Should CAP be subject to the UCMJ?

[armyguy]

Since CAP is part of the total force and members wear USAF style uniforms, how would folks feel if CAP members - while participating in CAP activities and wearing USAF style uniforms- were subjected to the UCMJ?

[Paul Kretschmar]

No.  Just no.

[Eclipse]

No.

Since CAP is part of the total force

Also, the majority of CAP members are NEVER part of Total Force (for starters).

Secondarily, UCMJ is not just a hammer to make people do what you want. It also applies to
the leadership in that the directives and orders have to be lawful and appropriate, etc.

CAP provides zero training to any one in that regard.

There are already membership-level consequences for insubordination and poor performance,
(rarely discussed, let alone used) and potential civil liability for doing dumb things.

Beyond that, it would be difficult, if not impossible to compel volunteers when no befefits
or compensation are provided for that requirement.

[CAPCom]

It makes sense only if your goal is to increase the rate of member loss and, for the members that stay, decrease the rate of members being active and showing up for activities.

[RiverAux]

Its not entirely crazy to require volunteers to adhere to something like the UCMJ.  In fact, that is exactly what is required of State Defense Force members in relation to the state version of the UCMJ. 

That being said, almost none of the current problems with CAP would be solved with this. 

[SarDragon]

NFW!

The structure and organization of CAP are not set up for a UCMJ-like environment. The contracts of membership for CAP and the military are VERY different. The military contract is far more detailed and restrictive than the CAPF 12. When you join the military, you "sign your life away". Not so for CAP. The military is an occupation; CAP is an avocation at best.

Let's just file this notion in the rubbish bin and move on.

[Fubar]

All I can put is no because this site seems to filter all the other colorful language I wanted to include.

[PHall]

Since CAP is part of the total force and members wear USAF style uniforms, how would folks feel if CAP members - while participating in CAP activities and wearing USAF style uniforms- were subjected to the UCMJ?

You do know that not all US military personnel are subject to the UCMJ, right?
National Guard personnel who are under State control, which is their normal status, are not subject to the UCMJ.
It's only when they are under Federal control that they are subject to the UCMJ.
When they are under State control their state's military departments's laws and regulations apply.

[Jester]

As much as I want to increase the quality of the organization and the service we provide, I see no positive benefit to UCMJ. 

[THRAWN]

This was the laugh that I needed today.

[Shuman 14]

I have mixed feelings about this.

For everyday "Corporate Only" operations, there is no need and would be counter productive as several have pointed out it would actually discourage people from showing up and their is corporate discipline procedures for those just refuse to follow the rules.

That being said, when we do operate as an USAF Auxiliary on official USAF Missions orders, I think we should operate under UCMJ authority. That would be a protection for us and the USAF and would provide Geneva Convention protections in that ultra rare area where we might operate in the face of the enemy (which hasn't happened since WWII).

Sadly, if that was to happen, I think almost all USAF Auxiliary missions would come to a halt as the USAF most likely would not want to take that responsibility over us.

now, with that out of the way, think of all the problems in the past (i.e. HWSNBN, Florida Wing, etc.) that could have been addressed with UCMJ charges... does make you think.

[THRAWN]

I have mixed feelings about this.

For everyday "Corporate Only" operations, there is no need and would be counter productive as several have pointed out it would actually discourage people from showing up and their is corporate discipline procedures for those just refuse to follow the rules.

That being said, when we do operate as an USAF Auxiliary on official USAF Missions orders, I think we should operate under UCMJ authority. That would be a protection for us and the USAF and would provide Geneva Convention protections in that ultra rare area where we might operate in the face of the enemy (which hasn't happened since WWII).

Sadly, if that was to happen, I think almost all USAF Auxiliary missions would come to a halt as the USAF most likely would not want to take that responsibility over us.

now, with that out of the way, think of all the problems in the past (i.e. HWSNBN, Florida Wing, etc.) that could have been addressed with UCMJ charges... does make you think.

Still confused about that noncombatant civilian thing...

[armyguy]

Still confused about that noncombatant civilian thing...

This is one of the reasons NOAA (and it predecessors - map makers during the Civil War) is a uniformed service so the officers would not be executed as spies when working for the military - that's the short version, there is more to it, you should google it of interested.   Today there are also DoD civilian employees serving in combat zone who wear military uniforms with US Civilian insignia. https://www.defense.gov/Spotlights/DOD-Expeditionary-Civilian-Workforce/

[etodd]

Hey Y'all!!!  I be one of them there volunteers in CAP. Every now and then I gets to be one of them pilots that get to fly those little planes after a bad storm, likes a tornada, or such as that. Sometimes they tell me to sit in the right seat and Observe stuff. Its fun lookin' out the winder. Other days I just sit in the back and take purdy pictures with those fancy cameras with all those knobs on it. What's all this here talk about being military? Will I gets a pension one day? I just don't know about all this high faluntin' stuff. I just heard about a meeting, and walked in off the street, and they grabbed me.

[Eclipse]

That being said, when we do operate as an USAF Auxiliary on official USAF Missions orders

The Air Force is not in CAP's chain of command, and it does not "order" CAP to act,
it requests assistance.  CAP, nor its members, is /are not obligated to provide that
assistance nor fulfill the request.

Under AFAMs CAP is essentially a contractor.

[THRAWN]

Still confused about that noncombatant civilian thing...

This is one of the reasons NOAA (and it predecessors - map makers during the Civil War) is a uniformed service so the officers would not be executed as spies when working for the military - that's the short version, there is more to it, you should google it of interested.   Today there are also DoD civilian employees serving in combat zone who wear military uniforms with US Civilian insignia. https://www.defense.gov/Spotlights/DOD-Expeditionary-Civilian-Workforce/

You appear confused as well. Here's the law version:

10USC Sec 9492
(a)Volunteer Civilian Auxiliary.—
The Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government.
(b)Use by Air Force.—
(1)The Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of the Civil Air Patrol to fulfill the noncombat programs and missions of the Department of the Air Force.

§9494. Activities performed as auxiliary of the Air Force
(a) Air Force Support for Activities.-The Secretary of the Air Force may furnish to the Civil Air Patrol in accordance with this section any equipment, supplies, and other resources that the Secretary determines necessary to enable the Civil Air Patrol to fulfill the missions assigned by the Secretary to the Civil Air Patrol as an auxiliary of the Air Force.

(b) Forms of Air Force Support.-The Secretary of the Air Force may, under subsection (a)-

(1) give, lend, or sell to the Civil Air Patrol without regard to subtitle I of title 40 and division C (except sections 3302, 3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711) of subtitle I of title 41-

(A) major items of equipment (including aircraft, motor vehicles, computers, and communications equipment) that are excess to the military departments; and

(B) necessary related supplies and training aids that are excess to the military departments;


(2) permit the use, with or without charge, of services and facilities of the Air Force;

(3) furnish supplies (including fuel, lubricants, and other items required for vehicle and aircraft operations) or provide funds for the acquisition of supplies;

(4) establish, maintain, and supply liaison officers of the Air Force at the national, regional, State, and territorial headquarters of the Civil Air Patrol;

(5) detail or assign any member of the Air Force or any officer, employee, or contractor of the Department of the Air Force to any liaison office at the national, regional, State, or territorial headquarters of the Civil Air Patrol;

(6) detail any member of the Air Force or any officer, employee, or contractor of the Department of the Air Force to any unit or installation of the Civil Air Patrol to assist in the training programs of the Civil Air Patrol;

(7) authorize the payment of travel expenses and allowances, at rates not to exceed those paid to employees of the United States under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, to members of the Civil Air Patrol while the members are carrying out programs or missions specifically assigned by the Air Force;

( provide funds for the national headquarters of the Civil Air Patrol, including-

(A) funds for the payment of staff compensation and benefits, administrative expenses, travel, per diem and allowances, rent, utilities, other operational expenses of the national headquarters; and

(B) to the extent considered necessary by the Secretary of the Air Force to fulfill Air Force requirements, funds for the payment of compensation and benefits for key staff at regional, State, or territorial headquarters;


(9) authorize the payment of expenses of placing into serviceable condition, improving, and maintaining equipment (including aircraft, motor vehicles, computers, and communications equipment) owned or leased by the Civil Air Patrol;

(10) provide funds for the lease or purchase of items of equipment that the Secretary determines necessary for the Civil Air Patrol;

(11) support the Civil Air Patrol cadet program by furnishing-

(A) articles of the Air Force uniform to cadets without cost; and

(B) any other support that the Secretary of the Air Force determines is consistent with Air Force missions and objectives; and


(12) provide support, including appropriated funds, for the Civil Air Patrol aerospace education program to the extent that the Secretary of the Air Force determines appropriate for furthering the fulfillment of Air Force missions and objectives.


(c) Assistance by Other Agencies.-(1) The Secretary of the Air Force may arrange for the use by the Civil Air Patrol of such facilities and services under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, or the head of any other department or agency of the United States as the Secretary of the Air Force considers to be needed by the Civil Air Patrol to carry out its mission.

(2) An arrangement for use of facilities or services of a military department or other department or agency under this subsection shall be subject to the agreement of the Secretary of the military department or head of the other department or agency, as the case may be.

(3) Each arrangement under this subsection shall be made in accordance with regulations prescribed under section 9498 of this title.

That means no dropping bombs on submarines, and no service in combat zones. You're comparing apples and snow tires.

[Shuman 14]

Still confused about that noncombatant civilian thing...

No not at all, but does a future enemy understand our "noncombatant" nature or recognize it.

The USCGAux is also a noncombatant organization, yet the USCG issues them a Geneva Convention Card ID (ie Military ID) to cover them in the event something unexpected happens when they are on a mission.

In this ever-changing world in which we live in, "interesting' things may/could happen. That's all I'm saying.

[THRAWN]

Still confused about that noncombatant civilian thing...

No not at all, but does a future enemy understand our "noncombatant" nature or recognize it.

The USCGAux is also a noncombatant organization, yet the USCG issues them a Geneva Convention Card ID (ie Military ID) to cover them in the event something unexpected happens when they are on a mission.

In this ever-changing world in which we live in, "interesting' things may/could happen. That's all I'm saying.

USCGAux goes on missions with their parent service. CAP, with very very narrow exceptions, does not.

[Shuman 14]

That being said, when we do operate as an USAF Auxiliary on official USAF Missions orders

The Air Force is not in CAP's chain of command, and it does not "order" CAP to act,
it requests assistance.  CAP, nor its members, is /are not obligated to provide that
assistance nor fulfill the request.

Under AFAMs CAP is essentially a contractor.

True, but under certain circumstances, DoD Contractors are placed under UCMJ jurisdiction. Normally when deployed OCONUS and in a conflict area, but there can be other situations where they are as well.

If a CAP member accepts the request, they should accept USAF Command and Control, just saying.

[etodd]

We have so many members who dream and salivate over the idea that CAP could somehow get pressed into some sort of military role. Keep dreaming. Its all you got.

This isn't WWII anymore.  WWIII will see CAP members rounding up their families and heading to shelters. You're not going to see anyone running to the hangar to get in a CAP Cessna, until after the dust has settled, and if there is anything left.

Keep dreaming.

[Jester]

We can't get members to follow the rules and regs we already have.

[Shuman 14]

USCGAux goes on missions with their parent service. CAP, with very very narrow exceptions, does not.

Yes, but narrow exception do exist and as I said before, in this ever-changing world in which we live in, "interesting' things may/could happen.

[Shuman 14]

We can't get members to follow the rules and regs we already have.

Are those members likely to get requested for a mission that operates under USAF or DoD direct control? Signs say no.

For those that do follow CAP rules and regulations, most should/would not have issues being under the UCMJ for very specific (and limited) USAF missions.

[RiverAux]

}
The USCGAux is also a noncombatant organization, yet the USCG issues them a Geneva Convention Card ID (ie Military ID) to cover them in the event something unexpected happens when they are on a mission.

Coast Guard Auxiliary members get a Coast Guard Auxiliary identification card -- not a "i.e.,military id". 

On the back of the card it does state a Geneva Convention Category Code (IV -"Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model."

[Shuman 14]

}
The USCGAux is also a noncombatant organization, yet the USCG issues them a Geneva Convention Card ID (ie Military ID) to cover them in the event something unexpected happens when they are on a mission.

Coast Guard Auxiliary members get a Coast Guard Auxiliary identification card -- not a "i.e.,military id". 

On the back of the card it does state a Geneva Convention Category Code (IV -"Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model."

Thank you. I could not find mine, it was in my right ODU pocket, but I think it may have gotten lost in the wash.

The point I was making is it is an ID, issued by the Government, to USCGAux Members, that conforms to the Geneva Convention, for identification required for personnel that operate with Military Forces.

Not a "Military ID" per say, but much closer to one than a CAPID.

[Eclipse]

That being said, when we do operate as an USAF Auxiliary on official USAF Missions orders

The Air Force is not in CAP's chain of command, and it does not "order" CAP to act,
it requests assistance.  CAP, nor its members, is /are not obligated to provide that
assistance nor fulfill the request.

Under AFAMs CAP is essentially a contractor.

True, but under certain circumstances, DoD Contractors are placed under UCMJ jurisdiction. Normally when deployed OCONUS and in a conflict area, but there can be other situations where they are as well.

If a CAP member accepts the request, they should accept USAF Command and Control, just saying.

Negative.  That is not how the organization is charted, nor how it works in practicality, any more then the cleaning service for the Pentagon would fall under USAF command.

Prior to a nuclear exchange, CAP members are never going to be combatants again.

After one, the cadets and adults within an age range will be coscripted, and the rest likely told to burn their
golf shirts and take care of their families.

There's never, ever going to be ANY CAP members, per se, listed as combatants, ever again.

[Jester]

We can't get members to follow the rules and regs we already have.

Are those members likely to get requested for a mission that operates under USAF or DoD direct control? Signs say no.

For those that do follow CAP rules and regulations, most should/would not have issues being under the UCMJ for very specific (and limited) USAF missions.

Probably not, but we're not swimming with options if that request for forces gets too large. 

I do agree that if you're augmenting active duty you should be subject to their regulations, but not their laws.  Civilian police officers on bases aren't subject to the UCMJ to my knowledge.

[RiverAux]

Although certainly not a recent example, it is still allowed in federal law for the Coast Guard to have temporary members of the reserve that are unpaid and I would presume would fall under UCMJ if in that status.  Been a few years since I looked into how temporary reserves were utilized in WWII to see if that was the case then.

[Shuman 14]

Negative.  That is not how the organization is charted, nor how it works in practicality, any more then the cleaning service for the Pentagon would fall under USAF command.

Are you very familiar with the Pentagon's Cleaning Service? Please tell us about your vast sanitary engineering career.

Prior to a nuclear exchange, CAP members are never going to be combatants again.

Roll Eyes. Hyperbole to say the least.

After one, the cadets and adults within an age range will be coscripted, and the rest likely told to burn their
golf shirts and take care of their families.

There's never, ever going to be ANY CAP members, per se, listed as combatants, ever again.

I guess we can thank your generation of CAP for that.

No one was talking about combat until you brought it up. You don't have to be in combat to be subject to the UCMJ, even as a contractor. If you don't think it happens, you're misinformed.

Now let me give you an example of a non-combat mission where a CAP member would need to operate under the UCMJ.

Lets say the USAF experiences a pilot shortage because of an overseas conflict. I can envision CAP multi-engine rated pilots being trained to fly cargo planes such as C-24s, C-27 and maybe even C-130s and being used for CONUS supply missions to free up USAF pilots for overseas assignments. That would be well within a "non-combat" role for CAP; think those CAP crews "might" need to be subject to the UCMJ?

Let give you an example of why a CAP crew might need an ID that complies with the Geneva Convention.

Many time in the past, Mexico and the US have come close to going to war and had incidents at the border. There has been talk of use of CAP aircraft and crews in support of DHS missions for border security.

So imagine a CAP plane and crew, flying a Border Patrol or CBP officer over a caravan of migrants crossing the border and a Mexican Military unit, possibly under the control of a cartel, fires upon the CAP aircraft and it goes down on the Mexican side of the border and the crew is taken into "custody" by this rogue unit.

Depending on how high the tensions are between the US and Mexico or internal Mexican issues, say a near civil war between the Government and the cartels, you might want to have Geneva Convention Protections.

If you think these are super far fetched ideas, then you have a very low opinion of yourself and CAP.

[Eclipse]

It's not going to happen, go back to playing COD.

[SarDragon]

Wow, that turned ugly.

The current measuring competition is now concluded.

Click.