Question about USCG Aux.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

^^I think our wires may be a bit crossed.  You are referring to Katrina(?), while I am referring to the CG awarding the entire CGAux the Unit Commendation with "O" device after 9/11, before Katrina happened.



I couldn't find a decent graphic with the "O" device.

I'd have to dig through my old Aux papers to find the COMDTINST authorising the award.

[MIKE]

Link: http://www.uscg.mil/auxiliary/awards/unitcitation2002.asp

"The Operational Distinguishing Device is authorized."  Not "Only the cool kids get the Operational Distinguishing Device, and the rest of you can haz ribbon only." Note that this is only for those Auxiliarists who were members during the period cited.  MIKEs CGUC does not haz O or gold stars on it.

[GroundHawg]

Link: http://www.uscg.mil/auxiliary/awards/unitcitation2002.asp

"The Operational Distinguishing Device is authorized."  Not "Only the cool kids get the Operational Distinguishing Device, and the rest of you can haz ribbon only." Note that this is only for those Auxiliarists who were members during the period cited.  MIKEs CGUC does not haz O or gold stars on it.

I didnt know we were awarded the "O". I will have to update my rack, thanks. Funny that I got this info from a CAP board

[SAR-EMT1]

No one in my flotilla was provided with the "O"... will look into it. (Am referring to the CGUC awarded June '09  to the entire Aux)

[MIKE]

No one in my flotilla was provided with the "O"... will look into it. (Am referring to the CGUC awarded June '09  to the entire Aux)

Because no Operational Distinguishing Device was authorized for that one... Only those who were members between 11 September 2001 - 1 September 2002 are authorized the "O".  You have to be a member during each of the cited periods to qualify for the ribbon or associated attachments.  Your Flotilla would have gotten a list of who qualifies for the '09 award with the package of ribbons and gold stars.  Your enrollment date is '06, so you only qualify for the '09 award.

[SAR-EMT1]

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought he was refering to the latest ribbon.

[SoCalMarine]

So how does the CG AUX get away with wearing uniforms and insignia that look so very similar to the actual CG?? 

Sounds to me that they had better leadership at a time when CAP leadership was less than sub-par.

For several reasons.

1. Simply put, there is a better relationship between the USCG and the CGAUX than you have between the USAF and CAP.

2. The CGAUX is a true Auxiliary. Everything you do as an Auxiliarist is considered a CG mission of some type. Technically, members of CAP are NOT... I repeat are NOT in the USAF Auxiliary. CAP members are only considered USAF Auxiliary when they are under orders with a mission code. I did not know this until I just took the Corporate Leadership Course (CLC) at the USAF Academy last month.

3. The CGAUX has a different mission. This is due, in part, to be only adults versus CAP having cadets. CGAUX members can be issued orders to work onboard CG installations, or onboard CG facilities such as boats and/or airframes. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find any CG installation or facility that does not have an Auxiliarist on board. One of the dentists are AIRSTA Clearwater is an Auxiliarist. I was the XO for the D7 Material Center onboard AIRSTA Clearwater in 2008. I had official orders from the USCG to do the job.

4. CGAUX members actually perform missions handed down to them by the USCG that are Congressionally mandated. We do this so that the USCG can focus on new missions they've been given since 9/11. CAP members don't perform any USAF missions. Air SAR missions from AFRCC aren't missions that the USAF is Congressionally mandated to perform, but don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that they aren't important and valuable.

5. Finally, you have considerably less issues with CG Auxiliarists portraying themselves as active duty personnel as compared to CAP members. I'm not saying its a rampant problem in CAP. Its just that its happened enough in CAP that the every time the AF gets around to forgetting about past transgressions you have some moron demanding to be saluted by security forces at the base gate.

*** Anyway, I tend to wear my CGAUX uniform to both CGAUX meetings and CAP. One, because I'm lazy! Sorry. Two, because I can consider it a recruiting mission as long as I talk about the AUX and so on. I can also get PE hours in because I am wearing the AUX uniform and teaching classes on safety and so on.

Trust me, there are issues with the CGAUX uniform that many of us think need changed. For instance, you have the red or blue "A" on our insignia. For us newer and/or younger members, we could care less whether you were appointed or elected to office. In many cases, either to align the AUX with the CG better, or out of necessity (shoulder boards the blue "A" doesn't show up), you'll have the "A" be a different color anyway. Actually, I think that's the only uniform issue I've heard addressed. Many believe we should go with a simple silver "A" on metal ranks, sleeve shields and shoulder boards, and that we should keep the black "A" with our ODUs.

The other issue would be to change the office names and start calling them ranks. We're told they aren't ranks but a symbol of the office we hold, but if the powers that be don't want us to call them a rank than they should use a symbol that isn't a rank in the rest of the military!

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Simply put, there is a better relationship between the USCG and the CGAUX than you have between the USAF and CAP.

I doubt there are few who would dispute this.  I have been a member of both and found this to be true.

The CGAUX is a true Auxiliary. Everything you do as an Auxiliarist is considered a CG mission of some type.

This is splitting hairs, but when I worked at boat shows doing nothing  but sitting on my bum waiting for someone to ask a question...I don't think there were CG orders issued for me to do that.

Technically, members of CAP are NOT... I repeat are NOT in the USAF Auxiliary. CAP members are only considered USAF Auxiliary when they are under orders with a mission code. I did not know this until I just took the Corporate Leadership Course (CLC) at the USAF Academy last month.

If there is one thing that will destroy CAP, it is the slow-but-sure distancing from the Air Force.  But it also must be remembered that CAP existed before the Air Force.

The CGAUX has a different mission. This is due, in part, to be only adults versus CAP having cadets. CGAUX members can be issued orders to work onboard CG installations, or onboard CG facilities such as boats and/or airframes.

IF you are cleared to do so.  In fact, when I was in the CGAUX, one point of contention was the two-tier background check issue.  Unless you have had the full check, you cannot augment the CG directly.

In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find any CG installation or facility that does not have an Auxiliarist on board.

Most of these don't exist anymore, but it wouldn't be common to find some LORAN station out in the middle of BFE with Auxiliarists crewing...because there's nothing for them to do.  I know.  I tried to augment at a LORAN station and was told that exact same statement.

One of the dentists are AIRSTA Clearwater is an Auxiliarist.

I thought the USPHS handled that for the CG...

I was the XO for the D7 Material Center onboard AIRSTA Clearwater in 2008. I had official orders from the USCG to do the job.

If you were the XO, by implication that means you had authority to give CG members, who are military, orders, when you were not military.  I'd be interested in seeing how that fits in with the UCMJ.

CGAUX members actually perform missions handed down to them by the USCG that are Congressionally mandated. We do this so that the USCG can focus on new missions they've been given since 9/11.

Also, the CG is the smallest of the Armed Forces and doesn't have the large reservoir of trained personnel that the AF has in the ANG and AFRES.  If the CG didn't have the Auxiliary, it would have to go to Washington looking for funds to greatly expand personnel numbers.

CAP members don't perform any USAF missions. Air SAR missions from AFRCC aren't missions that the USAF is Congressionally mandated to perform, but don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that they aren't important and valuable.

On this I call Bravo Sierra.  AFRCC exists because someone up the food chain, including but not limited to SECAF/CSAF, believed it needed to be there, and issued orders for it to exist.  If Congress had issues with it, they would have defunded it long ago.

Finally, you have considerably less issues with CG Auxiliarists portraying themselves as active duty personnel as compared to CAP members. I'm not saying its a rampant problem in CAP. Its just that its happened enough in CAP that the every time the AF gets around to forgetting about past transgressions you have some moron demanding to be saluted by security forces at the base gate.

I also lost track of the number of times I was called "Ensign" or "Lieutenant" in the CGAUX by military personnel.  I explained the system of rank v. office to a National Guard E-7 and he was thoroughly confused.

There have been incidents like you mention, and the ones who do that give the entire CAP a black eye.  There is still resentment in CAP (among those who remember) about having the blue shoulder marks and metal grade taken from us because of jerks like that.  However, it's not as rampant as you may think...especially with the rise of the "corporatist" side in CAP who could care less about the quasi-military aspects of CAP and only bother to wear a polo shirt most of the time.

Others will, and have, disputed with me on this issue, but CAP NHQ killed the popular blue/white Corporate Service Uniform because of perceived, not stated, problems that the USAF may have had with the CSU...even though the USAF allowed it for several years.  That, to me, is one of the most inane things CAP has ever done...killing off a popular uniform just because it may have raised issues with some USAF personnel without concrete evidence of this being presented; i.e., a letter from CC AETC.

Anyway, I tend to wear my CGAUX uniform to both CGAUX meetings and CAP. One, because I'm lazy! Sorry. Two, because I can consider it a recruiting mission as long as I talk about the AUX and so on. I can also get PE hours in because I am wearing the AUX uniform and teaching classes on safety and so on.

And you are OUT OF UNIFORM when doing so, and if doing so with cadets you are breaking CAP regs.  You must have a very tolerant CC.  Mine (retired USMC SNCO) would send you home and tell you to come back in the proper uniform - a CAP uniform.

Trust me, there are issues with the CGAUX uniform that many of us think need changed. For instance, you have the red or blue "A" on our insignia. For us newer and/or younger members, we could care less whether you were appointed or elected to office. In many cases, either to align the AUX with the CG better, or out of necessity (shoulder boards the blue "A" doesn't show up), you'll have the "A" be a different color anyway. Actually, I think that's the only uniform issue I've heard addressed. Many believe we should go with a simple silver "A" on metal ranks, sleeve shields and shoulder boards, and that we should keep the black "A" with our ODUs.

But what you think doesn't mean a thing if the Commandant doesn't sign on to it.

The other issue would be to change the office names and start calling them ranks. We're told they aren't ranks but a symbol of the office we hold, but if the powers that be don't want us to call them a rank than they should use a symbol that isn't a rank in the rest of the military!

When I was in the CGAUX, any time that was brought up (rank titles) it was shot down quicker than Squadron Leader Douglas Bader despatching an Me-109.  One of the things I never got straight in the CGAUX was all of the myriad of alphabet-soup office designations, and why Commodores of various levels were the only ones who could use a rank title, one which the USCG/USN doesn't even use most of the time (but which other maritime forces do).

Anyway, I would ask your motivation in coming on a CAP board and basically painting CAP as somehow inferior to the USCGAUX?  It's not a pissing contest of "my Auxiliary can beat up your Auxiliary."

[Eclipse]

Honolulugold, I was going to take the same time Cyborg did to answer your post and then I realized there was no point as it is a mixture of...well it's a mixture.

I will say, however, that your unit CC is doing a disservice to both you and the unit allowing you to wear your CGAux uniform to CAP meetings. Someone needs to set that situation straight ASAP.

[PA Guy]

One of the dentists are AIRSTA Clearwater is an Auxiliarist.

I thought the USPHS handled that for the CG..

FWIW:  http://leadership.cgaux.org/specialprojects/healthandsafety.html

[SoCalMarine]

This is splitting hairs, but when I worked at boat shows doing nothing  but sitting on my bum waiting for someone to ask a question...I don't think there were CG orders issued for me to do that.

I don't see it that way at all. The CGAUX doesn't need orders to be issued to perform AUX missions. Don't really see your point here. My point was that the CGAUX is a full-time Auxiliary while CAP is not.

If there is one thing that will destroy CAP, it is the slow-but-sure distancing from the Air Force.  But it also must be remembered that CAP existed before the Air Force.

Possibility, but I'm not the one distancing CAP fro the AF. I'm simply stating something that is a fact. Certain issues I had with CAP were because I misunderstood the relationship between it and the USAF. I don't have those issues anymore. I understand why some of the differences are in place, and that helps me to work better within CAP.

IF you are cleared to do so.  In fact, when I was in the CGAUX, one point of contention was the two-tier background check issue.  Unless you have had the full check, you cannot augment the CG directly.

Well, that is true to an extent. For some missions you still need to be DO certified such as Marine Safety missions working with an MSU to get certifications for Trident, AUXLO or to fly. Other missions not so much. Also, that is up to the base commander. There are Auxiliarists who are watchstanding at one base in California who are not DO certified. Also, some exceptions have been made now because the CG SECCEN has slowed down so much with the DO package (up to two years before results come back) that you are given a waiver as long as you've submitted the package.

Most of these don't exist anymore, but it wouldn't be common to find some LORAN station out in the middle of BFE with Auxiliarists crewing...because there's nothing for them to do.  I know.  I tried to augment at a LORAN station and was told that exact same statement.

True. I think my statement still stands though. I'd actually already forgotten about the LORAN stations. How quickly stuff like that fades from memory. We even have a new program called AUXCHEF with the purpose to train Auxiliarists to serve onboard cutters and installations to augment (and sometimes replace) Coasties doing the job.

If you were the XO, by implication that means you had authority to give CG members, who are military, orders, when you were not military.  I'd be interested in seeing how that fits in with the UCMJ.

Nope. You've got it wrong. I didn't say I was the XO of a gold side operation. The D7 Material Center is an Auxiliary operation, and it is operating onboard AIRSTA Clearwater in the Navy Annex. I don't even see how you came up with that implication. The XO of a flotilla is the VFC. Does that mean he can give gold side orders too simply because he's the XO? No. XO is simply a descriptor stating what position I was given. Technically, I was appointed the ADSO-MC.

On this I call Bravo Sierra.  AFRCC exists because someone up the food chain, including but not limited to SECAF/CSAF, believed it needed to be there, and issued orders for it to exist.  If Congress had issues with it, they would have defunded it long ago.

OK. You're point? You can call BS all you want, but until you show me that the AF is required by Congressional mandate to perform AFRCC missions than your calling it BS is moot. Now I never said AFRCC isn't important. In fact, I specifically said it was, and that CAPs role was valuable. CAP replaces the AF for what... 94% of the AFRCC missions? Either way, you're confusing what I said. Again, AFRCC is an actual AF operation that CAP helps augment but has not completely taken over. AFRCC missions are not Congressionally mandated.

I also lost track of the number of times I was called "Ensign" or "Lieutenant" in the CGAUX by military personnel.  I explained the system of rank v. office to a National Guard E-7 and he was thoroughly confused.

On this I agree 100%. The best I've been able to do to explain the office titles to non-sea going personnel was to say they are like a rating. Its kind of like being a LT to be an ADSO, but you call them an ADSO since its their "rating." Still confusing to people since ratings are enlisted ideas. Generally speaking, many of us younger Auxiliarists just refer to each other by last name, first name in an informal setting, or by rank. When I was at AIRSTA Clearwater, Station Hawaii and did was given orders to Sector LA/LB to backfill for PAOs that went to New Orleans for the Deepwater Horizon response, not only did the gold side call me LT, but that's how the CO introduced, and referred to, us as to people. Its simply easier than trying to explain the antiquated office system. Sometimes he'd state Auxiliary LT for clarification though.

There have been incidents like you mention, and the ones who do that give the entire CAP a black eye.  There is still resentment in CAP (among those who remember) about having the blue shoulder marks and metal grade taken from us because of jerks like that.  However, it's not as rampant as you may think...especially with the rise of the "corporatist" side in CAP who could care less about the quasi-military aspects of CAP and only bother to wear a polo shirt most of the time.

I was around for it. I was a cadet until 1991. I remember seeing the SMs go from blue epaulets to the horrible maroon. Please don't get me wrong though. I was trying to point out that it is a rarity that stuff like that occurs, but the AF sees those occasions as a big enough issue to make the uniform more distinctive. Fortunately, we have a new national commander who's got a very good relationship with the AF and I've see a lot of positives come about. My squadron in Savannah fits your last statement pretty well to an extent. Not so much that they are corporate, but most are current military. The CO of the squadron is a GA Air National Guard MSgt. Most of the members are Army. They either show up in ACUs/BDUs or they are in civilian clothes. Well, that's the senior squadron side. The two or three SMs with the cadet squadron are always in BDUs.

And you are OUT OF UNIFORM when doing so, and if doing so with cadets you are breaking CAP regs.  You must have a very tolerant CC.  Mine (retired USMC SNCO) would send you home and tell you to come back in the proper uniform - a CAP uniform.

Maybe, but I've yet to come across a squadron that had an issue with it, and I've attended five or six across four states. Even had a wing commander at some of the meetings without issue. SMs are not required to wear the uniform; although, they are greatly encouraged to do so. Regardless, many of the times I've shown up in Trops is because I just finished doing my Academy recruiting and didn't have time to change. Also, as I stated above, my squadron (and MANY like it) have the majority of members as active military. If your CO was in charge, some of these squadrons would have less than 1% attendance. Again, my squadron consists of members who generally come direct from work whether that be Air National Guard, Army or at the Savannah IAP. They simply don't have time to change before showing up.

But what you think doesn't mean a thing if the Commandant doesn't sign on to it.

What's your point? Do you mean to say that no one should have an opinion, or that no one should voice their opinion unless first having that opinion read through, debated and signed off on by the Commandant? Isn't the whole point of a discussion board like this to actually discuss issues, questions and/or concerns?

In fact, statements like yours only further stagnation, and the lack of change for the better. Your statement would be discouraging to many who think that voicing their opinion is unwanted. On the flip side, many of the changes that have occurred in the CGAUX over the last five years are exactly because of people like me who stand up and say, "Hey, we should do this... ." Two close friends of mine are the people who created the CGAUX College Program that now has Flotilla detachments onboard at least six universities across the nation with the stated purpose of training university students to either transfer to the CG Academy, or join the CG upon graduation. So, what they had to say DID matter.

When I was in the CGAUX, any time that was brought up (rank titles) it was shot down quicker than Squadron Leader Douglas Bader despatching an Me-109.

I don't know when you left the AUX, but last year (or the year before) we went through a reorganization as it refers to some of the offices. Division Captains are now Division Commanders. I would imagine that its primarily due to the fact that they wear commander stripes rather than captain stripes. No real reason was given. A few other changes were made too. There are problems that occur in the AUX that CAP doesn't have an issue with (or as much of an issue).

You're right. Many ideas to change things get shot down quick. I think that's very short-sighted. The AUX is currently discovering that they are losing younger members. Many surveys have shown that this is due to the whole "rank" issue for one, as well as the unwillingness of many to accept change or new ideas. Unfortunately, too many of the old-timers have moved up the ranks and have some sort of clinical aversion to change. My old flotilla in FL recently changed divisions to be realigned with the boat station just down the road rather than Sector three times the distance. The only people who had an issue were the guys that have been around for 40 years (literally 40 too...). One thing CAP has been very good at is change; although, it has gone overboard at times with new addendums to the 39-1 every time you turn around!

Anyway, I would ask your motivation in coming on a CAP board and basically painting CAP as somehow inferior to the USCGAUX?  It's not a pissing contest of "my Auxiliary can beat up your Auxiliary."

I didn't paint CAP at all. None of my statements bad-mouthed CAP, nor were intended too. So let me address this... I'm a CAP member. I am on this board for the same reason most others are... to talk about CAP. This particular thread asked questions about the CGAUX so I responded by answering about the CGAUX. I don't have to state what CAP can, and can't do, or what the CAP missions are here on this board because everyone knows... BECAUSE everyone is CAP. I was simply giving knowledge of the AUX to people who did not know much about it.

Nothing personal on this statement at all, but if you believe I was stating that CAP was inferior to the AUX than that is because YOU have an issue with CAP and take things personally through a bias that you have. My statements were completely neutral in respect to which organization is better. So, it is your perception that colored my statements based on insecurities about CAP.

Since you are reading into things I'll state, unequivocally, right now that I feel that CAP is on the same level as the AUX, and that both provide amazing and valuable support to the parent service. Both organizations have their issues unique to each, but that can be said of any organization. If I believed that CAP was inferior, or a joke, or any of the other things I've seen some disgruntled, former members state on this site I wouldn't be a member. I AM a member because I believe in the mission of CAP, and I enjoy CAP.

[Eclipse]

In defense...

[SoCalMarine]

I will say, however, that your unit CC is doing a disservice to both you and the unit allowing you to wear your CGAux uniform to CAP meetings. Someone needs to set that situation straight ASAP.

Well, depends on which squadron I show up to for one. One squadron I attend I'm in my AUX uniform because I come straight from doing AUX duties no different than active military personnel who show up in their uniforms. Heck, no different than people who come straight from work and could be wearing a shirt and tie, or they could be wearing scrubs. The other squadron I attend meetings with I am generally in the CAP uniform of the day for that week.

All over this country I've seen squadrons with member showing up in civilian clothes, or military uniforms. You know, this is a volunteer organization. You want people to volunteer their time than sometimes you've got to make allowances. This is one area I WILL say that CAP has issues that the AUX doesn't. I've never once heard someone complain at a flotilla meeting that a member wasn't in the correct uniform or that they were wearing a uniform that wasn't AUX. Not saying one is right and the other is wrong. Different priorities I guess.

Question... what is CC? I'm guessing its a CAP term for CO.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Maybe, but I've yet to come across a squadron that had an issue with it, and I've attended five or six across four states. Even had a wing commander at some of the meetings without issue.

I can show up to the meeting in AF Blues, over the weight requirements. I probably won't be called out on it, but it doesn't make it right.

SMs are not required to wear the uniform; although, they are greatly encouraged to do so.

Cite please.

Regardless, many of the times I've shown up in Trops is because I just finished doing my Academy recruiting and didn't have time to change.

That's just an excuse. You even said so:

*** Anyway, I tend to wear my CGAUX uniform to both CGAUX meetings and CAP. One, because I'm lazy! Sorry. Two, because I can consider it a recruiting mission as long as I talk about the AUX and so on. I can also get PE hours in because I am wearing the AUX uniform and teaching classes on safety and so on.

Also, as I stated above, my squadron (and MANY like it) have the majority of members as active military. If your CO was in charge, some of these squadrons would have less than 1% attendance.

Explain? I think Military personnel understand things like procedure and policy without taking their ball home.

Again, my squadron consists of members who generally come direct from work whether that be Air National Guard, Army or at the Savannah IAP. They simply don't have time to change before showing up.

Excuses. Two wrongs don't make a right. Etc. Etc.

[Spaceman3750]

Question... what is CC? I'm guessing its a CAP term for CO.

It's the office title/abbreviation for "Commander". It's used in the AF too I believe.

[Eclipse]

I will say, however, that your unit CC is doing a disservice to both you and the unit allowing you to wear your CGAux uniform to CAP meetings. Someone needs to set that situation straight ASAP.

Well, depends on which squadron I show up to for one. One squadron I attend I'm in my AUX uniform because I come straight from doing AUX duties no different than active military personnel who show up in their uniforms. Heck, no different than people who come straight from work and could be wearing a shirt and tie, or they could be wearing scrubs. The other squadron I attend meetings with I am generally in the CAP uniform of the day for that week.

All over this country I've seen squadrons with member showing up in civilian clothes, or military uniforms. You know, this is a volunteer organization. You want people to volunteer their time than sometimes you've got to make allowances. This is one area I WILL say that CAP has issues that the AUX doesn't. I've never once heard someone complain at a flotilla meeting that a member wasn't in the correct uniform or that they were wearing a uniform that wasn't AUX. Not saying one is right and the other is wrong. Different priorities I guess.

Question... what is CC? I'm guessing its a CAP term for CO.

SMs are not required to wear the uniform; although, they are greatly encouraged to do so.

Time to actually read the regs, and whether or not your Foltilla, or CERT, or the local PTA,  cares about how people show up to meetings is irrelevant to CAP.

Showing up in an Aux uniform to a CAP activity is disrespectful to CAP and is not, in any way, the "same" as someone in the military showing up ni their uniform after a day of work (which most of us here think is a bad idea as well).

It is simply you wanting to show off your CGAux uniform to be "different".

Yes, CC is a standard military office symbol for "Commander".

[SoCalMarine]

I can show up to the meeting in AF Blues, over the weight requirements. I probably won't be called out on it, but it doesn't make it right.

Separate issue entirely. Wearing the uniform (any uniform) incorrectly is wrong period, but that is a different issue than showing up to a meeting not wearing the uniform. If you're going to wear the uniform, wear it correctly.

Cite please.

Uh, no? This isn't an academic review and I'm not writing a paper for my university class. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong; however, show me where I'm wrong.

That's just an excuse. You even said so:

And? An excuse is simply a reason why something did, or did not, happen. An excuse is not necessarily a negative thing. Yes, there are times I'm lazy. A few times I could have driven home, changed and headed to the squadron. Yes, those times I would have been late for one (although being late wouldn't have really mattered), but I also would have been waisting gas driving all over the place unnecessarily.

I would say I find it out (but I don't) that you guys have no problem being hardcore on this issue, but I would bet there are things that you don't do "correctly" that you either never mention, ignore or don't have addressed with you. Its easy to pick on me and say you're wrong when its something you don't do, but its a lot harder to turn that focus on yourself. I see SMs every day wear the uniform incorrectly. Heck, no one even knows the correct way because CAP manuals are all over the place on uniform issues and so on.

Explain? I think Military personnel understand things like procedure and policy without taking their ball home.

Yes, WE military personnel (GA Guard) do understand procedure and policy; however, CAP isn't the military. Do I really have to explain this? Just using my squadron for example, I'd say about 1-5 SMs would show up on a regular basis if the was an absolute requirement to wear the CAP uniform. Why? Because the other 35 members simply do not have the time, or opportunity, to change from their work clothes into CAP uniforms prior to the meeting. What's more important: showing up to a meeting and getting your training and safety done, or having a squadron with 3 people show up a week in proper uniform?

Excuses. Two wrongs don't make a right. Etc. Etc.

And its people like you that is causing CAP to lose some members. Oh sorry, I know you've got a job and that you work right up until the start of the meeting so I know you don't have time to change but you can't attend meetings or support this organization unless you show up in uniform. There IS a reason the NSCC is growing very fast, with a lot of former CAP members.

[SoCalMarine]

It's the office title/abbreviation for "Commander". It's used in the AF too I believe.

Aw OK. I'd seen it used occasionally but never thought to ask before. Its just easier to use CO for me anyway.

[Eclipse]

Excuses, excuses.  "I can't, I won't, you don't understand how hard my situation is..."

I love how "certain people" have "jobs" and are too busy to change in the bathroom, yet everyone else seems to be able to figure out this complex problem.

Please feel free to post or cite the study that indicates the growth of the NSCC (oh, you'll have to cite the growth as well), is in any way related to
CAP units expecting members to wear proper uniforms.

[Eclipse]

It's the office title/abbreviation for "Commander". It's used in the AF too I believe.

Aw OK. I'd seen it used occasionally but never thought to ask before. Its just easier to use CO for me anyway.

Clearly.

So here's where we stand based on your statements - either you are so new to CAP that you haven't had time to clearly understand the
culture, dynamic, and organization, or you have chosen to favor the CGAux, which is fine, but wholly inappropriate and disrespectful to
CAP if you carry yourself that way in person at CAP activities.