Recently, the Department of Defense released Force Health Protection Guidance (Supplement 23) Revision 2 - Department of Defense Guidance for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination Attestation, Screening Testing, and Vaccination Verification.

The revised memo rescinds and replaces FHP Guidance (Supplement 23) Revision 1, dated  October 18, 2021, retains the vaccination attestation, screening testing and vaccination verification guidance included in Revision 1, provides added, detailed information on the DoD civilian employee vaccination exemption process, and provides DoD forms for medical and religious exemptions that the DoD components may use to process DoD civilian employee vaccination exemption requests.

Per the guidance, DoD contractor personnel and official visitors must attest to being fully vaccinated and, if not fully vaccinated, present the results of a recent negative COVID-19 test as a condition of physical access to DoD buildings and DoD-leased spaces in non-DoD buildings in which official DoD business takes place (referred to jointly in this memorandum as "DoD facilities").

https://media.defense.gov/2021/Nov/01/2002884415/-1/-1/1/FHP-Guidance-Supplement-23-Rev-2-DoD-Guidance-for-COVID-19-Vaccination-Attestation-Screening-Testing-and-Vaccination-Verification.PDF?source=GovDelivery


Requesting moderators lock this: I know several CAP members that recently ran into issues with the prior guidance and that this will help them, but I also know that discussion on this topic beyond what was just posted will inevitably go political and help no one.

This doesn't need to "go political", it's simply an issue that CAP needs to
deal with, and seems to be somewhat ignoring.

I've had recent discussions with encampment leaders from other wings, and
they have indicated this is already an issue in that regard.

Namely, can CAP, in good conscious, plan and hold activities on facilities
where it knows a non-trivial percentage of membership will be barred from
participation (either actually or practically)?  And saying "of course not"
doesn't magically grow alternative resources.

Considering that NHQ's take on vaccinations just prior to Covid was "it's none of our business",
this problem just needs to be worked at whatever level necessary with the recognition
that like a lot of issues that are induced by being beholden to other organizations
for facilities and other resources.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 01, 2021, 08:42:37 PMNamely, can CAP, in good conscious, plan and hold activities on facilities
where it knows a non-trivial percentage of membership will be barred from
participation

The new guidance addresses that.

Quoteif not fully vaccinated, present the results of a recent negative COVID-19 test as a condition of physical access to DoD buildings and DoD-leased spaces in non-DoD buildings in which official DoD business takes place (referred to jointly in this memorandum as "DoD facilities").

And really, I'd say just require everyone to provide a negative test since the vaccination does not preclude infection nor non-transmisability.

Quote from: Holding Pattern on November 01, 2021, 08:52:33 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 01, 2021, 08:42:37 PMNamely, can CAP, in good conscious, plan and hold activities on facilities
where it knows a non-trivial percentage of membership will be barred from
participation

The new guidance addresses that.

Quoteif not fully vaccinated, present the results of a recent negative COVID-19 test as a condition of physical access to DoD buildings and DoD-leased spaces in non-DoD buildings in which official DoD business takes place (referred to jointly in this memorandum as "DoD facilities").

And really, I'd say just require everyone to provide a negative test since the vaccination does not preclude infection nor non-transmisability.

The problem that CAP members face is their frequency of visitation to the facility.

For example, if there is a squadron meeting on a DOD post on Tuesday, and another activity at the same location on Saturday, do they have to retest and resubmit in that timeframe.

Now, we can argue the level of inconvenience versus the level of transmissibility; moot in this topic. The matter of it is the lack of clarity in the guidance in that regard. Is this an every time visited situation, or based on being within a given timeframe?

There should be something that as well about activities conducted at National Guard facilities, which may or may not be under DOD oversight (instead, under state oversight). These facilities tend to not have the same restrictions, and it confuses a lot of CAP units since they don't know the difference. For instance, someone could go to an Army National Guard base where there are virtually not restrictions in place, and then go to an Active Duty Air Force base where there are tougher requirements at the gate...even without COVID.

Quote from: TheSkyHornet on November 03, 2021, 08:49:53 PMFor example, if there is a squadron meeting on a DOD post on Tuesday, and another activity at the same location on Saturday, do they have to retest and resubmit in that timeframe.

Page 4 of the published guidance says 72 hours - so in your example, "yes", they'd have to be tested twice that week.

Guard bases and state / local requirements are going to be so fluid and all over the road that there's
really no way around just making sure the PIC / POC is fully briefed and publishes the requirements as
they are implemented or change.