CAP Grey Shoulder Marks...Did you know?

[JohnKachenmeister]

Dang, Sparky, you CAN be a buzz-killer!

The story of the USAF punishing its red-headed stepchild is a terrific urban legend.  And, frankly, as ugly and unpopular as they were, I tend to believe the "Harwell-must-be-destroyed" story.

Also, the red epaulets were only worn for about a year or two.  CAP ended the war with pin-on rank on the pinks and greens, AND hard rank on the flight cap (for a very short time).

But, hey... Nice try!

[Eclipse]

Alternative but unlikely reason: When you are wearing your seat belt as you must do on all DOD facilities, it tended to cover up the CAP on the blue epaulet so that all that could be seen was the rank. Many a gate guard probably thought that they were dealing with a RM officer instead of a CAP senior member. I do know of an instance where this happened but I will leave it to Redfox24 to tell that war story.

Same issue with the CSU today, especially the black jacket on a Navy base.

Why should it matter whether the gate guard thinks your in a military service or CAP?  Unless you're doing something you're not supposed to, you're there all of about 30 seconds.

[RiverAux]

Old logical fallacy.
1.  Ice cream consumption goes up in the summertime.
2.  Murder rates go up in the summertime.
3.  Therefore ice cream leads to murder.

Just because a change happened after an event doesn't necessarily mean that the event was the direct cause of that change. 

[Eclipse]

^ Not being the "direct cause" doesn't mean it wasn't the "last straw"...

[Rotorhead]

Harwell not only embarrassed the General but he did not follow protocol.  Harwell side swiped CAP for his own personal gain.

The next year we were in the maroon epaulets. 

Correlation does not imply causation.

[FARRIER]

We lost the use of all metal rank at the same time, this being due to Harwell's actions. Being a wing staff officer then, we were given an oral briefing on this.

[SJFedor]

Old logical fallacy.
1.  Ice cream consumption goes up in the summertime.
2.  Murder rates go up in the summertime.
3.  Therefore ice cream leads to murder.

Just because a change happened after an event doesn't necessarily mean that the event was the direct cause of that change. 

You laugh, but i distinctly remember hearing something about a shooting at a baskin robbins last summer...

[Major Carrales]

^ Not being the "direct cause" doesn't mean it wasn't the "last straw"...

Why are you so determined to have this urban legend keep spreading?  Am I or anyone else to assume you want there to be problems between USAF and CAP?  I have already said it was not so quoting a very credible source who asked me to quote him on these issues.

[ol'fido]

Alternative but unlikely reason: When you are wearing your seat belt as you must do on all DOD facilities, it tended to cover up the CAP on the blue epaulet so that all that could be seen was the rank. Many a gate guard probably thought that they were dealing with a RM officer instead of a CAP senior member. I do know of an instance where this happened but I will leave it to Redfox24 to tell that war story.

Same issue with the CSU today, especially the black jacket on a Navy base.

Why should it matter whether the gate guard thinks your in a military service or CAP?  Unless you're doing something you're not supposed to, you're there all of about 30 seconds.

That's why I said UNLIKELY, Bob. It wasn't a serious cotribution, but merely an invitation to SOMEONE ELSE to tell a war story about the blue shoulder marks.

[PA Guy]

For what it is worth.  At the time of the change I had a good friend in the AF who was assigned to a region LO office. He said the epaulet change went through the Air Staff in record time and this from a body that was known for glacial movement.

At the time of the change neither the CAP leadership or the  AF side of the house did anything to dispel the rumors that the change was punitive.

I don't have any inside knowledge if the change was punitive or not. I do know that over the yrs I have seen the AF repeatedly mandate changes that distanced themselves from CAP and I'm not sure I would dismiss something as an urban legend based on what someone with a vested interest told me. If you expect to find a smoking gun memo or some other document, that isn't going to happen, give the AF some credit

[Major Carrales]

Wow...people defending urban legends with such zeal.    It seems as if people want this to be so.

Why should anyone want to dispell rumors at that time?  Immediate "rumor control" often prepetuates the idea of "cover up" and "sinister intentions." 
In this day and age a prominent CAP official, General Anderson, has made it clear that it is a rumor.  Wild Speculations, specious claims and the testimony of unnamed officials in past LO offices do not constitute viable proof.

General Anderson indicated that he spoke directly with General Fogleman who indicated that the idea to change CAP uniforms was long in debate.  By the way, what "vested interest" does General Anderson have in these matters?  In fact, we went to "grey" during his tenure.

And still, no one has produced any infromation on the process that allowed Major General Harwell to be promoted.  Additionally, since the USAF controls CAP rank and grade...what was he not demoted?  How could CAP "pull a fast one" and get away with it?

I'm assuming that the Major General in this photo is General Harwell...

After all these years am I the only one asking questions as how and why this happened?  It should be the starting point of all the urban legend talking CAPTALKERS. 


My friends, if you are going to make specuations and pass them as "facts," then do the research I am asking for.  The burden of proof in in your court.

[ZigZag911]

Sparky, without casting aspersions on anyone, may I remind you that sometimes there is an "official" version of events as well as the actual version?

I believe you are hearing the public answer to this question. I do not question its veracity -- I merely point out that it may indeed only be one facet of the story.

I was around and fairly active at the time (ie, had some reasonably highly placed sources); it was widely known, both in CAP & AF ranks, that the Harwell promotion was a major contributory factor in getting us the "berry boards", as well as getting hard rank removed from utility caps and similar field items.

[Major Carrales]

Sparky, without casting aspersions on anyone, may I remind you that sometimes there is an "official" version of events as well as the actual version?

I believe you are hearing the public answer to this question. I do not question its veracity -- I merely point out that it may indeed only be one facet of the story.

I was around and fairly active at the time (ie, had some reasonably highly placed sources); it was widely known, both in CAP & AF ranks, that the Harwell promotion was a major contributory factor in getting us the "berry boards", as well as getting hard rank removed from utility caps and similar field items.

So, you're telling me the "official" story is a lie?  That I should believe some 20 year old rumor mill because its always been so, and negate the word of a Civil Air Patrol Brig. General (and recently retired USAF Colonel) based on a general belief?

I should think, and this is my turn to speculate, that if the USAF was going to punish CAP in any manner for a CAP General being promoted that they would...

1) Make the punishment clear and unopen to interpretation

2) demote, or discharge, the offending Major General in question

3) Indicate some indignation and steady warnings about this matter so CAP would try it again

All I have ever heard of this "urban ledend" has been rumor.  If rumor holds that much an effect in CAP...then I would warn you all to be careful.  Just because people want things to be true, that a good deal of people hold a belief and that something is deme true because it has been 20 plus years...not not make it "fact" or "truthful."

[Cecil DP]

In your retelling BG Anderson was told by GEN Fogelman. No General is going to admit that a change was made because of personal issues. The change to red shoulder boards may have been contemplated for a while as BG Anderson and GEN Fogelman say. But with the speed it occurred, I'm sure that MG HArwell's self promotion was an accelerant. It also led to the requirement that all CAP General promotions be approved by the USAF.

[FARRIER]

I have already said it was not so quoting a very credible source who asked me to quote him on these issues.

My source then was Col. Bobick, the now former National Commander. I was the Wing Personnel at the time.

[RiverAux]

I think this thread to some extent reflects the relative weakness of the CAP historical program.  Now, I think we're better at it than 90% of volunteer organizations since we at least HAVE a historical program.  The funny thing is that much of our national-level historical focus seems to be on uniforms (patches in particular), but this particuluar issue isn't covered in any official history that I'm aware of.

Despite that, I have to agree with others that iin that if this was in fact some sort of punative measure, you will never find one scrap of paper to prove it.  Bureacratic organizations such as the AF know better than that.  You might be able to track down a retired AF officer involved in the decision who might be willing to admit it, but even that is doubtful. 

As far as historical evidence goes, you might be able to find proof that it is true, but I don't think you'll ever get enough proof to kill it off. 

Personally, I tend to doubt that it is true since they already had one CAP officer wearing general stars so don't exactly see where having that one officer wear two stars following some sort of inappropriate action would be all that different.  Seems like other avenues of "punishment" would be easier to take. 

[PHall]

Major Carrles, I would say that Gen Anderson told you the version that he wants to be remembered.

Or look at it another way, you have one source for your version. Granted, he's a pretty highly placed source, but it's just one source.

But there have been many sources for the other version and some of those are from pretty highly placed sources too.

You say you're a history buff, as a "historian", which version do you think is closer to the truth?

[Major Carrales]

Major Carrles, I would say that Gen Anderson told you the version that he wants to be remembered.

Or look at it another way, you have one source for your version. Granted, he's a pretty highly placed source, but it's just one source.

But there have been many sources for the other version and some of those are from pretty highly placed sources too.

You say you're a history buff, as a "historian", which version do you think is closer to the truth?

As an hiatorian, you have to understand the nature of the subject of history and historiography.  There exists "total hiatory," that history we can never know because it includes everything that ever happened (including the times you woke up, went to the bath room and breakfast every day of your life).  Then there is all the history that was written down or otherwise documented, these are the memos, letters and diaries.  Of that then there is only that which was written down that survived.

Of that which survives, there is what is genuine and what is not factual.  We rarely deal in "truths," only in facts.  What is left requires historiography, which is the study of how history is studied.

It is in that realm that we find ourselves in this issue.  Good historiography involves finding facts to back up the stories we hear. 

Take, for example, the idea that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and then admitted it to his father, Augstine Washtington.   Many people believe this and other stories about Washington to be true, adding that one story of George Washington throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac.

These stories are not true, but rather were part of a story by Mason Locke Weems' "biography" that were designed to show the virtures of George Washintgon's Character.

The throwing of the dollar across the Potomac is also false, since the Potomac is over a mile ide at the point where this was to have happened.  It is more likely that it was the Rapahanock (sp) River which was nearer Mount Vernon and not during the Revolution.  Documents from his step Children seem to point that this was so.  Thus, the story is not true.

Don't fool yourself Phall, and suggest that I am only a "so called" historian, I am a fully trained one.

As to which version I think is closer.  I cannot lend creedence to this idea that it was a punative action.  Not solely on Brig General Anderson's comments to be, but rather on all the "holes" in that idea.  Which I have already posted many times.

I agree with RiverAux  when he says "you might be able to find proof that it is true, but I don't think you'll ever get enough proof to kill it off."  It is the nature of false rumors to "sensationalize" over the facts of the reality.  This is why even people who are aquited beyond a reasonable doubt for some crime are continued to be treated as guilty.  

[fyrfitrmedic]

Sparky, without casting aspersions on anyone, may I remind you that sometimes there is an "official" version of events as well as the actual version?

I believe you are hearing the public answer to this question. I do not question its veracity -- I merely point out that it may indeed only be one facet of the story.

I was around and fairly active at the time (ie, had some reasonably highly placed sources); it was widely known, both in CAP & AF ranks, that the Harwell promotion was a major contributory factor in getting us the "berry boards", as well as getting hard rank removed from utility caps and similar field items.

I was around and very active at the time; the apparent punitive nature of the change was basically accepted as gospel when all of this went down.

[Eclipse]

^ Not being the "direct cause" doesn't mean it wasn't the "last straw"...

Why are you so determined to have this urban legend keep spreading?  Am I or anyone else to assume you want there to be problems between USAF and CAP?  I have already said it was not so quoting a very credible source who asked me to quote him on these issues.

For one thing - a single, second-hand conversation is hardly "Snopes" - nothing here has been dispelled, though you do cast some doubt as to the situation.  There are a number of people here who are claiming a similar second-hand knowledge through different channels that maintains the accepted story, and a couple claiming first-hand awareness.

Further, as mentioned, there is generally an official story and the real story, and when you start discussing possible misconduct, details are generally muddled or obfuscated.  In this case I would tend to believe that this is a "last straw" case more than a direct cause/effect.  Other than the possible gaffe with the self-promotion, you don't hear much about Gen. Harwell, good or bad, and it may simply not have been worth the trouble to try and remove someone from office for a mistake which may have offended people, but was ultimately meaningless.

HWSRN, on the other hand, was apparently leaving a wake of questionable actions in his path, along with the overt allegations against him by various parties.  A couple of other more recent former Nat CC's have also left under less than perfect circumstances, but retained their grade upon leaving.

As to the perpetuation?  It serves a very useful purpose regarding CAP's place in the world and the size of one's britches.