Legal Rights in "Foggy-Bottom"

[West MI-CAP-Ret]

Rather than muddling the question with extraneous facts, I have a question.  Does the command staff of a unit, have a legal right to threaten a senior with the "ether / or" choice of either stay in your group job assignment or be placed in a 100 unit at wing hq  (my understanding of where you send seniors that pay dues, but don't come to squadron meetings).

There is a lot more to this tale, and I'd love to share it with someone who knows either personnel assignments or jag manuals.

Warmly,
Dave fm west Michigan

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

First of all, we do not have "JAG manuals" to the best of my knowledge, since we are not under the UCMJ.  However, we do have legal officers, and you would do worse than to contact one.

Even if the CC "has the right," doing such a thing is quite immature and not a way to retain quality people.

[Eclipse]

Not sure on the question.

You can't force a member to stay somewhere they don't want to, but no unit CC is compelled to take a member they don't want.

If the question is "be active or go to 000", that happens all the time, but there's nothing stopping the member from
moving to a unit, doing his safety every month and sitting quietly.

[West MI-CAP-Ret]

Rather that request a meeting with the wing and group commander, I've asked for a meeting with one of wing's legal officers.  I don't want to write directly to anyone in wing.

[Eclipse]

Rather that request a meeting with the wing and group commander, I've asked for a meeting with one of wing's legal officers.  I don't want to write directly to anyone in wing.

Mistake #1 - address it directly and with the people making the decision, don't dance around.

Unless you're signing a contract, the Legal officer has nothing to say about it and will likely be clueless.
There's also no anonymity.

[LSThiker]

Can you repeat the question a little more clearly?

Are you saying that a commander is saying you either stay in your group assignment or transfer to the 000 squadron?  Is this a unit commander, group commander or wing commander? 

If it is a unit commander, he is not required to take you into his/her unit.

[RiverAux]

Do CAP lawyers even have any special training in CAP regulations? 

In any case, this isn't a question for them anyway.  Chain of command all the way.

[Eclipse]

Do CAP lawyers even have any special training in CAP regulations?

Not to my knowledge.   Their role is contract negotiations and protecting the corporation from external and internal liability.

[a2capt]

Again?

[capmaj]

This might be of interest to you.

CAPR 39-2, Para 1, Sec 11, Sub para b........  ' Commanders may initiate transfers for those members under their command to other units
under their command. In the event a member objects to such transfer, the request will be forwarded
to the commander of the next higher echelon for final decision.'

[Private Investigator]

Does the command staff of a unit, have a legal right to threaten a senior with the "ether / or" choice of either stay in your group job assignment or be placed in a 100 unit at wing hq ...

Dave I am guessing this has to do with PA# 14-01. I have been on Group Staff a few times and on two different occassions the new Group Commanders asked me to leave. So once I went to Wing and the other time to a Squadron. On a sidenote both of those Group Commanders got fired. So if you are having fun in CAP look for a friendlier home Unit, JMHO, YMMV.   

[a2capt]

Just like the Wing Conference admission being given to cadets, there has to be more to this. But the basic question is answered, yes a CC can transfer you, yes you can protest it, to the next CC in line.

[Garibaldi]

Just like the Wing Conference admission being given to cadets, there has to be more to this. But the basic question is answered, yes a CC can transfer you, yes you can protest it, to the next CC in line.

I was told there is a place in e-services where the losing commander can deny a transfer. No reason has to be given.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I was told there is a place in e-services where the losing commander can deny a transfer. No reason has to be given.

There is, and it is a stupid concept as far as I am concerned.

Why would a CC use it, other than to make the member requesting transfer stay in a place where s/he is miserable (which will probably lead to a heated conflict between member and commander, followed by the member's saying "up an afterburner with you and with CAP," and quitting), or just to show the CC can do it.

Those cases would reflect much more on the member than on the commander.

I have never been a unit CC, though I have been a Deputy Commander.  My personal outlook is that if a member wanted to move to another unit where s/he felt more fulfilled/happy, etc., I would not stand in the way of it.  Nothing would be gained by invoking that.

[arajca]

The main reason for the losing commander being able to deny a transfer out is if the member is involved in an investigation or has had a negative action started but it hasn't been processed by National. Or so I've been told.

[Eclipse]

Why would a CC use it, other than to make the member requesting transfer stay in a place where s/he is miserable (which will probably lead to a heated conflict between member and commander, followed by the member's saying "up an afterburner with you and with CAP," and quitting), or just to show the CC can do it.

The main reason for the losing commander being able to deny a transfer out is if the member is involved in an investigation or has had a negative action started but it hasn't been processed by National. Or so I've been told.

Yep - the last thing you want is troublesome members shopping units to try and propagate their nonsense or avoid disciplinary action.
And a good CC does not visit his problems on others.

This is especially an issue in border areas where I've seen members hop wings back and forth because of personality issues
and other nonsense.

[Alaric]

I'm fortunate in that I've never had this invoked as I've only moved due to work.  As those are usually moves of 1000+ miles, I'd be quite annoyed of my Alabama squadron commander had not allowed me to transfer to Illinois or Illinois not to transfer to Connecticut.  After all that would be one hell of a commute

[a2capt]

My comment was that the -current- commander can also initiate the transfer of you -out- of the unit, and if you don't like it, you can protest to -their- commander.

This is different than the losing commander rejecting a plucking transfer out, where the member goes to another unit and those people initiate a transfer.

That would be where, say, the member is involved in an issue that is about to explode, so they try to get out of Dodge fast. 

Three meetings, for both new and transfers. Why are you in such a hurry to transfer is a great starting question.
When they start ripping on their prior unit to no end, maybe the problem is in the mirror, too.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Yep - the last thing you want is troublesome members shopping units to try and propagate their nonsense or avoid disciplinary action.
And a good CC does not visit his problems on others.

This is especially an issue in border areas where I've seen members hop wings back and forth because of personality issues
and other nonsense.

Then the gaining commander has a responsibility to evaluate his/her new member before taking them on.  For the losing commander to withhold consent to transfer is just likely to breed resentment.

Personality issues...yes.  Sometimes there are units where a member and a CC just do not "click," and they are not going to get along no matter what.  Is it good for unit morale to forcibly keep someone that you hate/hates you?

That would be where, say, the member is involved in an issue that is about to explode, so they try to get out of Dodge fast. 

If an issue is explosive enough, the member in question will likely get out of CAP, not just go to another squadron.

[NIN]

Yep - the last thing you want is troublesome members shopping units to try and propagate their nonsense or avoid disciplinary action.
And a good CC does not visit his problems on others.

This is especially an issue in border areas where I've seen members hop wings back and forth because of personality issues
and other nonsense.

Then the gaining commander has a responsibility to evaluate his/her new member before taking them on.  For the losing commander to withhold consent to transfer is just likely to breed resentment.

Personality issues...yes.  Sometimes there are units where a member and a CC just do not "click," and they are not going to get along no matter what.  Is it good for unit morale to forcibly keep someone that you hate/hates you?

That would be where, say, the member is involved in an issue that is about to explode, so they try to get out of Dodge fast. 

If an issue is explosive enough, the member in question will likely get out of CAP, not just go to another squadron.

Oh, gosh, I wish it was that easy.

Having spent about 10 years off-and-on as a commander, its not nearly that easy.

All too often, people have "personality conflicts" with others. Either they're goofy, or the people in charge are.  Either way, there are issues that don't always rise to the level of disciplinary action or whatever.

As a commander, I've had people come to me and say "I want to transfer to your unit."

My first thought is "Why?"

Especially when a person lives 3 miles from their current unit and they want to transfer to a unit that is a 40 mile drive or something.

When I was a squadron commander from 1999 to 2004, I had 7-8 cadets and/or seniors come to me about transferring. (Hell, even Mike Johnston here wanted to transfer from Mass! <GRIN>)   My first question was "Does your squadron commander know you want to transfer?" 

Almost universally the answer was "no!"

My personal policy on transfers was "If your transfer doesn't also involve a change in zip codes, I want to know why, and you better be talking to your current commander about it."  I was not going to run a "refugee squadron" for people escaping disciplinary action or whatever, and as a commander, if there was some kind of an issue going on in my unit that was causing someone to transfer, I'd like to know about it before they just disappear off my roster.

OTOH, sometimes you're just on the wrong foot with the commander or something and there is nothing you're going to do to fix that easily.  And maybe then it is time to go "elsewhere."

But you're not sneaking out of your current unit to my unit under the cover of darkness.  I have always had a good relationship with my adjacent and fellow commanders and I'm not about to sour that because you can't get along.

Regarding the "losing commander" aspect of the regulation:

In 1999, when I took over the unit I'm at now, my first official act as the commander after saluting the wing commander and playing flag switcheroo was to suspend three cadets for a fist fight at the meeting the week before.

They were counseled and suspended for 60 days, and they were given a letter that indicated the terms of their suspension ("no CAP activities", etc) and told "go home, cool your heels for 60 days and think hard about what the heck you're doing. No favorable actions, no nothing. Just sit down and shut up."

One cadet I knew was going to be applying for NCSAs. His suspension would have overlapped the application period (paper apps in those days) and ended just before the wing review board. I told him "Look, I know you want to apply for NCSAs.  I don't want this issue to goof up your chance for an NCSA this coming summer, so see me and I'll sign off your 31.  The suspension will be over before the review boards, and as long as you keep your nose clean, I don't have a problem sending you to an NCSA." 

He had also made some noises about wanting to transfer units and I told him "During this period, you get no favorable personnel actions, to include transfers. When your suspension period is up, we'll talk about a transfer, but not before that.  Do your 60 days and we'll talk."

A little past midway thru the suspension period, Cadet Board (a pseudonym) drop off my MML as "Transferring to Sq 12345".  Well, that is sure interesting.

I hear from another officer that this cadet is showing up at another unit's meetings, in uniform.  Further investigation reveals that he's been going out with that unit commander's daughter. Oh, this is going to be fun.

So I email him "Cadet Board, your membership just dropped off our roster and it shows you as transferring to Sq 12345. What is going on? I've heard that you're going to meetings of the Podunk Sq. Is that true?"

I get back this email about how his suspension isn't legitimate and that I don't have the authority to restrict him from doing what he wants, its a free country, etc, etc. (<Steve Irwin> "Listen! Crikey! Its the sound of the North American Guardhouse Lawyer in full bloom!"</Steve Irwin>)  He ends his email with "I've transferred to the Podunk Sq and there's not a thing you can do about it!!!!"

Hahahaha. In the words of Demo Dick Marcinko, "Doom on you."

That was in the morning.

By noon, I had sent the requisite letter to NHQ/DP requesting that the transfer be reversed (per the regulations), CC'd the wing commander on that, had a phone call with the wing commander to apprise him of the issue, and had a nice friendly phone call with my fellow commander at the Podunk Sq. Before I was done with my sandwich & Coke, his membership was sitting back on my MML.

Turns out, the unit commander was totally unaware that this cadet had been suspended by our unit and had these disciplinary issues.  He started showing up at their meetings (on a different night than ours, so it wasn't seen as odd) and never said a *word* about being suspended. 

The other commander was like "Whoa. I don't want him if this is the kind of cadet he is."

I bet dinner time conversation with his daughter was interesting that evening.

I emailed the cadet "Dear Cadet Board, your transfer to the Podunk Sq has been rescinded.  In the suspension letter you received on 11 NOV, I indicated to you that you were not to participate in CAP activities during the period of your suspension, and that there would be no favorable personnel actions during that time.   In further discussions, you and I talked about a transfer to another unit.  At that time, I told you that any transfers would occur after your suspension period.  We can further discuss your transfer after your suspension is over on 12 January."

That week, both he and his father showed up at our squadron meeting.  Turns out, the Guardhouse Lawyer apple didn't fall to far from the tree.

Dad spent a lot of time tell me what the regulations said (wrongly), how things were going to be (right, uh huh), and threatening me with dire consequences if I didn't let his little precious flower do what he wanted.  Dad was also one of those short, sawed-off kind of guys(no offense to short, sawed-off guys here..) who tries to physically intimidate people by standing up while everybody is sitting, using physically intimidating body language, etc. He tried that with me (unsuccessfully), and I literally laughed at his efforts.

Cadet finished out his 60 days, I signed off on his transfer to the Podunk Sq and I think I saw him one more time at wing activity.

That is the kind of thing that the regulation's requirements are there to prevent.  Sure, it can be used for other purposes, I suppose, but if you notice, it says in the event the losing commander disagrees, the transfer is reversed and the next higher echelon resolves.  At the very least, it may bring visibility to a issue. If the next  higher echelon is part of the problem, well, it might not.

ETA:

"I think we've seen this as an example of 'what not to do'."

[a2capt]

If an issue is explosive enough, the member in question will likely get out of CAP, not just go to another squadron.

As you can see from the above scenario.. funny that, too. I swear, NIN must be a past CC that I've worked with.. because that story is just so .. familiar.


Because it plays out in many different places and times. Like a busted record.

[West MI-CAP-Ret]

Didn't want to get into the boilerplate of what the issues are.  However,  it would help to give some historical context. 

First, I'm a special and unique case (besides what my moma says😙).  I have multiple sclerosis.  A year ago I had a "dust up" with my group DC's wife, whom was my commander at the local level.  The outgoing Grp cmdr did nothing to solve the impasse (like get both parties in a room and mediate a solution).  So, a two-month suspension turned into a seven month suspension, with the new Grp cmdr inviting the Wg cmdr to participating in a mediated meeting with me, the cc whom suspended me and the new Grp cmdr (the Wg/CC got involved when the outgoing Grp/CC wrote me, suggesting since being a multiple sclerosis (MS) patient, I should consider retiring, because CAP mbrs can be called out on ES missions on a moments notice.-even @ the time I had an admin rating).  At the meeting the Wg cmdr asked me what were my failures and how could I have done things differently?  I shared I should have done a better job in communication.  Finally, I was offered a choice: go to another Sqdrn or join Grp.  I chose Grp.  The Wg cmdr wisely ask me to get a list of MS limitations fm my doctor.  This is where we are.  Now, the dpty CC says that according to the mediated settlement, my only choices was either work with Grp, or be xfrd to the inactive Sqdrn at Wg.  I certainly remember things differently.  As you can see, "the waters are muddy". 

I assume the wise and professional thing to do is see what the Grp CC wants to do?

[capmaj]

As in most things in life, the adage applies..............  " If it ain't in writing, it didn't happen!"  Do you have anything in writing as to what decisions came out of your previous meetings?

[EMT-83]

Forced to retire because of a disability? Have these people heard about CAPR 36-1 and 36-2?

[NC Hokie]

So, a two-month suspension turned into a seven month suspension...

How, exactly, did that happen?  If you weren't suspected of cadet abuse or fighting membership termination, CAPR 35-1 limits suspension to a maximum of 180 days.

Wg/CC got involved when the outgoing Grp/CC wrote me, suggesting since being a multiple sclerosis (MS) patient, I should consider retiring, because CAP mbrs can be called out on ES missions on a moments notice.

Looks like written evidence of a CAPR 39-2 violation to me.  Although no overt action was taken, the suggestion to leave because of your disability meets the definition of discrimination.

Now, the dpty CC says that according to the mediated settlement, my only choices was either work with Grp, or be xfrd to the inactive Sqdrn at Wg.  I certainly remember things differently.

"Sir, my recollection of the settlement disagrees with yours. Do you have any documentation to support your recollection?"

[Storm Chaser]

Didn't want to get into the boilerplate of what the issues are.  However,  it would help to give some historical context. 

First, I'm a special and unique case (besides what my moma says😙).  I have multiple sclerosis.  A year ago I had a "dust up" with my group DC's wife, whom was my commander at the local level.  The outgoing Grp cmdr did nothing to solve the impasse (like get both parties in a room and mediate a solution).  So, a two-month suspension turned into a seven month suspension, with the new Grp cmdr inviting the Wg cmdr to participating in a mediated meeting with me, the cc whom suspended me and the new Grp cmdr (the Wg/CC got involved when the outgoing Grp/CC wrote me, suggesting since being a multiple sclerosis (MS) patient, I should consider retiring, because CAP mbrs can be called out on ES missions on a moments notice.-even @ the time I had an admin rating).  At the meeting the Wg cmdr asked me what were my failures and how could I have done things differently?  I shared I should have done a better job in communication.  Finally, I was offered a choice: go to another Sqdrn or join Grp.  I chose Grp.  The Wg cmdr wisely ask me to get a list of MS limitations fm my doctor.  This is where we are.  Now, the dpty CC says that according to the mediated settlement, my only choices was either work with Grp, or be xfrd to the inactive Sqdrn at Wg.  I certainly remember things differently.  As you can see, "the waters are muddy". 

I assume the wise and professional thing to do is see what the Grp CC wants to do?

If you haven't discuss this with the group commander, I recommend that you do that immediately. He, not the deputy, should be handling this situation.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Forced to retire because of a disability? Have these people heard about CAPR 36-1 and 36-2?

Indeed. 

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R036_001_D6D80CB431788.pdf

[West MI-CAP-Ret]

Problem Resolved.  It was suggest that I speak with the Grp CC.  If I had sense, I'd of called Monday.  Now things have been resolved through conversation.

My posting was a sincere request for procedures but it's still a lazy way to do it.  I'll download the legal and personnel issue this latest flap almost turned into.  By talking with all concerned,  misunderstandings and assumptions were cleared up.

[NIN]

Problem Resolved.  It was suggest that I speak with the Grp CC.  If I had sense, I'd of called Monday.  Now things have been resolved through conversation.

My posting was a sincere request for procedures but it's still a lazy way to do it.  I'll download the legal and personnel issue this latest flap almost turned into.  By talking with all concerned,  misunderstandings and assumptions were cleared up.

Yay!

[a2capt]

Easy-peasy.

"ES people can be called out on a moments notice", and that's one of the great things about this organization.  You can say "No, I can't go". you're not ordered to do anything. so that's a lame presumption.  Everyone can contribute as much or as little they're able to, or in ways that they can, someone has to do admin for all that ground pounding, someone needs to talk to them over the radio, etc.

If someone on the receiving end is that daft that they won't take -any- help from someone because they're not "capable" (their words) of "doing everything", well that's their loss.

[NIN]

If an issue is explosive enough, the member in question will likely get out of CAP, not just go to another squadron.

As you can see from the above scenario.. funny that, too. I swear, NIN must be a past CC that I've worked with.. because that story is just so .. familiar.


Because it plays out in many different places and times. Like a busted record.

Past CC? In a good way or a bad way? 

[SarDragon]

Gotta be good. I know some of the bad ones he's had to deal with.

[Brit_in_CAP]

Easy-peasy.

"ES people can be called out on a moments notice", and that's one of the great things about this organization.  You can say "No, I can't go". you're not ordered to do anything. so that's a lame presumption.  Everyone can contribute as much or as little they're able to, or in ways that they can, someone has to do admin for all that ground pounding, someone needs to talk to them over the radio, etc.

If someone on the receiving end is that daft that they won't take -any- help from someone because they're not "capable" (their words) of "doing everything", well that's their loss.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Nicely said!

[Brit_in_CAP]

Problem Resolved.  It was suggest that I speak with the Grp CC.  If I had sense, I'd of called Monday.  Now things have been resolved through conversation.

My posting was a sincere request for procedures but it's still a lazy way to do it.  I'll download the legal and personnel issue this latest flap almost turned into.  By talking with all concerned,  misunderstandings and assumptions were cleared up.

Good; I'm please for you and that sense prevailed!

[NIN]

Gotta be good. I know some of the bad ones he's had to deal with.

See this is the issue I see sometimes in CAP (and I'm not pointing fingers at a soul in this thread, FYI, I'm saying over the course of the last 33 years associated with CAP I've seen this)

You get well-meaning and well-intending members who work within their ability (ie. they have a disability, or schedule/kid constraints).  They can't do CAP 24x7 or 8x5 or even 2 x 2.  But they can be there one week out of 4 or 2 weeks out of 5 or something.  You find a niche and let them work it.  But you don't over assign them, either, and you may have to have a difficult conversation about requirements/needs versus abilities and capabilities.

I had a gent many years ago who was a super nice guy, very motivated and dedicated.  He was, unfortunately, not well educated, had a few cognitive and physical issues and tended to over-commit / over-volunteer himself and then not be able to perform.  Was he the guy you could station at the door of the mission base to check people in? Yes. Every day.  Was he the guy you were going to make your squadron finance officer or ES Ground Team leader? Probably not.  (He didn't have a HS diploma or GED when he joined. I recall that years ago "high school diploma" was a qualifying factor for rank, but maybe I'm on crack because I don't see it except for professional appointments, etc. Could be my crappy remembery..) 

You have to assign people within their capabilities and abilities, or have a plan to address why not within the context of the rules and regulations.

OTOH, we also have people who rise to a level of capability within the organization that might be a notch or two above where they should be.  They don't necessarily have the people skills, background, management touch, whatever, to do the job they're suddenly thrust into (or actively sought out).  And they're often there not because they were an "awesome choice," but rather because they were the last man (woman) standing and thus the "last choice" and their abilities were secondary to their availability. (ie. they've never been "in charge" of anything before, or nobody would legitimately put them in charge of something due to a distinct lack of soft skills, abilities, etc. But they've been a person who shows up regularly or has stuck around one way or another.)

Sometimes these people have a little bit of "power" that goes to their heads and they run roughshod over thing.  Sometimes they're just "benign/benevolent dictators." 

And again, lets talk about the difficult conversations that people at higher echelons *didn't* have with these people beforehand.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

You get well-meaning and well-intending members who work within their ability (ie. they have a disability, or schedule/kid constraints).  They can't do CAP 24x7 or 8x5 or even 2 x 2.  But they can be there one week out of 4 or 2 weeks out of 5 or something.  You find a niche and let them work it.  But you don't over assign them, either, and you may have to have a difficult conversation about requirements/needs versus abilities and capabilities.

You have to assign people within their capabilities and abilities, or have a plan to address why not within the context of the rules and regulations.

OTOH, we also have people who rise to a level of capability within the organization that might be a notch or two above where they should be.  They don't necessarily have the people skills, background, management touch, whatever, to do the job they're suddenly thrust into (or actively sought out).

I have been struggling with these very things for almost a year (and Eclipse, respectfully, I know your feelings on this).

1.  I have a documented disability which limits my physical presence at the unit.

2.  My capabilities and abilities, or more accurately utilising them, can vary from week to week or even day to day.

3.  As an extreme introvert I lack so-called people skills.  I am not going to apologise for that; it is just the way I am.  I am not rude or impolite but am very bad in social settings.

It is frustrating to know that, being a member of an organisation I have been part of for roughly 20 years, that I have basically hit a wall and am a hamster running on a wheel for the three reasons enumerated.

I consider myself an intelligent person.  Not an intellectual, but intelligent certainly - both "book smarts" and the School of Hard Knocks.  I have been a "leader" before - going back to childhood, I was a Senior Patrol Leader and then Junior Assistant Scoutmaster in the BSA, and have supervised student assistants at a college I worked for.  However, my "leadership style" is to basically let subordinates develop while limiting my role to advising when needed and admonishing (gently at first) if they push the envelope (which has thankfully not happened much; I was blessed).

There has got to be a way for people who have inner capabilities to advance within the organisation without necessarily having the stereotypical outer "people skills" (I hate that term because it implies that having them corresponds with degrees of extraversion).

However, I do not know what they are.

[West MI-CAP-Ret]

It looks like noting was resolved.  The group commander in question is a very good, accomplished, former cadet Lt. Col.  His actions could simply be something being forced upon him.

BTW.  What really impresses me about this group is its professionalism.  Too many light-colonels or senior officers to put up with "winning, sniveling malcontents."  I've seen people called out for words that seemed like veiled or overt attacks against the Civil Air Patrol, other members, their chain of command, or all of the above. 

No one has done this too me.  Only constructive and respectful (i.e. professional) advice... except one person.  Rather than confront me, this person called my group commander, and reported me with the words "I believe you've got an officer "dissing you!" so my group CC called, and he was friendly, and simply stated its a free country, and our words are just words.  Just remove anything that would identify our group by name and unit ID.

Well, first, I've been accused (but never proven) to be a bomb-thrower to believe that words don't matter to this organization (and to a degree, I'm not sure that is a bad thing, since having posts attack and complain would bog down what this blog is trying to do).

So, I've got enough replies to know whom I can write a private email to.

To the "officer" who reported me to my boss, with anything sounding like "I think" in the sentence, was unfair to the group commander and me.  Obviously you don't see it that way, but frankly, what is your friend supposed to do with your words, since you didn't include what I wrote (which sees to me to find fault with the deputy group CC (husband of the officer which put me out on a two-month suspension that ended up being resolved by our state's wing commander, seven months later).

[Eclipse]

Just remove anything that would identify our group by name and unit ID.

((*cough*)) Signature  ((*cough*)) profile...

[a2capt]

Matters not, even if it's edited/removed. Even if it was never there.