol & Recreational Drugs. Cadets will not possess alcohol nor use any drugs that are prohibited under federal law, even if local law permits their use. Further, tobacco products and e-cigarettes are prohibited for cadets at CAP activities. Senior members will not consume alcohol at activities conducted primarily for cadets if they can reasonably expect to encounter cadets later that day.
I just down loaded this reg from the web site...so it is up to day.
Cadets will not posses......seems like a commander can interpenetrate that as a zero tolerance policy.
Ergo you whole argument is wrong.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 02:39:09 AM
Cadets will not posses......seems like a commander can interpenetrate that as a zero tolerance policy.
Ergo you whole argument is wrong.
Well, then I guess a lot of cadets who take communion are just outta luck then. How's that square with our non-discrimination policy?
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 02:43:55 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 02:39:09 AM
Cadets will not posses......seems like a commander can interpenetrate that as a zero tolerance policy.
Ergo you whole argument is wrong.
Well, then I guess a lot of cadets who take communion are just outta luck then. How's that square with our non-discrimination policy?
That's what happens when you argue extremes....instead of just being reasonable in the first place.
Sometimes our regulations contradict each other.
That is why we have leaders in place to interpret, implement and enforce the regulations instead of just expecting everyone to read and understand them.
A reasonable person and a reasonable argument is about situational leadership.
We write the regulations to give us the power to take action....if we need to take action. But we reasonably expect our leaders to use good judgement in enforcing them....and again good judgement in how they are enforced.
No one is going to kick out a cadet for taking communion.
No one is going to kick out a cadet for having a sip of old man's beer.
But if a cadet starts bragging about how he gets wasted every week end with his dad.....that may pose a detriment to good order and discipline and may require some action on the part of the commander.
If a cadet gets caught underage drinking.....it would not be inappropriate for the commander to take action...up to 2b action...if warranted.
On and off duty. In our out of uniform. 24-7.
Membership is a privilege not a right.
Quote from: CAPR 39-21-1. Policy. Membership in Civil Air Patrol (CAP) is a privilege reserved for those individuals who desire to promote the objectives and purposes of CAP and who meet the eligibility requirements outlined herein. In the event an individual does not meet the prescribed criteria and is erroneously accepted, the membership is null and void and dues will be refunded. Additionally, in those cases where an applicant is accepted by a unit commander but not accepted by a higher headquarters, membership dues will be refunded and the membership is null and void. National Headquarters reserves the right to make final decisions on all membership cases and issues that arise under this directive.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 02:54:59 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 02:43:55 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 02:39:09 AM
Cadets will not posses......seems like a commander can interpenetrate that as a zero tolerance policy.
Ergo you whole argument is wrong.
Well, then I guess a lot of cadets who take communion are just outta luck then. How's that square with our non-discrimination policy?
That's what happens when you argue extremes....instead of just being reasonable in the first place.
Zero Tolerance policies ALWAYS end up in extremes. Zero Tolerance = Zero Judgement and they're an incredibly intellectually lazy way to make decisions.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 02:54:59 AM
Sometimes our regulations contradict each other.
That is why we have leaders in place to interpret, implement and enforce the regulations instead of just expecting everyone to read and understand them.
Not when they mindlessly make decisions based on a zero tolerance policy. That's an abdication of leadership.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 02:54:59 AM
A reasonable person and a reasonable argument is about situational leadership.
How does that work in the Zero Tolerance environment?
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 02:54:59 AMWe write the regulations to give us the power to take action....if we need to take action. But we reasonably expect our leaders to use good judgement in enforcing them....and again good judgement in how they are enforced.
Great idea. But Zero Tolerance = Zero Judgement
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 02:54:59 AMNo one is going to kick out a cadet for taking communion.
No one is going to kick out a cadet for having a sip of old man's beer.
Not what's been claimed. He claims that the regs demand zero tolerance.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 02:54:59 AMBut if a cadet starts bragging about how he gets wasted every week end with his dad.....that may pose a detriment to good order and discipline and may require some action on the part of the commander.
If a cadet gets caught underage drinking.....it would not be inappropriate for the commander to take action...up to 2b action...if warranted.
Whole different animal than zero tolerance.
All zero tolerance policies, every single one, are ways for people who are intellectually lazy to abdicate their responsibility to use judgement and think.
Jeff,
You mistake me for one who said there was a Zero Tolerance Policy (ZTP). I simply said that a commander could interpret the wording in 52-16 as a ZTP. I don't....but others could.
I agree the ZTPs are not always good.
But not all ZTPs are bad. I mean we got a ZTP for child molesters. You think that's a bad idea?
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 02:54:59 AM
That is why we have leaders in place to interpret, implement and enforce the regulations instead of just expecting everyone to read and understand them.
A reasonable person and a reasonable argument is about situational leadership.
We write the regulations to give us the power to take action....if we need to take action. But we reasonably expect our leaders to use good judgement in enforcing them....and again good judgement in how they are enforced.
No one is going to kick out a cadet for taking communion.
No one is going to kick out a cadet for having a sip of old man's beer.
But if a cadet starts bragging about how he gets wasted every week end with his dad.....that may pose a detriment to good order and discipline and may require some action on the part of the commander.
If a cadet gets caught underage drinking.....it would not be inappropriate for the commander to take action...up to 2b action...if warranted.
That is the point that I was stating earlier against absp51. There is no zero tolerance policy for CAP in this regard because it is really a command discretion. Before we go further, let us make the claim of what "zero tolerance" is:
QuoteA law, policy, or practice that provides for the imposition of severe penalties for a proscribed offense or behavior without making exceptions for extenuating circumstances.
In this definition, there are no exceptions or extenuating circumstances in which a behavior would be acceptable. As you stated, a reasonable person is not going to kick a cadet out for taking the communion, sipping a beer, having beer battered pancakes, etc. We are both in agreement on this as well as NHQ, I believe. A reasonable person would not. However, we have just violated the definition of zero tolerance as we just made exceptions to a policy.
If there was truly a zero tolerance policy, then cadets that violate this policy in any way, shape, or form would be immediately kicked out without exception. So a cadet that were try wine at Christmas time would be in violation of this policy and would thus be subject for immediate termination for cause as would a cadet that constantly gets drunk. A commander would not get the option of saying: "yes I know cadet Johnny had alcohol but the circumstance was that it was Christmas time, he had one glass, was in the presence of his immediately family (which gave him permission). Therefore, this is not a violation of CAPR 52-16 and I will not terminate his membership for cause. However, I know that Cadet Bag-of-donuts is always getting drunk at his frat, constantly talks about it, and sometimes smells of alcohol, therefore I will terminate his membership under cause". He would be forced to terminate both regardless of the situation.
However, we know this is not the case and that CAP, in general, would never tolerate this. Therefore, there is no implying of zero tolerance. It is truly a command decision. While a commander may interpret CAPR 52-16 as a zero tolerance, he would be in the wrong to apply zero tolerance to all situations.
Implied zero tolerance? No. Command decision? Yes.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 03:13:00 AM
Jeff,
You mistake me for one who said there was a Zero Tolerance Policy (ZTP). I simply said that a commander could interpret the wording in 52-16 as a ZTP. I don't....but others could.
I agree the ZTPs are not always good.
But not all ZTPs are bad. I mean we got a ZTP for child molesters. You think that's a bad idea?
I've never seen a ZTP that doesn't degrade rapidly.
Take your example of child molesters. ZTPs there almost always rapidly degrade to branding people on mere unsubstantiated allegations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martensville_satanic_sex_scandal) Entirely innocent people have had their lives absolutely ruined, but there are people to this day who would exclude people proven innocent as "accused child molesters".
I agree....that we owe everyone due process and respect.
But again......you avoided answering my question. CAP has a ZTP on child molesters. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 03:21:13 AM
I agree....that we owe everyone due process and respect.
But again......you avoided answering my question. CAP has a ZTP on child molesters. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Due process and respect are wholly incompatible with ZTPs
So which do you want?
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 03:24:50 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 03:21:13 AM
I agree....that we owe everyone due process and respect.
But again......you avoided answering my question. CAP has a ZTP on child molesters. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Due process and respect are wholly incompatible with ZTPs
So which do you want?
Sorry? Negative ghost rider. And again this is something that you have to know...so either you being obtuse or just trying to bait me.
So...I'm going to call it a night.
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 02:01:19 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 01:57:08 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 01:50:03 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 01:49:04 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 01:41:46 AM
Hmmm...seems that NHQ thinks that the prohibition of alcohol applies to cadet activities only too:
From the "changes" section:
QuoteIn 2-4c, the longstanding prohibitions on
the possession of alcohol at cadet activities are restored.
Really what reg because what I see in 52-16 says otherwise
Here ya go:
http://capmembers.com/media/cms/R052_016_2011_02_BFAB729553AB1.pdf (http://capmembers.com/media/cms/R052_016_2011_02_BFAB729553AB1.pdf)
Page 1: Summary of changes.
Just looked at it try again. Previous prohibition was for senior members. But nice try at a spin.
I'm not spinning. Did you see the part about "at cadet activities"? Are you seriously this dense that you can't see something that, in BLACK AND WHITE, contradicts your position.
You are misinterpreting the Summary of Changes in CAPR 52-16. The sentence you refer to clearly points to Para. 2-4c, which contains the the actual regulatory change (the Summary of Changes in a regulation is not regulatory itself, but only points to the changes in the regulation). The shaded area indicating the change in Para. 2-4c states the following:
Quote from: CAPR 52-16, Para. 2-4cSenior members will not consume alcohol at activities conducted primarily for cadets if they can reasonably expect to encounter cadets later that day.
The change you refer to in the Summary of Changes clearly refers to senior members at cadet activities, not cadets per se.
Para. 2-4c also states the following regarding cadets:
Quote from: CAPR 52-16, Para. 2-4cCadets will not possess alcohol nor use any drugs that are prohibited under federal law, even if local law permits their use. Further, tobacco products and e-cigarettes are prohibited for cadets at CAP activities.
It is clear that cadets are prohibited from possessing alcohol or using illegal drugs regardless of where they are. Cigarettes, on the other hand, are only prohibited for cadets at CAP activities.
Quote from: JeffDG on June 30, 2015, 12:30:04 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2015, 12:23:55 AM
Agree. However once reported it's a different story. 52-16 says cadets cannot touch it.
Why, exactly, do you think that 52-16 applies to a member's conduct outside of CAP?
By the standard you expose, we cannot have Catholic cadets, because wine is an integral part of their communion. Many other denominations as well.
The law does not prohibit minors from receiving Holy Communion and neither does CAPR 52-16. You're using a straw man argument to prove your point that CAP does not prohibit alcohol consumption by cadets outside of CAP activities. It is not a valid argument.
So I guess I should've been kicked out 3 years ago since I drank some beer with my Dad? Guess we should remove a good chunk of our cadet population.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2015, 02:39:09 AM
Now...on the alcohol issue
Quote from: CAPR 52-16 Para 4-2 c.c. Alcohol & Recreational Drugs. Cadets will not possess alcohol nor use any drugs that are prohibited under federal law, even if local law permits their use. Further, tobacco products and e-cigarettes are prohibited for cadets at CAP activities. Senior members will not consume alcohol at activities conducted primarily for cadets if they can reasonably expect to encounter cadets later that day.
Since there seems to be some disagreement on Federal law regarding alcohol
The 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act, [23 U.S.C. § 158], requires that States prohibit persons under 21 years of age from purchasing or publicly possessing alcoholic beverages as a condition of receiving State highway funds. A Federal regulation that interprets the Act excludes from the definition of "public possession," possession "for an established religious purpose; when accompanied by a parent, spouse or legal guardian age 21 or older; for medical purposes when prescribed or administered by a licensed physician, pharmacist, dentist, nurse, hospital or medical institution; in private clubs or establishments; or to the sale, handling, transport, or service in dispensing of any alcoholic beverage pursuant to lawful employment of a person under the age of twenty-one years by a duly licensed manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer of alcoholic beverages",
[23 C.F.R. § 1208.3].
FEDERAL CITATIONS AND RELEVANT TEXT EXCERPTS
23 U.S.C. § 158. National minimum drinking age.
(a) Withholding of Funds for Noncompliance.
(1) In general. The Secretary shall withhold 10 per centum of the amount required to be apportioned to any State under each of sections 104(b)(1), 104(b)(3), and 104(b)(4) of this title on the first day of each fiscal year after the second fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1985, in which the purchase or public possession in such State of any alcoholic beverage by a person who is less than twenty-one years of age is lawful.
(2) State grandfather law as complying. If, before the later of (A) October 1, 1986, or (B) the tenth day following the last day of the first session the legislature of a State convenes after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, such State has in effect a law which makes unlawful the purchase and public possession in such State of any alcoholic beverage by a person who is less than 21 years of age (other than any person who is 18 years of age or older on the day preceding the effective date of such law and at such time could lawfully purchase or publicly possess any alcoholic beverage in such State), such State shall be deemed to be in compliance with paragraph (1) in each fiscal year in which such law is in effect.
(b) Effect of Withholding of Funds. No funds withheld under this section from apportionment to any State after September 30, 1988, shall be available for apportionment to that State.
(c) Alcoholic Beverage Defined. As used in this section, the term "alcoholic beverage" means:
(1) beer as defined in section 5052(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
(2) wine of not less than one-half of 1 per centum of alcohol by volume, or
(3) distilled spirits as defined in section 5002(a)(8) of such Code.
23 C.F.R. § 1208.3. Definitions.
As used in this part:
Alcoholic beverage means beer, distilled spirits and wine containing one-half of one percent or more of alcohol by volume. Beer includes, but is not limited to, ale, lager, porter, stout, sake, and other similar fermented beverages brewed or produced from malt, wholly or in part or from any substitute therefore. Distilled spirits include alcohol, ethanol or spirits or wine in any form, including all dilutions and mixtures thereof from whatever process produced.
Public possession means the possession of any alcoholic beverage for any reason, including consumption on any street or highway or in any public place or in any place open to the public (including a club which is de facto open to the public).
The term does not apply to the possession of alcohol for an established religious purpose; when accompanied by a parent, spouse or legal guardian age 21 or older; for medical purposes when prescribed or administered by a licensed physician, pharmacist, dentist, nurse, hospital or medical institution; in private clubs or establishments; or to the sale, handling, transport, or service in dispensing of any alcoholic beverage pursuant to lawful employment of a person under the age of twenty-one years by a duly licensed manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer of alcoholic beverages. Purchase means to acquire by the payment of money or other consideration.
Emphasis mine. So the Feds are not interested when a person is having a drink as part of a religious service, or in the company of a parent or guardian, or when working at the local bowling alley. I believe the line is more to forbid marijuana use in states that it is legal.
This has been barracks lawyered to death. CAP has a policy on this issue. Follow the policy or suffer the consequences.
Quote from: THRAWN on June 30, 2015, 02:20:11 PM
This has been barracks lawyered to death. CAP has a policy on this issue. Follow the policy or suffer the consequences.
I agree, I was just pointing out that since the regulation cites "Cadets will not possess alcohol nor use any drugs that are
prohibited under federal law, even if local law permits their use. " that we might want to look at the Federal law which clearly does not forbid the participation in Holy Communion and other religious rituals, the having a sip of dad's beer while watching the game at home, or even the working in a bar if one is of the appropriate age.
Storm Chaser,
Thanks for answering my question, directly or indirectly. :)
Hopefully not bumping too old of a thread here
I haven't come across the experience yet (hopefully won't) of a potential cadet trying to enter the program with an existing record or developing a record while in the program. I've tried to stay extremely proactive with my cadets when it comes to talking about alcohol and substance use, especially since most of them are either close to entering or are in high school where they're starting to become exposed to those risks.
I make it an unofficial policy for myself to talk to my cadets and get an understanding of where they want to go once they get out of high school. Sure, many of them are young and don't really know what they want to do, and a lot of them throw around the "military" response without much thought because they're at an age where they don't necessarily know what that actually means outside of CAP and movies. But I try to emphasize the importance of personal responsibility and making sure they understand that the military will not tolerate substance use records. I've even told them that worrying about whether they can stay in CAP or not is the least of their problems when it comes to that subject. They're putting their college careers and military careers at serious risk, and it's not a joke with the military.
Sometimes I get the feeling that some of our senior members think our cadets are too young to address those subjects, ranging from 12 to 17. Being 26, and the closest senior in age to the cadets, that's exactly when they'll start getting into that stuff if they don't have guidance.
I was a cadet for 6 years. 87-93. Believe me.... most cadets were far beyond what most of the Seniors thought they could handle. In 2015...... Now with my own 14 and 16 yr old, I am continually surprised (or disappointed) at their level of understanding of the dark underbelly of life. If someone thinks you are protecting cadets by just not talking about something as simple as alcohol then you need to spend some more time with teens. Anyone ever hear of a Facebook party? I have spent the last 17 years breaking up parties...... and the things I have seen would make most adults blush. Id venture to guess most cadets already know all about it. Whether they are involved or not. High Schools having prostitution rings busted up by the police.... happens more than most people think. And they arent limited to "inner city" schools. When i worked as an School Resource Officer at a 3500 student school, I couldnt wait to get out on the street and back into the hood. Chasing dopers and gangsters was way easier.
Quote from: Flying Pig on July 10, 2015, 12:43:15 PM
If someone thinks you are protecting cadets by just not talking about something as simple as alcohol then you need to spend some more time with teens.
Highly agree with you there. I think some of our seniors, some with teenage children and some with children all grown up and out of college, they've either become so helicopter-parent-ish that they don't want to recognize the potential for even the "good" kids to get involved in some nasty habits. It seems like some of our cadets whose parents are either seniors are come around often are somewhat secluded from talking with those adults because as a teenager nobody wants their parents meddling in their personal lives.
I've been told by some of the older cadets (16-18) it helps that I'm younger and easier to relate with when talking about stuff. We have seniors who are 20 and 22 that they feel are completely unapproachable with their family ties in the unit. It's not about being secretive. It's about respecting their privacy if they have a problem and addressing it appropriately if it needs to go further.
Our squadron's way of addressing alcohol and cadet protection has historically been "Look out for your wingman" without any hindrance to "Look out for yourself," at least how I see it. I'm much more open on the subject. You can't talk about alcohol without using the word "alcohol" just as much as you can't talk about sexual harassment without the word "sex."
Quote from: SM/McNeilly on July 10, 2015, 12:54:49 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on July 10, 2015, 12:43:15 PM
If someone thinks you are protecting cadets by just not talking about something as simple as alcohol then you need to spend some more time with teens.
you can't talk about sexual harassment without the word "sex."
Cant you just raise an eyebrow and whisper... "You know... the thingy. " wink wink. Although that probably violates a law somewhere. :o
Quote from: Flying Pig on July 10, 2015, 05:23:21 PM
Cant you just raise an eyebrow and whisper... "You know... the thingy. " wink wink. Although that probably violates a law somewhere. :o
Totally just spit water all over the my work keyboard
Didn't we sufficiently beat this topic to death in the previous 15 pages of comments?
Theres always room for a joke that skirts the grey areas
My hope is we keep the thread going until the original subject of the thread graduates college/medical school etc........now that would be funny. I'll be the first to send said individual a nice bottle of Scotch >:D
Did we ever find out what even happened?
I was promised breakfast burritos by our squadron DCC...
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8165/7420288904_e688e943e2_o.jpg)
Yeah Yeah Yeah.....Its a discussion forum, who cares. It will die out eventually. Just have fun with it
Do ya think that Mexican burritos are made from horse meat?
Hmmmmm....... NOW it gets interesting
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on July 12, 2015, 04:07:05 PM
Do ya think that Mexican burritos are made from horse meat?
Actually kind of tastes like Chicken... The Red is on the warm side today.
PETA stopped the horse meat slaughter house for opening in Roswell, or maybe is was the Space aliens...
My 2 cents on the subject, it is situation based and cases like this need to be treated based on the situation.
Horse meat?
...tastes like chicken!
Muskrat?
...tastes like chicken!
Snake?
...tastes like chicken!
Squirrel?
...tastes like chicken!
Anything else?
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on July 12, 2015, 09:58:01 PM
Horse meat?
...tastes like chicken!
Muskrat?
...tastes like chicken!
Snake?
...tastes like chicken!
Squirrel?
...tastes like chicken!
Anything else?
Too bad the "chicken" doesn't taste like chicken anymore! >:D
Bear does not taste like chicken.