Is Use of "USAFX" Improper?

[Turk]

I'm seeing this usage from time to time by CAP personnel in describing themselves online, i.e., Lt Col John Smith, USAFX.

Use of that acronym strikes me as improper. Moreover, USAFX is also used by a little organization called U.S. Air Force Explorers.

Comments?

[lordmonar]

Yes....it is improper.

[Eclipse]

Yes....it is improper.

+1 - USAFAux is used (improperly) as lot as well.  Never seen USAFX used, except as a typo (or heard of them for that matter).

[FW]

Its usage was popular for a short time after the attacks of 9-11.  Many wanted to be more identified with the USAF, at the time.  Even they thought about it, because of our contributions to the "home front".  It didn't take long for everyone to settle down.  Its usage is now "not in accordance with regulations". 

[PHall]

I'm seeing this usage from time to time by CAP personnel in describing themselves online, i.e., Lt Col John Smith, USAFX.

Use of that acronym strikes me as improper. Moreover, USAFX is also used by a little organization called U.S. Air Force Explorers.

Comments?

Never heard of the U.S. Air Force Explorers. Care to enlighten us?

[Private Investigator]

Google Fu http://www.usafexplorers.org/id17.html

It is a group that started a few years ago in Arizona. They have a BSA connection and compare themselves to police explorers, fire explorers, etc etc explorers. 

[DoubleSecret]

I'm seeing this usage from time to time by CAP personnel in describing themselves online, i.e., Lt Col John Smith, USAFX.

Use of that acronym strikes me as improper. Moreover, USAFX is also used by a little organization called U.S. Air Force Explorers.

Comments?

It strikes you as improper because ...
:: drumroll ::
... it's improper!

We have a perfectly good organizational designation:  CAP.  See CAPR 10-1, para 7.c.(1).
That reference also says other other organizational designations, such as AF Aux or USAFA, are not authorized.

I never see national, region, or wing commanders using the "USAF AUX" or other cute line-blurring designations in correspondence.  I'm sure someone here can produce a case to the contrary, but largely ... it appears that higher echelon commanders know better.

The real question:  Are those who use other organizational designations doing so because they're poorly trained (i.e., "I saw it on someone else's email and followed suit") or out of a desire to blur the distinction between their CAP status and USAF?  Hanlon's razor says "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."  Do folks just not know better?

Segue:  For (bleep)'s sake, I wish people would get rid of email boilerplate claiming that the information contained in the document "is designated by the Department
of Defense (DoD) as For Official Use Only (FOUO) and may not be released to anyone without the prior permission of XXWG CAP and/or NHQ CAP and/or CAP-USAF."  I've seen it on things that the DoD couldn't give the slightest glimmer of a hint of a (darn) about.

[Spam]

Agreed on all that. Great comments.

Further on the improper markings: I also wish people would cease the improper use of all classification markings, from the over use of "FOUO" you mention on nearly everything to the use (usually jokingly, I suppose) of "SECRET" and "TOP SECRET".  I've twice had calls from my security people to answer regarding CAP emails which came in to my unclassified work email with S/ and TS/ terms like that (yes, all emails are read, all are scanned, all over the world) and I had to laboriously explain what CAP was, and (with some embarrassment) why the USAF auxiliary doesn't appreciate the seriousness of classification marking.

For example, if you have SAREX exercise plans for your White Cell (planning cell) only, and don't want them released to potential trainees, simply put "Exercise traffic/planning cell only" in the header, or something. Please don't use those other actual terms; it doesn't look "cool", it looks stupid.

V/R,
Spam

[Eclipse]

[Segue:  For (bleep)'s sake, I wish people would get rid of email boilerplate claiming that the information contained in the document "is designated by the Department
of Defense (DoD) as For Official Use Only (FOUO) and may not be released to anyone without the prior permission of XXWG CAP and/or NHQ CAP and/or CAP-USAF."  I've seen it on things that the DoD couldn't give the slightest glimmer of a hint of a (darn) about.

All those disclaimers are meaningless, unless they have the weight of specific law or internal regulation
relevent to the accidental recipient.

I just got done setting up ones of these "magic footers" for a client.  News flash...deet...deet...deet...deet...
if you accidently send me the list of plays for tonight's game, I can do whatever I want with them
"express written consent or no".

[lordmonar]

[Segue:  For (bleep)'s sake, I wish people would get rid of email boilerplate claiming that the information contained in the document "is designated by the Department
of Defense (DoD) as For Official Use Only (FOUO) and may not be released to anyone without the prior permission of XXWG CAP and/or NHQ CAP and/or CAP-USAF."  I've seen it on things that the DoD couldn't give the slightest glimmer of a hint of a (darn) about.

All those disclaimers are meaningless, unless they have the weight of specific law or internal regulation
relevent to the accidental recipient.

I just got done setting up ones of these "magic footers" for a client.  News flash...deet...deet...deet...deet...
if you accidently send me the list of plays for tonight's game, I can do whatever I want with them
"express written consent or no".

That is not quite true......but yes we over use the FOUO markers.....and putting the long list of violations just eats space.

[Turk]

If one were to google, "CAP/USAXFX" one could see some examples. And not from the squadron level. 

[lordmonar]

Yep
Just means people at all levels don't read the regs.

[Eclipse]

If one were to google, "CAP/USAXFX" one could see some examples. And not from the squadron level. 

Wow.  "Energy Healing", really?

[Turk]

Yeah, go figure. One sees multiple search engine hits from "CAP/USAFX". This suggests repeated and intentional by someone who should know better.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I'm seeing this usage from time to time by CAP personnel in describing themselves online, i.e., Lt Col John Smith, USAFX.

Use of that acronym strikes me as improper. Moreover, USAFX is also used by a little organization called U.S. Air Force Explorers.

Comments?

It strikes you as improper because ...
:: drumroll ::
... it's improper!

We have a perfectly good organizational designation:  CAP.  See CAPR 10-1, para 7.c.(1).
That reference also says other other organizational designations, such as AF Aux or USAFA, are not authorized.

I never see national, region, or wing commanders using the "USAF AUX" or other cute line-blurring designations in correspondence.  I'm sure someone here can produce a case to the contrary, but largely ... it appears that higher echelon commanders know better.

The real question:  Are those who use other organizational designations doing so because they're poorly trained (i.e., "I saw it on someone else's email and followed suit") or out of a desire to blur the distinction between their CAP status and USAF?  Hanlon's razor says "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."  Do folks just not know better?

Segue:  For (bleep)'s sake, I wish people would get rid of email boilerplate claiming that the information contained in the document "is designated by the Department
of Defense (DoD) as For Official Use Only (FOUO) and may not be released to anyone without the prior permission of XXWG CAP and/or NHQ CAP and/or CAP-USAF."  I've seen it on things that the DoD couldn't give the slightest glimmer of a hint of a (darn) about.

Wing and higher staff have been using "U.S. Air Force Auxiliary" for ages. Hell, its in a regulation now...