What would constitute impersonating an officer?

[RogueLeader]

I know that the USC makes it illegal to impersonate a member of the military or its aux.  Just what would constitute impersonation? 

Stating to be a member when not?
Wearing the uniform when not a member?
Wearing a grade other than current?
Wearing decorations not earned?
Others?

Also what are the penalties of such?

[cnitas]

Wearing decorations not earned?

This obviously does not constitute "impersonating an officer".  It is still in very poor taste and can get you in trouble...particularly wearing or claiming to have earned US Military medals you have not. (Stolen Valor Act)

[JohnKachenmeister]

I know that the USC makes it illegal to impersonate a member of the military or its aux.  Just what would constitute impersonation? 

Stating to be a member when not?
Wearing the uniform when not a member?
Wearing a grade other than current?
Wearing decorations not earned?
Others?

Also what are the penalties of such?

Wearing the uniform of an officer without authority; assuming a role of command by claiming to be an officer when one is not;  telling another that one is an officer knowing that statement to be false.

If I recall correctly, $5,000 fine and/or 6 months in prison is the maximum penalty.

The key is it must be an OVERT act on the part of the offender, with an intention to deceive.  Wearing a jacket that says "Captain Smith" on it does not constitute impersonating an officer even if another person erroneously concludes that the wearer is a military or naval captain.

[Duke Dillio]

Here's a funny story for you.  There was a guy on Fort Sill who got caught walking around the PX with silver colonel's birds on his lapels.  The problem was that the guy was a private in basic training and he was wearing a BDU uniform.  This guys just kinda waltzed into clothing sales, bought two sets of birds, put them on his collars and hat, and then walked around until the MP's got him.  This was probably about 10 years ago and I can't remember exactly what happened to him.  I do recall that he wasn't in the Army for much longer after that...

[DC]

Here's a funny story for you.  There was a guy on Fort Sill who got caught walking around the PX with silver colonel's birds on his lapels.  The problem was that the guy was a private in basic training and he was wearing a BDU uniform.  This guys just kinda waltzed into clothing sales, bought two sets of birds, put them on his collars and hat, and then walked around until the MP's got him.  This was probably about 10 years ago and I can't remember exactly what happened to him.  I do recall that he wasn't in the Army for much longer after that...

If he was a Private in Basic, wouldn't the hair (or lack thereof) and the fact that he was likely too young to be a bird colonel be a tip off? That just seems stupid...

[afgeo4]

Here's a funny story for you.  There was a guy on Fort Sill who got caught walking around the PX with silver colonel's birds on his lapels.  The problem was that the guy was a private in basic training and he was wearing a BDU uniform.  This guys just kinda waltzed into clothing sales, bought two sets of birds, put them on his collars and hat, and then walked around until the MP's got him.  This was probably about 10 years ago and I can't remember exactly what happened to him.  I do recall that he wasn't in the Army for much longer after that...

If he was a Private in Basic, wouldn't the hair (or lack thereof) and the fact that he was likely too young to be a bird colonel be a tip off? That just seems stupid...

No one said he was a smart private. If he was, he'd be an airman. 

[DNall]

smart private.

Is there such a thing?

If he was, he'd be an airman. 

yeah that's a little funny.

[♠SARKID♠]

From Section 90 of the 1996 Police Act -

Impersonations, etc.

• (1) Any person who with intent to deceive impersonates a member of a police force or special constable, or makes any statement or does any act calculated falsely to suggest that he is such a member or constable, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.


• (2) Any person who, not being a constable, wears any article of police uniform in circumstances where it gives him an appearance so nearly resembling that of a member of a police force as to be calculated to deceive shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.


• (3) Any person who, not being a member of a police force or special constable, has in his possession any article of police uniform shall, unless he proves that he obtained possession of that article lawfully and has possession of it for a lawful purpose, be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.


• (4) In this section—
  
• 
  
  • (a) "article of police uniform" means any article of uniform or any distinctive badge or mark or document of identification usually issued to members of police forces or special constables, or anything having the appearance of such an article, badge, mark or document, and
    
    
  • (b) "special constable" means a special constable appointed for a police area.
    

[JohnKachenmeister]

From Section 90 of the 1996 Police Act -

Impersonations, etc.

• (1) Any person who with intent to deceive impersonates a member of a police force or special constable, or makes any statement or does any act calculated falsely to suggest that he is such a member or constable, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.


• (2) Any person who, not being a constable, wears any article of police uniform in circumstances where it gives him an appearance so nearly resembling that of a member of a police force as to be calculated to deceive shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.


• (3) Any person who, not being a member of a police force or special constable, has in his possession any article of police uniform shall, unless he proves that he obtained possession of that article lawfully and has possession of it for a lawful purpose, be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.


• (4) In this section—
  
• 
  
  • (a) "article of police uniform" means any article of uniform or any distinctive badge or mark or document of identification usually issued to members of police forces or special constables, or anything having the appearance of such an article, badge, mark or document, and
    
    
  • (b) "special constable" means a special constable appointed for a police area.
    

I think they are looking at the US Code making it a crime to impersonate MILITARY officers, although the "Intent to deceive" is likely a common element.[/list]

[cnitas]

• (3) Any person who, not being a member of a police force or special constable, has in his possession any article of police uniform shall, unless he proves that he obtained possession of that article lawfully and has possession of it for a lawful purpose, be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.

My emphasis...

Interesting.  The accused needs to prove their innocence.

[RogueLeader]

I think they are looking at the US Code making it a crime to impersonate MILITARY officers, although the "Intent to deceive" is likely a common element.[/list]

Yes, I tried googling it, as well as searching here for it, but i could not find a site for the USC.

[Major Lord]

Virtually every State has a statute making it illegal to masquerade as a government employee of any kind. The problem you are having in searches, is that  the terms you are searching by are common usage terms, and not necessarily legal terms. Try searching under "False Personation" and you Will find a ton of info. There is a court case you should see that I believe addresses your specific question: http://supreme.justia.com/us/239/74/

I hope that the gist of your question is not whether CAP people are impersonating Officers! We had one member of our Squadron, who would go out trolling on base for young female Airmen ( Or "Persons of Air", to be politically correct) in his CAP 1st Lt costume. Naturally, we had to eat his liver with fava beans and a nice Chianti.....

Major Lord

Cadet Survival School-Because Life is not fair!

[mikeylikey]

These days it is real easy to see if a person is an Officer or not.  Find someone with AKO/ Air force Portal/ NKO login rights, then just look up the person and see if they are an Officer or not.  What is really cool, Is I may be in the Army, but I have access to Air Force Portal and the navy-Marine Corps similar systems.  I have run My fair share of checks.  Now, what would I do if I found someone to be lying, Not sure.  We had a guy here a few months ago claiming to be something he was not, a few of us got on the military computers and checked the guy out, and found out he was lying.  I took his public apology here to all of us as good enough for me, and did not pursue it further.  YMMV

[Hawk200]

These days it is real easy to see if a person is an Officer or not.  Find someone with AKO/ Air force Portal/ NKO login rights, then just look up the person and see if they are an Officer or not.  What is really cool, Is I may be in the Army, but I have access to Air Force Portal and the navy-Marine Corps similar systems.  I have run My fair share of checks.  Now, what would I do if I found someone to be lying, Not sure.  We had a guy here a few months ago claiming to be something he was not, a few of us got on the military computers and checked the guy out, and found out he was lying.  I took his public apology here to all of us as good enough for me, and did not pursue it further.  YMMV

Got AKO myself, be interested in knowing how you did it. Never done it, never thought about it. If it's not something you want to post here, could you send me a PM?

[JohnKachenmeister]

• (3) Any person who, not being a member of a police force or special constable, has in his possession any article of police uniform shall, unless he proves that he obtained possession of that article lawfully and has possession of it for a lawful purpose, be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.

My emphasis...

Interesting.  The accused needs to prove their innocence.

Not quite correct.  The accused must prove the existance of an affirmative defense. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

"False Personation of an Officer of the United States" (18 USC 44) is a felony, but requires specific intent to defraud another.

18 USC 33 sec. 702 makes it a misdemeanor (6 months in jail, max) to wear the uniform of the Armed Forces of the US, the Public Health Service of the US, or any auxiliary thereof.

[JohnKachenmeister]

18 USC Chap 33 sec. 704:  False wearing of medals or decorations.

705:  False use of a badge of a veterans' organization.

706:  Misuse of the Red Cross insignia.

[JohnKachenmeister]

It is also illegal to impersonate "Smokey the Bear" or "Woodsy Owl."

[cnitas]

Dang, I just got my woodsy owl costume off ebay.  I guess I need to send it back now.   

[cnitas]

And for what its worth:

Title 18, United States Code, Section 704

(b) False Claims About Receipt of Military Medals. - Whoever falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the armed forces of the United States, or any of the service medals or badges awarded to the member of such forces, or the ribbon button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration or medal, or any colorable imitation thereof shall be fined under this title for imprisoned not more than six months, or both

[mikeylikey]

18 USC 33 sec. 702 makes it a misdemeanor (6 months in jail, max) to wear the uniform of the Armed Forces of the US, the Public Health Service of the US, or any auxiliary thereof.

Good luck getting the AF to say we are their auxiliary.  So impersonating a CAP "Senior Member" would most likely not fall into these laws....

[mynetdude]

18 USC 33 sec. 702 makes it a misdemeanor (6 months in jail, max) to wear the uniform of the Armed Forces of the US, the Public Health Service of the US, or any auxiliary thereof.

Good luck getting the AF to say we are their auxiliary.  So impersonating a CAP "Senior Member" would most likely not fall into these laws....

* mynetdude sighs, I know there has been discussion about whether CAP is actually an auxillary in one of the threads about moving CAP to DHS or DOT whatever.  AFAIK and it seems to be based on the number of posts and comments we ARE still the Auxiliary otherwise if we are not then take the USAF AUX off our planes and logos/emblems.

Again, CAP is the Aux when on AFAM (when we work for the USAF) the rest of the time we are just our little nonprofit corporation with only 50,000+ members.

[mynetdude]

Whoa... thats cool I didn't know that doing a / command would do something like that!

[afgeo4]

"False Personation of an Officer of the United States" (18 USC 44) is a felony, but requires specific intent to defraud another.

18 USC 33 sec. 702 makes it a misdemeanor (6 months in jail, max) to wear the uniform of the Armed Forces of the US, the Public Health Service of the US, or any auxiliary thereof.

LOL so if we're only the Auxiliary part-time, does it make it okay to impersonate us all other times?

[CASH172]

...if we are not then take the USAF AUX off our planes and logos/emblems.

They're kinda in the process of that. 

[mynetdude]

...if we are not then take the USAF AUX off our planes and logos/emblems.

They're kinda in the process of that. 

Got any info on that? I'm not saying we shouldn't be the Aux, but the point is... if we aren't something then we shouldn't be plastering it all over saying we are when we aren't.

I wonder if we lose our "AUX" status how that affects funding from the USAF and AFAMs, and THEN the impersonation law would not apply to CAP because we would no longer be an AUX because the law only applies to Military, Law Enforcement, and Auxiliary (and some others I am sure) so we would no longer be under the blanket!

[CASH172]

...if we are not then take the USAF AUX off our planes and logos/emblems.

They're kinda in the process of that. 

Got any info on that?

Look at the new paint schemes markings on our aircraft and tell me where it says AF or Aux anywhere on the outside.  Also, look at the new command patch.  Of course I don't know how much further CAP as a whole will go in that direction since our 'regime change.'

[mynetdude]

So we have a new paint scheme? I haven't seen it yet, and it hasn't been mandated by NHQ to have all aircraft repainted although ORWG does have an interesting plane that is tan with dark brown its the only CAP plane I have seen that isn't the red blue white.

I am aware the new command patch doesn't have it, however many of our emblems still do (for the letterheads).

[CASH172]

So we have a new paint scheme? I haven't seen it yet, and it hasn't been mandated by NHQ to have all aircraft repainted although ORWG does have an interesting plane that is tan with dark brown its the only CAP plane I have seen that isn't the red blue white.

I am aware the new command patch doesn't have it, however many of our emblems still do (for the letterheads).

I'm sorry I didn't quite mean the whole plane's paint scheme.  I just meant the new command patches on the doors and the tail that now reads "Civil Air Patrol" instead of "USAF Aux."  There are still corporate aircraft not in the red, white, and blue scheme. 

[mynetdude]

So we have a new paint scheme? I haven't seen it yet, and it hasn't been mandated by NHQ to have all aircraft repainted although ORWG does have an interesting plane that is tan with dark brown its the only CAP plane I have seen that isn't the red blue white.

I am aware the new command patch doesn't have it, however many of our emblems still do (for the letterheads).

I'm sorry I didn't quite mean the whole plane's paint scheme.  I just meant the new command patches on the doors and the tail that now reads "Civil Air Patrol" instead of "USAF Aux."  There are still corporate aircraft not in the red, white, and blue scheme. 

Are you saying that the doors on the 182/172/GA8 are having their tri-prop emblem removed with the CAP command patch emblem? If that is the case, why is there no memo saying this must be done? Several planes that I have seen very recently still have the red tri prop with CAP/USAF on the doors still.

[CASH172]

So we have a new paint scheme? I haven't seen it yet, and it hasn't been mandated by NHQ to have all aircraft repainted although ORWG does have an interesting plane that is tan with dark brown its the only CAP plane I have seen that isn't the red blue white.

I am aware the new command patch doesn't have it, however many of our emblems still do (for the letterheads).

I'm sorry I didn't quite mean the whole plane's paint scheme.  I just meant the new command patches on the doors and the tail that now reads "Civil Air Patrol" instead of "USAF Aux."  There are still corporate aircraft not in the red, white, and blue scheme. 

Are you saying that the doors on the 182/172/GA8 are having their tri-prop emblem removed with the CAP command patch emblem? If that is the case, why is there no memo saying this must be done? Several planes that I have seen very recently still have the red tri prop with CAP/USAF on the doors still.

Go to www.cap.gov and look at the picture of the C182.  As for the official memo, I couldn't find it via a google search right away but I'll keep looking.  But a side note, the command patch on the C182 on cap.gov was photoshoped in. 

That's enough of a topic drift. 

[SJFedor]

So we have a new paint scheme? I haven't seen it yet, and it hasn't been mandated by NHQ to have all aircraft repainted although ORWG does have an interesting plane that is tan with dark brown its the only CAP plane I have seen that isn't the red blue white.

I am aware the new command patch doesn't have it, however many of our emblems still do (for the letterheads).

I'm sorry I didn't quite mean the whole plane's paint scheme.  I just meant the new command patches on the doors and the tail that now reads "Civil Air Patrol" instead of "USAF Aux."  There are still corporate aircraft not in the red, white, and blue scheme. 

Are you saying that the doors on the 182/172/GA8 are having their tri-prop emblem removed with the CAP command patch emblem? If that is the case, why is there no memo saying this must be done? Several planes that I have seen very recently still have the red tri prop with CAP/USAF on the doors still.

They've been removed for some time on most aircraft. The policy letter (which, when you look in the ICL category online, shows it as resinded) required removing USAF Aux from the tail, and replacing the Civil Air Patrol/USAF Aux emblem (the old school WWII era patch w/ USAF Aux written on it) to the US Civil Air Patrol MAJCOM shield. Perhaps your wing wasn't compliant with the policy letter, as I remember it had a "to be done" date of sometime in mid to late 07. But every aircraft in my Wing, every aircraft I've seen in every other wing I've been to, and all the GA-8s I've flown, all have the Civil Air Patrol on the tail, and the MAJCOM shield on the doors. As well, all the new aircraft we're getting from the factory are so painted and marked.

Some wings still haven't gotten their aircraft painted, as, per 66-1, they're not required to be painted in the scheme until they're "in need" of a complete repaint. Then, they're to be painted in the right colors. PA Wing, for example, most (>50%) of their fleet isn't painted in the R/W/B scheme (at least, when I left they weren't) An argument was made that it's better to have an "unmarked" plane, especially for CD ops, but since even the unmarked planes are required to have the under/overwing and tail markings, it's kinda redundant now.

[mynetdude]

again we're drifting off topic, sorry I didn't notice the change in paint scheme... indeed the tails are different now too.

If it is the case that the change didn't need to take place until a plane was in need of repainting... I can see several of ORWG's aircrafts keeping the old lettering/emblems for a VERY long time because many of our planes are not in need of repainting at the moment, I know of at least 2 that probably could use repainting but not where the changes are to be made.

I know our planes are going out on a rotation schedule right now due to squadrons gaining/losing an aircraft in the recent changes.  So I'm wondering if repaints are in the works during this rotational process along with that we just got a new plane so I would imagine it has the newer paint scheme as mentioned above.

But to go back on topic...  I noticed one poster mentioned in another very recent thread and pointed out some regulations concerning when we are the AF Aux just out of curiosity if the AF Aux is being removed from aircraft and other emblems does that mean squadrons who have signs that say XXX Squadron, USAF Auxiliary need to have their sign no longer say USAF Aux? I don't know if regulation points this out or not

Again, regulation is still saying that when we are tasked by federal agencies including the USAF and other military resources we are considered the AF Aux having this removed will probably prompt that regulation to be updated so therefore impersonating an officer in the Auxiliary would have no merit because we are phasing out our "Auxiliary" status???  I don't know if removing the AF Aux name means we are no longer going to maintain "auxiliary" status?

[JohnKachenmeister]

CAP is, in fact, the USAF Auxiliary, and it is illegal to wear the uniform of the CAP without authority to do so.

It would require an act of Congress to change that fact, not merely changing a sticker on the side of an airplane.

[afgeo4]

CAP is, in fact, the USAF Auxiliary, and it is illegal to wear the uniform of the CAP without authority to do so.

It would require an act of Congress to change that fact, not merely changing a sticker on the side of an airplane.

Arrrgh Sir... it is a FACT that CAP is the USAF Auxiliary when on AFAM missions. CAP does not and cannot act as the USAF Auxiliary at all other times. Don't forget, the Civil Air Patrol, is a non-profit corporation chartered by the US Senate, not the Dept of the Air Force or even the DoD.  The Auxiliary status is no longer a full-time thing and hasn't been for a while.

Do I like it? No! However, it is the truth and I'm not going to lie to myself or others simply because I don't like it.

[JohnKachenmeister]

You are incorrect.

CAP's status as an auxiliary when acting on behalf of the federal government is a change to the law that clarifies liability only.  The authority to act in a corporate role is provided by Congress, the Congress has stated that CAP is the auxiliary of the USAF.

Think of it in terms of the Air National Guard... The ANG is a state force, unless and until it is called up by the President to serve on active duty.  But it remains a unit, albeit on standby, of the USAF. 

We do not have a state role, but rather a corporate one.  That role allows us to serve state governments, local governments, and NGO's to carry out our Congressional mandates.  We remain on "Standby" for service to the USAF when called, and such a call, by law takes precedence over any other mission.  The Air Force provides the aircraft and vehicles for these corporate missions, and we may wear the Air Force unifrom when performing them, but the AF has no liability for injuries or negligence on non AF missions, and the current law clarifies that.

For purposes of punishing those who wear the uniform illegally, we remain an auxiliary of the USAF. 

[afgeo4]

You are incorrect.

CAP's status as an auxiliary when acting on behalf of the federal government is a change to the law that clarifies liability only.  The authority to act in a corporate role is provided by Congress, the Congress has stated that CAP is the auxiliary of the USAF.

Think of it in terms of the Air National Guard... The ANG is a state force, unless and until it is called up by the President to serve on active duty.  But it remains a unit, albeit on standby, of the USAF. 

We do not have a state role, but rather a corporate one.  That role allows us to serve state governments, local governments, and NGO's to carry out our Congressional mandates.  We remain on "Standby" for service to the USAF when called, and such a call, by law takes precedence over any other mission.  The Air Force provides the aircraft and vehicles for these corporate missions, and we may wear the Air Force unifrom when performing them, but the AF has no liability for injuries or negligence on non AF missions, and the current law clarifies that.

For purposes of punishing those who wear the uniform illegally, we remain an auxiliary of the USAF. 

I won't entertain an opinion claimed to be a fact without proof. The drift needs to end too.

[JohnKachenmeister]

What drift?  The central question of this thread was "What constitutes Impersonation of an Officer."

[RogueLeader]

It's fine by me thus far.

[Major Lord]

I concur with John Kachenmeister that CAP is the USAF-AUX, by an act of Congress. I challenge anyone to produce a source constituting a superior authority that contradicts this. CAP or Air Force Policy on Bling, flair, patches,  stickers, or AFAMS does not change the irrefutable fact that we are the Aux. Its not just policy. Its the law.

Major Lord

[davedove]

I concur with John Kachenmeister that CAP is the USAF-AUX, by an act of Congress. I challenge anyone to produce a source constituting a superior authority that contradicts this. CAP or Air Force Policy on Bling, flair, patches,  stickers, or AFAMS does not change the irrefutable fact that we are the Aux. Its not just policy. Its the law.

Hear, hear.  Besides, it's not like there's another AF Aux. floating around out there.  Any time the Aux. is active, CAP is the one doing the job.

[afgeo4]

What drift?  The central question of this thread was "What constitutes Impersonation of an Officer."

Correct. It is not "What constitutes an Auxiliary".

[JohnKachenmeister]

OK.  You lost me.

Let's review:

False impersonation of an officer of the United States requires specific intent to defraud, and is a felony.  It includes all "Officers," not just military officers.  Case law includes persons identifying themselves as officials of the Tennesee Valley Authority to facilitarte fraudulent land transactions.

A lesser crime, false wearing of the uniform of the armed forces, is a misdemeanor, does not require any specific fraudulent intent, and includes wearing the uniform of auxiliaries of the armed forces.

There are only two armed forces auxiliaries at this time, those being the Civil Air Patrol (AF), and the Coast Guard Auxiliary (CG).  The many other former military auxiliaries that existed during WWII no longer exist, except for those two.

Now I am sure you will tell me where I am wrong on this.

[RogueLeader]

What drift?  The central question of this thread was "What constitutes Impersonation of an Officer."

Correct. It is not "What constitutes an Auxiliary".

Also since the Full time/Part Time of Aux/aux was brought up, and it is a a key component of impersonation of an aux member, it has my full blessing.

Carry on.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

It's germane to ask, if we're not the full-time auxiliary, whether wearing the Air Force uniform on non-Auxiliary missions or functions is legal.

But since the idea that we're not the full-time auxiliary doesn't seem to be based in much more than liability, this sidebar doesn't seem to hold water for me.

The idea that we're changing insignia to tie in less to our parent organization is coincidental, and seems to come from a previous regime at National Headquarters, not from any larger policy change.

I don't like the loss of "USAF Auxiliary" or USAF Aux" from our identity, because "Civil Air Patrol" elicits a lot of "huh?" responses from people. The more we identify with the parent, the better known we are. Of course, part of that is that we need to tow the line more so the Air Force will want to associate more with us in return.

But the only time a CAP member is impersonating an officer is... never. (That is, unless you consider the guilt some people have in having rank they didn't work as hard for as their actual Air Force counterparts!)

[mikeylikey]

(That is, unless you consider the guilt some people have in having rank they didn't work as hard for as their actual Air Force counterparts!)

Oh My Freaking God!  How many more times are we going to have to read that exact same sentence here at CAPTALK???

Enough..........  If you or anyone else don't feel you deserve to wear your neon blue and white piece of cloth, DON'T! 

Many members work very hard for their CAP rank.  By saying what you just said, you put their achievements in an organization (THAT is NOT the Air Force BTW) they care for and try to support the best they can. 

I swear If I could just get the whole "we don't deserve rank" group in a room for twenty minutes, we would have the whole situation worked out.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Mikey, what I said and you quoted was a jab and an aside, frankly. While in other posts, we agree, I have to say that here, your "Internet Tough Guy" response is silly.

I earned my grade, and I know many others who did. I took tests that weren't open book (like Level I) to access officer grade, too.

We have grade, and I wouldn't argue that we shouldn't. As long as we conduct ourselves appropriately for our rank and grade, we should keep it. Of course, that requires individual effort from each of us who wear officer grade.

That's my stance. Any questions?

[Hawk200]

Mikey, what I said and you quoted was a jab and an aside, frankly. While in other posts, we agree, I have to say that here, your "Internet Tough Guy" response is silly.

If you'd been part of this board longer, you'd understand that his response wasn't a "Tough Guy" response, it's one of exasperation. People here learn ,after a while, learn to not bring certain things up in order to avoid the irritation, because the same subject gets to burning and never gets put out.

Either you did it out of ignorance, or you were intentionally trying to start that little war.
If the former, no harm done, just please don't joke about such things in the future. If the latter, this isn't the right place for you.

[Eclipse]

How many more times are we going to have to read that exact same sentence here at CAPTALK???

We should have a SEARCH function!

Oh, we do...never mind....

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Hawk, I stand corrected. Mikey, my apologies for misunderstanding.

I wasn't aware of a fatigue, so that's a "rookie" mistake.

[mikeylikey]

^ My fault, I blew up on you.  Sorry!

[Hawk200]

Hawk, I stand corrected. Mikey, my apologies for misunderstanding.

I wasn't aware of a fatigue, so that's a "rookie" mistake.

No worries, man. We're almost family here as much as we fight about things  . We do have some brilliant minds here, we'd probably be dangerous if people actually paid attention to us. 

Welcome to CAPTalk.

[High Speed Low Drag]

**** 2 year BUMP ****  (I love doing bumps)

Q:  If you had a cadet post a picture on Facebook, in a regulation CAP flightsuit (Command patch, flag, leather name tag (w/ name, "CAPT     CAP" & Senior Pilot Wings), with plastic encased Capt Bars, and a flight cap w/ the cadet cap device), -- what would reg would you cite for impersonating a CAP Senior Officer?

Serious Question, currently dealing with it.  I have already come up with a list, but want the great collective wisdom of the board to make sure I haven't missed anything else, particularly the impersonating part.

[PHall]

Are you sure it's worth the time and effort?

[High Speed Low Drag]

Yes.  There is more, but all of that is listed.  the one thing I couldn't find was a specific reg saying that a cadet cannot impersonate a senior member officer.

[Pylon]

Yes.  There is more, but all of that is listed.  the one thing I couldn't find was a specific reg saying that a cadet cannot impersonate a senior member officer.

I see your sig says you're a Deputy Cmdr for Cadets.   Is the cadet in question one of your cadets?  If so, just dispense the appropriate discipline.  You don't need a chapter and verse reg cite to tell a cadet that every inappropriate act is inappropriate.

If he is not one of your cadets, consider either:  A) using your commander, tactfully bringing the photo's existence to the attention of that cadet's commander and simply leave it at that; or B) letting it go.

[JoeTomasone]

Yes.  There is more, but all of that is listed.  the one thing I couldn't find was a specific reg saying that a cadet cannot impersonate a senior member officer.

If this wasn't just someone goofing a fake picture and you really want to go through with it...

Grade Insignia: Senior members will wear regular size plastic encased grade insignia centered
horizontally on top of each shoulder with bottom edge of insignia placed 1/2 inch from shoulder
seam. General officers will center plastic grade insignia on shoulder. CAP cutouts will not be
worn. Cadets do not wear insignia or cutouts.

Temporary & Discretionary Grades. There are no temporary promotions or demotions, including temporary or "field" promotions or demotions at encampments and other activities. There are no discretionary grades. Cadets will wear their earned grade on their uniform at every CAP activity. The only grades authorized are those shown in Figure 2-3. However, each squadron may appoint a C/MSgt, C/SMSgt or C/CMSgt to serve as the cadet first sergeant. Cadets serving in this special duty are authorized to wear the first sergeant diamond insignia.

Neither directly on point, but valid nonetheless.

[Spike]

Serious Question, currently dealing with it.  I have already come up with a list, but want the great collective wisdom of the board to make sure I haven't missed anything else, particularly the impersonating part.

How did you get the picture?  Was it sent to you??

Said cadet can claim it photoshop??

[lordmonar]

Okay.....going after a guy because he is wearing a uniform he is not entitled to on a face book picture.....is a bit much.

Okay....pat's rules for impersonating a CAP officer.

The individual must wear the uniform/insignia with the intention to defruad someone or something.

Wearing the wrong rank....is not a major failure.....I can think of several senerios where I would allow it.....say a person shows up for a mission with out a uniform....someone else (of higher ranks) has a spare flight suit......we have a mission to do and two regs apply......we break one to satisfy the requirments of the other.


No harm, no foul.

If this cadet is already on the line for getting into trouble.....again I think it is a strech to go after him for simply a face book picture.  If he is really that bad just wait...he will really screw up and then you can hammer him to your heart's content.

[RiverAux]

Who needs a specific reg cite about impersonating a senior member?  The cadet was not in proper CAP uniform if they were wearing items they were not qualified to wear. 

[High Speed Low Drag]

OK.  I see everyone is on the same page as I am.  Also, NEC proposed adding a regulation regarding "Social media"

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/NEC_2009_Nov_draft_A932C887B8DC0.pdf

There is more to the story then I have revealed here (other photos, and an incident), but I was curious if anyone had anything else to add.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[JoeTomasone]

I concur with NHQ.   As written, that regulation is a hornet's nest of problems.  For example, if I link to a page that links to a page that has pornography, am I subject to disciplinary action?    If I link to a page upon which later someone ADDS pornography.....  Etc, etc.



  I would entirely support a measure reading:

Social Media. CAP, its commanders, officers, and staff shall not constrain any
communication by a member, whether senior or cadet, including without limitation use of
the Internet. Provided, however:

(1) CAP member generated material constituting "speech" shall not use either sexually
explicit or suggestive language, profanity, photographs or graphic material of sexually
explicit or suggestive or depictions of violence or mayhem; nor shall it violate any CAP
regulation or policy directive; nor shall it intentionally and directly link to any such proscribed
material when communicated:

a. Directly with any Civil Air Patrol member
b. When a Civil Air Patrol member is likely to receive such communications
c. When communicating pursuant to the member's role as a Civil Air Patrol member. 

This (hopefully) attaches the same expectations of members online as we have in uniform at a CAP activity.   If I have a lot of CAP members as friends on Facebook, I shouldn't (and don't, since this case is true for me) be posting anything that I wouldn't say to them directly, in person, in uniform.  That is especially true if some of those members are Cadets.  However, if I belong to a forum that (to my knowledge) has no CAP members, I should not be restricted from any form of communication that is not illegal or substantially immoral.   


Examples:

What should NOT be actionable:

Dropping an F-bomb on a forum discussing politics

A member who is a model and has an online portfolio of pictures modeling underwear for the JC Penny catalog, or Victoria's Secret, etc.

Comments that a non-CAP member makes on your online profile




What SHOULD be actionable:


Conduct on CAPTalk or any other CAP/military oriented site, including unit websites.

Posting pictures anywhere depicting the member partially dressed in only a Blues shirt with proper insignia (etc)

Posting pictures anywhere depicting the member engaged in illegal activity

Sending any questionable material, using objectionable language, or any violations of CPPT intentionally in communications directly with Cadets or in a manner in which they would be expected to see it (such as friends on Facebook).


..I could come up with more, but it's lunchtime.   

[raivo]

^ If they post a picture of themself on Facebook with eight shots of tequila lined up front of them, well... they're probably showing pretty poor judgment, but there's not a lot I can (or should) do, other than to warn them to be careful.

If they're improperly wearing the CAP uniform, and by extension the Air Force uniform (in the case of non-CAP-distinctive uniforms) they've crossed a bad line. (Particularly if they have eight shots of tequila lined up in front of them, but I assume this wasn't the case. ) When they're wearing the uniform, they're representing CAP (and some might perceive representation of the USAF.) If they're deliberately wearing that uniform incorrectly, they're displaying an intentional disrespect for the rules designed to make sure that members don't do anything to cast a bad light on said uniform - regardless of what their intent was.

[lordmonar]

^ If they post a picture of themself on Facebook with eight shots of tequila lined up front of them, well... they're probably showing pretty poor judgment, but there's not a lot I can (or should) do, other than to warn them to be careful.

If they're improperly wearing the CAP uniform, and by extension the Air Force uniform (in the case of non-CAP-distinctive uniforms) they've crossed a bad line. (Particularly if they have eight shots of tequila lined up in front of them, but I assume this wasn't the case. ) When they're wearing the uniform, they're representing CAP (and some might perceive representation of the USAF.) If they're deliberately wearing that uniform incorrectly, they're displaying an intentional disrespect for the rules designed to make sure that members don't do anything to cast a bad light on said uniform - regardless of what their intent was.

When I deployed to Bosina we worked closely with a German Communications unit.  As we were getting ready to roate home a couple of the guys traded uniforms with the German......we took pictures and the guys were going to wear their their new uniforms to their next drill (they were ANG types).  It was fun....and was not disrepect.

We need to keep things in perspective.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

If, for example, I were to take the grey epaulette slides off my service coat and light blue shirt, replace them with standard hard rank and blue AF epaulettes, and change my CAP nameplates to AF ones, walk into a recruiting office, National Guard armoury, etc. and say "I'm Captain Joe Blow, USAF," that would clearly be an impersonation.

However, if I have a historically-accurate RAF/RCAF/RAAF/RNZAF uniform and am taking part in a Battle of Britain re-enactor's group, that would not be.

[Thom]

I concur with NHQ.   As written, that regulation is a hornet's nest of problems.  For example, if I link to a page that links to a page that has pornography, am I subject to disciplinary action?    If I link to a page upon which later someone ADDS pornography.....  Etc, etc.



  I would entirely support a measure reading:

Social Media. CAP, its commanders, officers, and staff shall not constrain any
communication by a member, whether senior or cadet, including without limitation use of
the Internet. Provided, however:

(1) CAP member generated material constituting "speech" shall not use either sexually
explicit or suggestive language, profanity, photographs or graphic material of sexually
explicit or suggestive or depictions of violence or mayhem; nor shall it violate any CAP
regulation or policy directive; nor shall it intentionally and directly link to any such proscribed
material when communicated:

a. Directly with any Civil Air Patrol member
b. When a Civil Air Patrol member is likely to receive such communications
c. When communicating pursuant to the member's role as a Civil Air Patrol member. 

This (hopefully) attaches the same expectations of members online as we have in uniform at a CAP activity.   If I have a lot of CAP members as friends on Facebook, I shouldn't (and don't, since this case is true for me) be posting anything that I wouldn't say to them directly, in person, in uniform.  That is especially true if some of those members are Cadets.  However, if I belong to a forum that (to my knowledge) has no CAP members, I should not be restricted from any form of communication that is not illegal or substantially immoral.   

The problem with the above quoted idea is this (among others):  It would make punishable ENTIRELY PRIVATE explicit messages between a HUSBAND and WIFE who are both CAP members.

I know you could easily tweak the language to avoid this particular fault, but it illustrates the point that when you try to limit speech, as opposed to physical behavior, you quickly run into a quagmire.

My personal preferred approach is to use the bare minimum possible regulations to keep the most outrageously egregious behavior at bay, and accept that the remaing 'merely slightly-obnoxious' behavior is the price of treating people like responsible individuals.

We'll have to see where the NB goes with the whole idea.  If they were to enact anything remotely like the proposal, I would expect the NLO to have an ulcer in short order.

Thom

[FW]

I wouldn't worry about the NLO as much as our Corp. Legal Council.  He is the one who would be dealing with all the litigation which would ensue (pun intended) from such regulations. 

[vmstan]

Nevermind

[RiverAux]

There is a US code mentioned earlier in this thread that makes it a federal crime to impersonate a member of a military auxiliary, including CAP.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

From Section 90 of the 1996 Police Act -

Impersonations, etc.

• (1) Any person who with intent to deceive impersonates a member of a police force or special constable, or makes any statement or does any act calculated falsely to suggest that he is such a member or constable, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.


• (2) Any person who, not being a constable, wears any article of police uniform in circumstances where it gives him an appearance so nearly resembling that of a member of a police force as to be calculated to deceive shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.


• (3) Any person who, not being a member of a police force or special constable, has in his possession any article of police uniform shall, unless he proves that he obtained possession of that article lawfully and has possession of it for a lawful purpose, be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.


• (4) In this section—
  
• 
  
  • (a) "article of police uniform" means any article of uniform or any distinctive badge or mark or document of identification usually issued to members of police forces or special constables, or anything having the appearance of such an article, badge, mark or document, and
    
    
  [li](b) "special constable" means a special constable appointed for a police area.
  

Because "offence" is spelled in the British manner, and because the "standard scale" strikes me a little strange, please tell me where you got this. I have a sneaking suspicion it's not from either the U.S. or any state government.[/list]

[davidsinn]

From Section 90 of the 1996 Police Act -

Impersonations, etc.

   
• (1) Any person who with intent to deceive impersonates a member of a police force or special constable, or makes any statement or does any act calculated falsely to suggest that he is such a member or constable, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
• (2) Any person who, not being a constable, wears any article of police uniform in circumstances where it gives him an appearance so nearly resembling that of a member of a police force as to be calculated to deceive shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
• (3) Any person who, not being a member of a police force or special constable, has in his possession any article of police uniform shall, unless he proves that he obtained possession of that article lawfully and has possession of it for a lawful purpose, be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.
• (4) In this section—
• 
        
  • (a) "article of police uniform" means any article of uniform or any distinctive badge or mark or document of identification usually issued to members of police forces or special constables, or anything having the appearance of such an article, badge, mark or document, and
    
  [li](b) "special constable" means a special constable appointed for a police area.

[/l][/list]

Because "offence" is spelled in the British manner, and because the "standard scale" strikes me a little strange, please tell me where you got this. I have a sneaking suspicion it's not from either the U.S. or any state government.[/q]


A little google-fu

[TACP]

From Section 90 of the 1996 Police Act -

Impersonations, etc.

• (1) Any person who with intent to deceive impersonates a member of a police force or special constable, or makes any statement or does any act calculated falsely to suggest that he is such a member or constable, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.


• (2) Any person who, not being a constable, wears any article of police uniform in circumstances where it gives him an appearance so nearly resembling that of a member of a police force as to be calculated to deceive shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.


• (3) Any person who, not being a member of a police force or special constable, has in his possession any article of police uniform shall, unless he proves that he obtained possession of that article lawfully and has possession of it for a lawful purpose, be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.


• (4) In this section—
  
• 
  
  • (a) "article of police uniform" means any article of uniform or any distinctive badge or mark or document of identification usually issued to members of police forces or special constables, or anything having the appearance of such an article, badge, mark or document, and
    
    
  [li](b) "special constable" means a special constable appointed for a police area.
  

Because "offence" is spelled in the British manner, and because the "standard scale" strikes me a little strange, please tell me where you got this. I have a sneaking suspicion it's not from either the U.S. or any state government.[/list]

HAHA, nice one... I'm pretty stunned though that "standard scale" struck you more that calling a law enforcement officer 'CONSTABLE'. Few places in the US where you hear that term...

Anyways, I know the quote is totally off topic, but just asked a British dude I'm deployed with and he confirmed it's United Kingdom law. Good call Buckeye.

Gotta read the WHOLE Google page...

[SarDragon]

Yeah, the constable thing caught my instantly. I had pretty much ignored the whole quote before.

[RiverAux]

By the way, that wasn't the law I was referring to, this was.
18 USC 33 sec. 702 makes it a misdemeanor (6 months in jail, max) to wear the uniform of the Armed Forces of the US, the Public Health Service of the US, or any auxiliary thereof.

[JoeTomasone]

By the way, that wasn't the law I was referring to, this was.
18 USC 33 sec. 702 makes it a misdemeanor (6 months in jail, max) to wear the uniform of the Armed Forces of the US, the Public Health Service of the US, or any auxiliary thereof.

And just because it's the Government and things shouldn't make sense unnecessarily, it's also prohibited in 10 USC -- but with exceptions that aren't in 18 USC (for actors and certain other categories):

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C45.txt

[wuzafuzz]

Interesting that this thread morphed from "impersonating an officer" to social media policies.  However, I'll bite.

Any effort by CAP or any other organization to regulate the speech of its members is fraught with peril.  Even the military has some struggles with this, and they have UCMJ in their tool box.

It is my opinion that NHQ nailed it with their statement of non-concurrence.  Members are not authorized to speak on behalf of CAP, unless duly authorized by their commanders.  Use of CAP logos, brand, and symbols may be regulated.  So if you claim to speak on behalf of CAP and you go off the reservation, or you weren't authorized to do so, membership action may be taken.

Any communication that is otherwise legal and is merely incidental to your CAP membership should be left alone.  The grey areas, where a members statements cast CAP in a gravely bad light are likely covered by other regulations.  New rules for social media are likely unneeded.  What wouldn't hurt is for PAO's or commanders to explain the existing rules at a meeting.  Remind folks the covered actions are the same regardless of the medium. 

As for impersonating an "officer," the USC and a variety of state laws already cover unlawful use of certain uniforms.  Those laws aren't limited to officer uniforms.  Context is everything.  (We don't arrest actors or people in Halloween costumes.  Actions causing someone to believe you are a member of the military, police dept, etc are the concern.  You don't even need a uniform to run afoul of those laws.)  Therefore a CAP cadet sporting a CAP officers uniform on Facebook needn't be a big deal.  Might deserve a talking to, but absent some other egregious act, leave it at that. 

[nesagsar]

Okay.....going after a guy because he is wearing a uniform he is not entitled to on a face book picture.....is a bit much.

Okay....pat's rules for impersonating a CAP officer.

The individual must wear the uniform/insignia with the intention to defraud someone or something.

Wearing the wrong rank....is not a major failure.....I can think of several scenarios where I would allow it.....say a person shows up for a mission with out a uniform....someone else (of higher ranks) has a spare flight suit......we have a mission to do and two regs apply......we break one to satisfy the requirements of the other.


No harm, no foul.

If this cadet is already on the line for getting into trouble.....again I think it is a stretch to go after him for simply a face book picture.  If he is really that bad just wait...he will really screw up and then you can hammer him to your heart's content.

Good rules. Could you please send this over to Illinois Wing? After all they did file a 2-B on me for wearing an officer cap and called it impersonating a cadet officer.

[lordmonar]

Okay.....going after a guy because he is wearing a uniform he is not entitled to on a face book picture.....is a bit much.

Okay....pat's rules for impersonating a CAP officer.

The individual must wear the uniform/insignia with the intention to defraud someone or something.

Wearing the wrong rank....is not a major failure.....I can think of several scenarios where I would allow it.....say a person shows up for a mission with out a uniform....someone else (of higher ranks) has a spare flight suit......we have a mission to do and two regs apply......we break one to satisfy the requirements of the other.


No harm, no foul.

If this cadet is already on the line for getting into trouble.....again I think it is a stretch to go after him for simply a face book picture.  If he is really that bad just wait...he will really screw up and then you can hammer him to your heart's content.

Good rules. Could you please send this over to Illinois Wing? After all they did file a 2-B on me for wearing an officer cap and called it impersonating a cadet officer.

Did it stick?  Did you challange it?

[Dracosbane]

[Good rules. Could you please send this over to Illinois Wing? After all they did file a 2-B on me for wearing an officer cap and called it impersonating a cadet officer.

Someone's yanking your chain, or they've got a serious stick shoved up their six.  What were you doing while wearing an officer cap that someone would have had an issue with it?  And why would they do anything but tell you to take it off?

None of that statement makes sense, at least not without some extra facts for context.

[nesagsar]

[Good rules. Could you please send this over to Illinois Wing? After all they did file a 2-B on me for wearing an officer cap and called it impersonating a cadet officer.

Someone's yanking your chain, or they've got a serious stick shoved up their six.  What were you doing while wearing an officer cap that someone would have had an issue with it?  And why would they do anything but tell you to take it off?

None of that statement makes sense, at least not without some extra facts for context.

Unfortunately there are some officers in CAP that abuse their power. My squadron commander was one of those. I was the junior ranked member of the squadron honor guard/color guard for a veterans day parade, me and 3 cadet officers. To balance out the headgear issue the senior member in charge ordered us to all wear cadet officer caps since we had extras of those but only one flight cap. The squadron commander took a picture of us and wrote me up for impersonating a cadet officer during the parade. I challenged it under grounds of me never saying I was an officer as well as the fact that all of my insignia was cadet enlisted and that I was ordered by a superior officer to wear the cap but he was able to bring enough of his friends into it to force the issue. In the end he wasn't able to enforce the 2-B but I left the squadron anyway having lost any respect I had for him and his officers. I intended to join another squadron but he got promoted to group commander.

[SarDragon]

Oh, look, you've got a fresh crowd to whine to. We listened to your sad tale two years ago, and weren't impressed by it then. Let it go; it's ancient history.

If you have something functional to contribute, we'll be glad to look, but rehashing something that absolutely no one on this forum can do anything about is wasting your time and ours.

[Dracosbane]

Maj. Bowles, I believe he was just answering my question.  Whining about it or not, he was giving me facts that I asked for.

However, in response to his problem, there should be no issue at all with a cadet wearing an officer cap in a color guard.  Especially since CAPP 52-8 is full of pictures with cadets wearing the officer caps in a colors element, drill team, and honor guard.  Just because the NCC color guard uniform only specifies the flight cap doesn't make that the only uniform for color guards.  And especially since it was published in 2003.

[SarDragon]

PM sent.

[JoeTomasone]

Maj. Bowles, I believe he was just answering my question.  Whining about it or not, he was giving me facts that I asked for.

However, in response to his problem, there should be no issue at all with a cadet wearing an officer cap in a color guard.  Especially since CAPP 52-8 is full of pictures with cadets wearing the officer caps in a colors element, drill team, and honor guard.  Just because the NCC color guard uniform only specifies the flight cap doesn't make that the only uniform for color guards.  And especially since it was published in 2003.

CAPP 52-8 has no binding authority over uniform wear.    However, CAPM 39-1 specifically states that Honor Guard members wear the Service Cap WITH the Cadet Officer device while performing Honor Guard duties.   

NOTE: Cadet NCOs and Airmen will not
wear the service cap. (EXCEPTION: Cadet
honor guards may wear service cap. See
Chapter 3 for details).

The honor guard uniform consists
of the service dress uniform coat with epaulets and slacks/trousers, male service cap with cadet officer
cap device, white ascot with Honor Guard patch, metallic silver shoulder cord, white pistol belt, white
gloves, and a brown non-operating parade rifle with white leather sling.

Page 68 clearly shows what appears to be a C/CMSGT wearing said cap.

All members will wear male service cap with cadet officer cap device; in
addition to the front chinstrap, a functional rear chinstrap with buckle will be
worn. When performing, the rear chinstrap will be placed under the
member's chin. This is a safety factor.

The irony here, of course, is that wearing the flight cap while performing Honor Guard duties would be a violation of 39-1. 

[Dracosbane]

I wasn't attempting to make it seem as if the 52-8 was the authority, I was merely pointing out the myriad of pictures with cadets in the saucer caps.  I figured the mere fact that the whole publication was chock full of cadets in the saucer caps was evidence enough that it was acceptable.

But I appreciate the followup.   

[JoeTomasone]

I wasn't attempting to make it seem as if the 52-8 was the authority, I was merely pointing out the myriad of pictures with cadets in the saucer caps.  I figured the mere fact that the whole publication was chock full of cadets in the saucer caps was evidence enough that it was acceptable.

Gotcha, but there may be folks on CAPTalk who might get the wrong impression/idea and think that every picture published by CAP is 100% IAW regulations (*cough* Volunteer *cough*).   Just wanted to make it clear for all who may read the thread that 39-1 controls no matter what you see or hear elsewhere.

[Dracosbane]

Roger.  Five by five.

[B.Kahuna]

JoeTomasone is right. The Honor Guard uniform DOES require the male officer hat as specified by CAPM 39-1. (Page 67 ish) And, per 52-8, Honor Guards are created by nothing lower than wing level. So unless they have the wing's approval and the full honor guard uniform, they shouldn't be labeling themselves Honor Guards.
That's a big peeve of mine-color guards calling themselves honor guards without realizing that CG is only one aspect of CAP honor guard.

[Dracosbane]

Actually, if you read the 52-8, honor guards are acceptable at the local level, with wing commander approval.  Most units won't build an honor guard, as size might make a difference there with the drill teams and the drama and funeral elements.  Although with honor guards as opposed to color guards, officers are allowed to be involved, so that can increase numbers.

[Pylon]

Although with honor guards as opposed to color guards, officers are allowed to be involved, so that can increase numbers.

Without trying to further derail this topic, cadet officers can serve in color guards at any time.  They simply can't compete in a color guard in the NCGC/NCC series of events (but they may still accompany such a team as an advisor/trainer/etc.).  Common myth.

[Spike]

Although with honor guards as opposed to color guards, officers are allowed to be involved, so that can increase numbers.

Without trying to further derail this topic, cadet officers can serve in color guards at any time.  They simply can't compete in a color guard in the NCGC/NCC series of events (but they may still accompany such a team as an advisor/trainer/etc.).  Common myth.

Why are Cadet Officers not allowed to compete?  I never understood that.

[jimmydeanno]

It might have a basis in the the learning objectives of the cadet program.

C/NCOs are supposed to learn how to be leaders of small teams.

I'd like to think it was that, but probably more along the tradition that Color Guards and Honor Guards in the Air Force are comprised of enlisted personnel.

[ßτε]

Although with honor guards as opposed to color guards, officers are allowed to be involved, so that can increase numbers.

Without trying to further derail this topic, cadet officers can serve in color guards at any time.  They simply can't compete in a color guard in the NCGC/NCC series of events (but they may still accompany such a team as an advisor/trainer/etc.).  Common myth.

A myth with a basis in fact.

The color guard consists of two non-commissioned officer cadets who are the flag bearers and two experienced cadets below the grade of staff sergeant who are the guards.

7.32.1. When practical, the color guard consists of two NCOs (the flagbearers) and two experienced airmen (the guards).

[Spike]

^ ahhh.....Facts.  Who would have thought CAP would do anything based on fact and truth.   

[nesagsar]

I would love to add some stories from my old color guard but it seems that we got off topic.

[Pingree1492]

Although with honor guards as opposed to color guards, officers are allowed to be involved, so that can increase numbers.

Without trying to further derail this topic, cadet officers can serve in color guards at any time.  They simply can't compete in a color guard in the NCGC/NCC series of events (but they may still accompany such a team as an advisor/trainer/etc.).  Common myth.

A myth with a basis in fact.

The color guard consists of two non-commissioned officer cadets who are the flag bearers and two experienced cadets below the grade of staff sergeant who are the guards.

7.32.1. When practical, the color guard consists of two NCOs (the flagbearers) and two experienced airmen (the guards).

CAPM 50-3??  Really?  That's now at least two revisions out of date...

And, you'll notice that the quote from the D&C Manual says "when practical..."  If it's not practical to set up your color guard per the ideal stated above (for example, you don't have cadet volunteers available of the correct rank), then you'll just have to make it work with who's available (if they're either all cadet airmen, cadet NCO's or cadet officers, or a mix thereof).

Preference should be given to a team of the 'recommended' makeup, and all of the same height.  But, in my experience that hardly ever works out.


EDIT:  My sincere apologies for further derailing this thread- if the color guard discussion needs to continue, we should start a new thread