What can Active Duty wear on there CAP uniform?

[mikeylikey]

Furthermore, ROTC Cadets have to be contracted when they attend jump school, which means they are members of the armed forces, with a rank of cadet, and subject to the UCMJ, and able to be placed on hazardous duty orders.

NO......ROTC Cadets are NOT SUBJECT TO THE UCMJ.  Under no circumstances are  cadets subject to or eligible for the protections or rights of the UCMJ.  When a ROTC Cadet attends any type of military training away from the University or College location, they are subject only to Federal State and local municipal laws.  When I was at Ft Knox this past summer, we had a Cadet run off on Saturday, and buy drugs.  He was not charged under military law, but under federal law as he did that on Fort Knox (a federal installation).  Once again, Cadets are not "real military members" unless they are Academy Cadets.  The Academy Cadets are counted in the total forces numbers and are subject to UCMJ.  Academy Cadets are also eligible for Military Awards, while ROTC Cadets are not.

[gallagheria]

Once again, Cadets are not "real military members" unless they are Academy Cadets.  The Academy Cadets are counted in the total forces numbers and are subject to UCMJ.  Academy Cadets are also eligible for Military Awards, while ROTC Cadets are not.

Well, as I posted above, you are correct about ROTC cadets not being subject to the UCMJ. But you have it down for the wrong reason. ROTC cadets are, just as a sergeant or lieutenant colonel, full members of the military. Cadet, ROTC, is a grade, just as Cadet, USMA. AR 600-20 (Army Command Policy) lists ROTC cadets as a grade between officer candidates and cadets, USMA. All ROTC cadets who contract (cadets, not just students enrolled in military science) officially ENLIST in the United States Amy Reserve (similar to how USMA cadets enlist in the Regular Army). This is known as the US Army Reserve (Control Group).

So there is no dispute about their being in the Army or even their command authority as enlisted soldiers subject to AR 600-20. However, as posted, they are not subject to the UCMJ. Even National Guard soldiers are not subject to the UCMj under Title 32 activation or State Active Duty (SAD). It is merely a policy that has been implemented. With ROTC cadets, I am not sure why it evolved that way; with Guard soldiers, it is because under Title 32 and SAD they are officially the state militias being activated by the governor/TAG of each state and are therefore subject to state law, or the state code of military justice, which every state has. Only under Title 10 activation are NG soldiers subject to the UCMJ. ROTC cadets--never.

[mikeylikey]

Read "AR 145-1" it is the Army ROTC program laid out.  Cadets who contract, yes, take a loyalty oath and contract to serve time after graduation in the Army after commissioning.  The Army does not count any RTOC cadet as a member of the military when they are adding numbers at the end of each FY.  These cadets have no command authority or rank, even though they are listed in AR 600-20, that is only making reference to how you would address the cadet.  The only ROTC cadets that are counted by the reserves are those cadets that are SMP (simultaneously serving in a Reserve unit either USAR or NG), even then they are enlisted at (I believe) E-5.  The ROTC Contract and  enlistment document only serves to guarantee service after graduating as an Officer, guarantee service before graduation as an enlisted soldier if the cadet fails out of college (or does something to be disenrolled) or guarantee service after graduation as an enlisted soldier if the cadet refuses an appointment).  The contracting of cadets in ROTC does not confer upon them any rights or privileges that would be granted to an Academy Cadet from day one. 

Now......I can provide the phone numbers to JAG officers at Cadet Command (Army ROTC) or some at TRADOC at Fort Knox.  Trust me, I went through 21 days of this type of stuff when a cadet tried to get out of his contract this past summer at my university.  As his MS III instructor, I was obligated to sit with my Battalion Commander and Brigade Commander in court.  THEN because of this, Cadet Command has provided intensive training on the subject for all ROTC Battalions. 

So simply put, Cadets are Cadets only if they attend the Academy, or are SMP "soldier-cadet" half-breeds.  The SMP Cadets are then subject to laws governing Reserve forces during reserve unit activities, training or drill but are not subject to the same laws when participating in ROTC training, classes or activities.

Now that being said, everything changes if a full military mobilization were to take place.  Then the ROTC Cadets who are in the last year of the program would be immediately sent to OCS, while everyone else on scholarship would be ordered to active duty as an enlisted soldier.  But that is another story.......

[gallagheria]

I went to North Georgia College and am familiar with how this works.

ROTC cadets do have command and authority, just as USMA cadets. SMP cadets are enlisted in both the USAR or ARNGUS and are paid at E-5 pay, but are enlisted as cadets, not SGT's (or in some cases higher, depending on prior service). SMP cadets are subject to the UCMJ as enlisted soldiers in the USAR/ARNGUS, but not in their role as enlisted cadets in the USAR (Control Group).

There is no question, ROTC cadets must enlist in the Army Reserve (and are issued military ID's), just as USMA cadets enlist in the Regular Army. That is why they call it SIMULTANEOUS Membership Program (SMP) for those cadets who are also in the Guard/Reserve--hence they are in TWO components of the Army at the same time. SMP cadets are nondeployable because of their ROTC enlistment (students in military science who are not contracted in the USAR Control Group are deployable).

As for full or total mobilization, under both AR 145-1 and federal law, ROTC cadets are treated differently depending on what type of ROTC program they are in. Remember, there are three types of ROTC programs: Senior Military Colleges, civilian colleges, and Military Junior Colleges. The Department of Defense is prohibited from closing or reducing the ROTC programs at an SMC, even during time of war (full or total mobilization): "[SMC] ROTC programs will continue at an accelerated rate as directed." and:

The Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments may not take or authorize any action to terminate or reduce a unit of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps at a senior military college unless the termination or reduction is specifically requested by the college.

In contrast with other colleges and universities: "Under full or total mobilization, the Secretary of the Army may withdraw the ROTC detachments without giving prior notice to the academic institution. The establishment of new SROTC detachments will not be authorized after full mobilization has been declared." All MS-IV cadets at the Senior Military Colleges will be commissioned and directed to attend the proper officers basic course (OBC). At other colleges, ROTC programs will be suspended and the cadre will immediately be available for reassignment.

   

[Falshrmjgr]

Awesome thread, and I stand corrected.  Since I was an SMP Cadet, I plead mea culpa to the confusion.

(In fact I was on jump status the whole time I was in ROTC, but that's a different story.....)

[DHollywood]

When you successfully complete Army Airborne School and graduate you receive Orders awarding you jump wings.

Those orders are sufficient to wear the jump wings on a CAP uniform, regardless of your status as Cadet, ROTC, or otherwise, at jump school.

[mikeylikey]

I went to North Georgia College and am familiar with how this works.

ROTC cadets do have command and authority, just as USMA cadets. SMP cadets are enlisted in both the USAR or ARNGUS and are paid at E-5 pay, but are enlisted as cadets, not SGT's (or in some cases higher, depending on prior service). SMP cadets are subject to the UCMJ as enlisted soldiers in the USAR/ARNGUS, but not in their role as enlisted cadets in the USAR (Control Group).

There is no question, ROTC cadets must enlist in the Army Reserve (and are issued military ID's), just as USMA cadets enlist in the Regular Army. That is why they call it SIMULTANEOUS Membership Program (SMP) for those cadets who are also in the Guard/Reserve--hence they are in TWO components of the Army at the same time. SMP cadets are nondeployable because of their ROTC enlistment (students in military science who are not contracted in the USAR Control Group are deployable).

As for full or total mobilization, under both AR 145-1 and federal law, ROTC cadets are treated differently depending on what type of ROTC program they are in. Remember, there are three types of ROTC programs: Senior Military Colleges, civilian colleges, and Military Junior Colleges. The Department of Defense is prohibited from closing or reducing the ROTC programs at an SMC, even during time of war (full or total mobilization): "[SMC] ROTC programs will continue at an accelerated rate as directed." and:

The Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments may not take or authorize any action to terminate or reduce a unit of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps at a senior military college unless the termination or reduction is specifically requested by the college.

In contrast with other colleges and universities: "Under full or total mobilization, the Secretary of the Army may withdraw the ROTC detachments without giving prior notice to the academic institution. The establishment of new SROTC detachments will not be authorized after full mobilization has been declared." All MS-IV cadets at the Senior Military Colleges will be commissioned and directed to attend the proper officers basic course (OBC). At other colleges, ROTC programs will be suspended and the cadre will immediately be available for reassignment.   

I agree with everything except for the command and authority area.  I really do not believe ROTC Cadets carry any statutory or doctrine backed authority to issue orders or enforce them.  I had 3 Cadets three summer's ago join my Battery for Cadet Troop Leader Training (ROTC Cadets spending a few weeks working with and leading a platoon of soldiers under the guidance of a Platoon Leader).  We had a point paper that said ROTC Cadets do not hold Command positions, are not given authority over anyone and basically we (as a Commander) had to make it known to our soldiers that yes they should show the cadets respect as future Officers, but would only carry out orders that were initiated by me or the Platoon Leader.  The CTLT program in my opinion should be changed, but that is for the Army Forum not CAPTALK. 

The things that give an Officer and NCO Command authority and the ability to give orders (UCMJ being one of them) have no reference to ROTC Cadets.  However, there are some that cite Academy Cadets.  It is a shame, because ROTC produces better Officers to begin with, and those Cadets should be given the privileges their Academy counterparts get.

I also like how Academy Cadets are "given" Army ribbons thier first day at the Academies while ROTC cadets wait 4 years. 

[hatentx]

I would have to agree just based on experiance.  We had before my deployment both USMA and ROTC Cadets visiting our unit.  Both where fully intagrated as part of the unti for their 2 weeks with us.  We had a gunnary and they allowed the USMA Cadet to run the FARP we were working on.  The ROTC Cadet was there but was unable be incharge of anything.  There was an instance where the ROTC guy told one of my NCO do do something while and aircraft was approaching and my NCO replaied for the Cadet to SImple **** off Sir.  The Cadet then went to the company commander and was then pulled from the training exercise becasue of his being out of line on giving and order he had no athority to give and to be a saftey hazard as well.  The USMA cadet we were told after wards to follow his order becasue he has the Lawful Authority to give them but the ROTC Cadet did not have that same Authority.  I dont know if this is right or wrong but it was what we were told.

[SJFedor]

I also like how Academy Cadets are "given" Army ribbons thier first day at the Academies while ROTC cadets wait 4 years. 

Maybe cuz ROTC has it's own plethora of fun ribbons to give their cadets? 

[Falshrmjgr]

Well the bottom line is that a cadet has exactly the amount of authority he is given (within the limits of law, regulation, and common sense).  While the cadet may not be able to issue orders based upon his personal authority, he can issue instructions based upon his delegated authority.  Basically, the company commander, etc issues an order to the effect of,  "Sergeant, you and your men will follow the directions of this cadet, understood?"
"Roger, Sir."
In which case, failure to follow the direction of the cadet is a violation of the Company Commander's order, and not the cadet's.

[gallagheria]

In reality, that is how nearly all command is. There are very few actually in the chain of command of a particular unit. From the commander in chief all the way down to a company commander, it is a direct line. However, many others have command authority because they have been delegated command or directed to do something by someone with actual command.

For the most part, rank itself means nothing. Position is what makes the difference. It just so happens that most positions have rank requirements that vary slightly. The position however, can be occupied by even civilians who, although they themselves are not originating a command, can be delegated or directed command for specific tasks.

That is the same instance with cadets going through SMP in the Army. They are occupying many times platoon leader positions and have authority based on their position; or if the company commander has directed the cadet to do something else, they are acting with authority. This is true with nearly all soldiers who are not in the direct chain of command. Also, CTLT was brought up as an example. This is where a cadet will temporarily be assigned to a unit and learn from the officers how to lead. They are not in the command in this situation. A commander may assign them to do something, and they will then carry it out in the name of the commander--similar to being directed to do something or being delegated responsibility.

[cnitas]

There was an instance where the ROTC guy told one of my NCO do do something while and aircraft was approaching and my NCO replaied for the Cadet to SImple **** off Sir.  The Cadet then went to the company commander and was then pulled from the training exercise becasue of his being out of line on giving and order he had no athority to give and to be a saftey hazard as well. 

Wow...The ROTC cadet is there to gain experience and learn.  Why would an NCO act so unprofessionally towards a trainee?  
Even if the 'order' would have caused a safety issue, the NCO can simply say, "Sir, that is unsafe...take it up with the CO if you got a problem."

[Falshrmjgr]

There was an instance where the ROTC guy told one of my NCO do do something while and aircraft was approaching and my NCO replaied for the Cadet to SImple **** off Sir.  The Cadet then went to the company commander and was then pulled from the training exercise becasue of his being out of line on giving and order he had no athority to give and to be a saftey hazard as well. 

Wow...The ROTC cadet is there to gain experience and learn.  Why would an NCO act so unprofessionally towards a trainee? 
Even if the 'order' would have caused a safety issue, the NCO can simply say, "Sir, that is unsafe...take it up with the CO if you got a problem."

LOL... oh the resentment of NCO's toward Cadets/2LTs is one of the rights of passage.  IMHO, while at the time it can be humiliating, its an important lesson.   While often inappropriate, it sends a clear message that young leader that respect is earned, not demanded.  Get tough or get out young cadet.

[cnitas]

Good thing I was never a military officer.  That NCO would have bought himself a world of trouble with an attitude like that if I was his CO.

The real lesson learned is likely be be that NCOs are unprofessional jerks who may not follow orders. 

I might expect this of an E-4 late in his enlistment, but not an experienced NCO.

[Falshrmjgr]

Well, there are cultural issues at work here, and culture varies from service to service, and from branch to branch within the service.

I was an airborne infantry officer, so I was at the far end of the scale.  Within that little ranger world, weakness was not tolerated, ego got you through the road march, and humor was dark at best.

When I was a shave tail, becoming a platoon leader was a trial by fire.  Whinging to the Company Commander or First Sergeant about an NCO disrespecting you was the fast track to being branded "Doesn't belong here"

An NCO walks into that situation with credibility that the 2LT lacks.  He's proven himself a member of that community, a warrior, and a leader of men.   The LT is a question mark.  What is expected is that that 2LT will take charge, and handle it himself, or with the assistance/mentorship of his Platoon Sergeant.  It is his JOB, to lead to those men, not to merely have them obey his orders.   If that situation happened, it would be perceived as a failure on the LT's part to have allowed it to happen.

Now there are some dirtbag NCO's in the world, (I know, I had an E6 working for me who couldn't lead a Brownie Troop to a Bake Sale) and that is not what my point is.  My point is merely that taken out of context, that NCO's remarks seem out of line, but chances are they were based upon a prior pattern of behavior on that Cadet's part which the NCO felt needed an on the spot correction of the type that would impress on that soon-to-be-commissioned young man the importance not only of demanding respect, but of giving it.

Have I ever had an NCO manually extract my cranium from my fourth point of contact?  Absolutely.  And I was a better Officer and Soldier for it.

Now, having said all that, had that happened in a TDA unit in TRADOC, a whole other culture would be in effect, and chances are that NCO would have found himself with a minimum of a counseling statement.

(Oh by the way, note to prospective young officers out there:  DO NOT EVER TRY AND PUT THE UNIT E9 AT PARADE REST.  )

[DHollywood]

+1...

[ddelaney103]

Good thing I was never a military officer.  That NCO would have bought himself a world of trouble with an attitude like that if I was his CO.

The real lesson learned is likely be be that NCOs are unprofessional jerks who may not follow orders. 

I might expect this of an E-4 late in his enlistment, but not an experienced NCO.

It all depends on circumstances:

The President stood on the ramparts of Fort Stevens, next to an officer who was wounded. As one soldier reported the incident: "Old Abe and his wife was in the Fort at the time and Old Abe and his doctor was standing up on the parapets and the sharpshooter that I speak of shot the doctor through the left thigh, and Old Abe ordered our men to fall back."  Captain Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. allegedly shouted at the President: "Get down, you [darn] fool!" Before the President left the fort, he said good-bye to the future Supreme Court justice, adding, "I'm glad to see you known how to talk to a civilian."

[Dragoon]

I didn't say badge envy...(That apparently came later)

So let me put it another way.  Can you explain why Armor Branch trains what are essentially infantrymen? 

Umm...yeah.  Because at the time of the transition, the focus was on mounted scout work.  While all the dismount skills were still there (just as they are for combat engineers, MPs and whole bunch of other folks), there was a large amount of additional stuff specifically about working with and for tank guys.  This was the late 70s/early 80s Fulda Gap army after all.  I can see a case made that recon was primarily considered a mechanized thing.  Of course today it's quite the opposite. 

I mean at this point it is rather moot, considering the 2005 BRAC Recommendation to move the Armor Center to Fort Benning and consolidate it and the Infantry Center into one organization.

Well, I don't think it's exactly "moot", as the consolidation into the Army Maneuver Center doesn't stop branch rivalries.  It will be interesting to see if you end up with all Lts trained to the same standards, or just have the DATS in separate classrooms next door to the grunts.
[/quote]

I know Armor Branch has been pushing for an "Combat Cavalry Badge/Expert Cavalry Badge" since Vietnam at least.

To my knowledge, while many armor guys have clamored for such a move, I'm not sure how hard Army Branch ever got behind it.  I think it got started because the RVN had some sort of combat armor badge, which was awarded to a lot of ACR guys. 

But, I believe I recall one time in the late 80s when the Chief of Armor specifically stated he wasn't going to pursue such a course of action, so this may have been a ground swell effort, not a Knox-led thing.

Anyhow, the point being simply this:  We have knowingly duplicated effort, under the auspices of "Doctrinal Differences" in order to ensure that Armor Branch trained its Cav Scouts.  I say this as both a former 11H NCO, and as a former Infantry Officer.

I think there's some truth to that.  In the same way that "We have knowingly duplicated effort, under the auspices of "Doctrinal Differences" in order to ensure that Infantry Branch trains its Bradley crews.  :-)

In my experience, doctrinally we have so much overlap in the Recon Arena, that it is mind numbing.

Could be, could be.  But that wasn't the thing I was questioning.  This was:

But Infantry Branch and Armor Branch got in a peeing contest.  The net result was Armor Branch wanted their own "Little Infantry" and did not want them corrupted by the Benning School for Boys.  So "Poof" you are no longer CMOS 11.  So if you can't earn an EIB/CIB, don't blame the grunts, blame the treadheads at Armor Branch that didn't like seeing the troopers wear a badge THEY couldn't earn.

The Assertions in here are:

1. Cav Scouts became Armor primarily because the Armor School wanted it so (implying that no one above the Armor School, say TRADOC or the G3 had any say in the matter"

2.  The reason why they did this has something to do with armor guys not liking "seeing the troopers wear a badge THEY couldn't earn."  As opposed to any valid reasons related to doctrine and warfighting at the time. 

The first assertion might be true, but I'd be interested in your reasons (other than hooah infantry spirit) for thinking so.

The second doesn't make a whole lot of sense any way you slice it.  Perhaps you just didn't word it very well?

[MIKE]

It would appear that this topic isn't really talking about what AD can wear on the CAP uniform anymore... I believe this has been asked and answered three pages ago.

[Dragoon]

True.  But isn't off topic rambling just oodles of fun?