Movement of CAP-USAF and State Directors to 1st AF and state National Guard

[RiverAux]

Its been quite a while since we've discussed the organizational placement of CAP within the structure of the Air Force family (and last time we veered off almost immediately into a digression for the rest of the thread) and I'd like to throw out a hybrid of what seemed to be the more popular scenarios discussed in the past.  As CAP isn't really in the AF, what we're really talking about is CAP-USAF as the AF unit responsible for overseeing CAP. 

The basic proposal is this:  CAP-USAF (and CAP) should be moved from Air Education and Training Command to 1st Air Force.  CAP-USAF State Directors and members in the CAP-RAP program should be moved to the appropriate state National Guard headquarters. 

Justifications follow:

1.  Right now CAP-USAF is very well hidden within the bowels of the Air University which is part of the Air Education and Training Command.  What is the mission of the AETC?

Air Education and Training Command
Air Education and Training Command ... provides basic military training, initial and advanced technical training, flying training, and professional military and degree-granting professional education.

Is there any doubt that CAP doesn't come close to fitting in within their overall mission?  They are entirely focused on developing AF members and CAP does absolutely nothing towards that.  Obviously the reason we are here is because of the cadet program, but just because we're providing some AE to cadets (and incidentally to seniors), still doesn't put us within the scope of what AETC is around for.  We certainly aren't providing initial flight training to anyone (except for a very, very tiny percentage of cadets) and any advanced flight training for seniors isn't a funded AF mission and is done on the member's dime and only if they can talk a CAP instructor into giving them that training at no charge. 

So, where should we be?  Well, I believe within the 1st Air Force as part of the Air Combat Command.  What is the purpose of the ACC? 

Air Combat Command
The mission is to support global implementation of national security strategy. Air Combat Command operates fighter, bomber, reconnaissance, battle-management, and electronic-combat aircraft. It also provides command, control, communications and intelligence systems, and conducts global information operations.

While this is pretty broad and doesn't really address CAP's purposes well, if you drill down to the purposes (see below) of the 1st Air Force (which is part of ACC), you will see that CAP fits in pretty nicely. 

1st Air Force is assigned to Air Combat Command. It has the responsibility of ensuring the air sovereignty and air defense of the continental United States. As the CONUS geographical component of the binational North American Aerospace Defense Command, it provides airspace surveillance and control and directs all air sovereignty activities for the continental United States.

So, it is pretty obvious that speaking broadly, CAP would fit better with the 1st Air Force (and ACC) than AETC.  Heck, 1st AF is where all the AF offices that we work with (AFRCC, AFNSEP, and 1AF itself are located) But, lets get a little more specific about this, starting with the cadet program as that was one of the sticking points last time.

2.  While the CAP cadet program of WWII was focused primarily on getting kids ready to join the Army Air Corps and therefore would have fit well with the mission of today's AETC, that isn't where we are now.   Only a relatively minor percentage of cadets are going to join the Air Force so saying that CAP is preparing them for AF service is a stretch, and isn't one of the explicit goals of the cadet program in any case. 

3.  One can say that AF JROTC is much like CAP as a general citizenship, leadership, and aerospace education program, yet it is in AETC and I'm not proposing to move it.  Well, there are three reasons that CAP is different from AF JROTC in that regard and why CAP doesn't belong in AETC but JROTC does:
   A.  All CAP cadets are potential operational assets for the AF and many of them are trained and do serve on actual missions.  This is not the case for AF JROTC as they are purely an educational outfit.  That alone is a huge difference.   
   B.  98% of the people associated with AF JROTC are cadets (according to the AFJROTC homepage) while in CAP, that percentage is 39% -- and this percentage has been falling – it was 41% in 2000. 
   C.  All the adults working in the AFJROTC program are 100% focused on the cadet program while in CAP that percentage is probably only 10-30% (a SWAG, I admit). 

4.  Now one might argue that AETC assets are occasionally used for operational purposes (such as after Katrina), so CAP isn't really any different.  Well, I think its clear that CAP is an organization that happens to have a cadet program rather than a cadet-focused organization that does emergency missions on occasion.  It is a rarity for AETC to do operational stuff, while it is the norm for CAP.

5.  One could say that because CAP uses some of the Air University's correspondence courses, our seniors would have a beneficial relationship with CAP in AETC, but since those same correspondence courses are open to AF officers around the service, moving CAP to a different part of the AF wouldn't change anything one bit.  Quite frankly, the lack of updates to several of the CAP-specific correspondence courses shows that they're not terribly interested in working with CAP specifically.  And more broadly speaking, the primary benefit that CAP gets from being in AETC is having access to AETC bases for encampments and such, but that is the same sort of service we get from all AF bases regardless of where CAP is, so I don't see that as very important. 

6.  One could argue that it doesn't matter where CAP-USAF and CAP are headquartered administratively since there are already existing procedures for 1st AF to call on us if needed. 
   A.  This is true, however as I explained at the top of the thread, when it comes right down to it, CAP's use by the AF is almost entirely as an operational asset that also has a cadet program and it just makes logical sense to house us administratively with units with similar purposes.  In other words we would be very much like the 10 Air National Guard Fighter Wings that are aligned with 1AF. 
   B.  However, the big benefit to housing CAP-USAF with 1st AF is the huge increase in visibility we would have by having the CAP-USAF folks around the table talking up what CAP and they are doing to the 1AF leaders on an ongoing basis.  Our primary advocates would be as well-positioned as possible to get us as many missions as possible. 
   C.  A secondary, but still important, benefit of being part of 1st AF is the increased public affairs benefits we would have within the AF community.  Think about it – 1AF is always going to be on the hunt to play up any activities on its part since it is competing for public affairs "space" within the AF with those dropping bombs, etc. overseas.  By putting CAP directly under them, they're going to get to claim our successes as part of their own.  They can sort of indirectly do that now by giving credit to AFRCC for saves made by CAP on AFAMs, but getting to claim they success of the guys and gals and girls and boys there on the ground rather than some folks back at a base that made some phone calls makes a much better story.  Over the long run I see this as resulting in much better visibility for CAP within the AF which can do nothing but good for us. 
==================
Part 2. 

Now the second part of my plan is where the hybrid aspect comes in.  Drawing some from some past proposals regarding moving us to the Air National Guard, I believe that we could move the State Directors and the CAP-RAPs to the state headquarters for each National Guard.  The Air Force would need to move the funding for those persons along with them of course.  The transition from CAP-RAPS being mostly Reservists with a few National Guard to mostly National Guard with a few Reservists would take some time and would require a lengthy transition period. 

Why would we want to make this move? 

7.  Placing the State Directors and making the CAP-RAP program a primarily National Guard program will place the people most directly familiar with CAP into the command structure of the state's National Guard where they can best advocate for us to get additional missions.  In other words, this would be very similar to why I think it would be good for CAP-USAF to be under 1st AF. 

8.  I'm not proposing that the NG have authority to approve CAP missions (which is what previous proposals came down to) since that would require changes in federal and state laws that I don't want to mess with.  Like we have currently, the State Directors would initially review things such as requests for CAP training missions for AFAM status and then would forward them to the regional CAP-USAF office (as part of 1AF) for actual approval.  There is no logical reason that it couldn't be done that way even though the SD would be an employee of that state's National Guard.  CAP-USAF would still be responsible for setting the policies and working on the regs that the SDs would have to follow. 

9.  As a side note, I would probably try to get the SD switched from a civilian position back to a military one as I believe that would increase their ability to work within the National Guard command structure.   Perhaps this could also be partially justified by combining the SD duties with that of the lead CAP-RAP officer in each state. 

10. Putting the SD in the National Guard structure would also help from a public affairs point of view since it would give the National Guard the incentive to publicize CAP missions as well.  Again, very much like what would happen if CAP-USAF moved to 1st AF.   

Okay, I know this has been a huge post, but if nothing else, I've given you lots of potential items to criticize and you've got a holiday to work on your slings and arrows!

[es_g0d]

This general idea is exactly where the CAP needs to go; that is, to be more aligned with our parent organization, the USAF.  The only way we will be seen as credible to Air Force leaders is to have a great deal more involvement and supervision BY Air Force personnel.  CAP-RAP is a well-meaning program, but really doesn't fit that bill.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Overall, I'd have to agree with you.  I think keeping CAP under AETC is a mismatch.

I think, with our dual status, placing our NHQ under 1AF and then having our NHQ place our Wings under the operational control of the Air Guard commanders in the various states makes for better unity of command.

As far as part 2, item 9, if we are OPCON to the AG Air, or if the SD is under the AG, the position could always be a "Technician" post, where the incumbent must be military and wear a uniform, but would be paid and otherwise administered as a civil service employee.

[PHall]

I think being under the supervision of the USPFO (United States Property and Fiscal Office) for Logistics and Finance would be a good idea too. But I'm not holding my breath on that one.

[Eclipse]

First and last question is where the money comes from.

1AF for operational tasking is fine, but we won't get any more work unless there are serious changes to the charter and several laws, Posse-Com being at the top of the list.

As to being a part of the Guard, well good luck with that.  God love our Guardsman, but unless the money is appropriated in a way that the Governors have no say on its distribution, you're looking at an excellent way to kill CAP in a lot of areas.

Anyone familiar with how things are done in many of our cash-strapped states knows what I am talking about.

And if you don't give the Guard full authority over CAP and its assets, why would they want to bother with the added responsibility?

[Eclipse]

A couple of other things to consider -

The SD's, for the most part, are current or recent former military today (ours is an O-5).  Making it a full billet might preclude some of the best SD's who have retired (for whatever reason), and have no interest in re-upping.  It would also probably reduce the pay.

The other thing, very important, is that putting us under the Guard might actually reduce our existing access to military facilities, with no equivelent substitute from the Guard (because they don't have any).

Again, this gets back to being under state control vs. federal.  In my home state, we have two major military bases (literally "Major Commands"), a plethora of Reserve centers, and one, (that I know of) Air Guard facility, which is, to say the least, somewhat "limited" in it resources.

[SM-MADDOG]

I agree sort of, however saying We arent part of AF I dont know if I will accept that or not. First evidence is United States Air Force Auxiliary, "Air Force", 2nd, doesnt the Air Force have regulations for us that We must follow? Also the Air Force has to approve or disapprove of certain things before CAP can do them. So yes We are part of AF. But I agree that the Air Force and CAP should come together and do better things for both sides. I liked the ideas in this thread.

[SAR-EMT1]

Hmm.... will have to ponder this and get back with an opinion.

[RiverAux]

The SD's, for the most part, are current or recent former military today (ours is an O-5).  Making it a full billet might preclude some of the best SD's who have retired (for whatever reason), and have no interest in re-upping.  It would also probably reduce the pay.

Thats a fair comment and I would suggest that the issue be handled by attrition over the years.  Whenever a SD retires or quits the position would then be switched to a military one. 

having our NHQ place our Wings under the operational control of the Air Guard commanders in the various states makes for better unity of command.

Not what I suggested.  The SD would be part of the NG rather than part of CAP-USAF.  CAP's relationship with the state and CAP-USAF wouldn't really change.  If the NG wanted to use CAP, they would still need to follow the same basic request procedures they have now.  The difference would be that I think it would be much more likely that such requests would be made since they would have a CAP State Director somewhere on their staff pushing for it. 

As to being a part of the Guard, well good luck with that.  God love our Guardsman, but unless the money is appropriated in a way that the Governors have no say on its distribution, you're looking at an excellent way to kill CAP in a lot of areas.

Not a factor.  All we're talking about is the money to pay the SD, not CAP's operational budget.  The money CAP now gets from CAP-USAF for training, etc., would still come from CAP-USAF from their regional office. 

There are all sorts of state employees out there whose positions are paid for directly by a grant from the federal government, which is what would essentially happen in this case.  In fact, aren't there people working full-time at state National Guard headquarters right now on Title 10 status, which is what this would be if the SD were made military?  Don't see that there would be any real cost to the state beyond toner for the copy machine. 

Incidentally, I don't see this as a package deal and I think both of the suggested reforms are worth doing on their own merits. 

[Eclipse]

The difference would be that I think it would be much more likely that such requests would be made since they would have a CAP State Director somewhere on their staff pushing for it.

Where the SD's are won't change a single mission, unless you change the role of the SD from oversight to command, which then essentially changes the structure of CAP substantially.

Your assertion that the SD's are not out there stumping for missions, which is not true universally, notwithstanding, that is not their job.

SD's have zero command role, they are oversight only with very limited powers of "go/no-go" in safety and financial malfeasance situations.  Having them report to the Guard would not change that, which means they would have no more influence on recruiting, training, relationships with local agencies, etc., than they do today.

That means no more actors or mission requests than we have today. Changing that effectively dilutes the wing CC's authority, and makes the SD the defacto Wing CC.  A dynamic that isn't going to be popular or easy to implement.
We have some great SD's, but not all of them "get" CAP or the volunteer dynamic, and in my personal experience one of the best ways to cause even more problems than you already have (in CAP) is to bring in military commanders with the intention that they "fix" things.

And you're also assuming that every state has this magic guard presence that is more effective for ES than CAP is today, which is not necessarily the case.  A handful of fighter and transport pilots isn't going to be a more effective manager of ground ES assets or cadets, especially volunteers.

Many Guard units have challenges just getting their paid, contracted, people to show up and play nice, not to mention how thin they are stretched with the continued war effort.

Further, if you believe that the USAF is going to continue the funding of SD salaries and benefits - not insubstantial at their GS-12 rate, yet relinquish authority to individual state control, you don't understand how federal agencies work.

And as to funding, sure, a lot of states get grants or matching funds, and then they "combine the function" of 12 different people into some sort of directorate or cabinet office and before you know it the job is gone - just what we need, some political appointee giving CAP 1/12 of his attention in his role as SD while the funding goes to paying for some gov'na's pet project.

This is the person you are suggesting be in charge of CAP:

[RiverAux]

Having someone at the table with the local NG can only help us.  Your're right that in some states it may not make a big difference, but in others it very well could.  Thats no different than anything else in CAP.  However, getting your foot in the door is always the hardest part. 

I know quite a bit about how the fed government works in relation to funding state positions and it is extremely common and is not at all unusual.

SDs very commonly are actually stumping for CAP missions and you're right that its not their primary job.  This would still be the case in my proposal, but as is the case now, it would be one of the things they do.  I've seen more than one occassion where the State Director is actually the primary liasion with the state for CAP and is the one at the state's command center in emergencies basically finding missions for CAP.  However, when they were in those postions and as I wrote this proposal, they never have any command authority over CAP members.  CAP is always in control of CAP.     

And you're also assuming that every state has this magic guard presence that is more effective for ES than CAP is today, which is not necessarily the case.  A handful of fighter and transport pilots isn't going to be a more effective manager of ground ES assets or cadets, especially volunteers.

Well, since I didn't actually propose any such thing, this statement is irrelevant.  Placing administrative control of the State Directors with the National Guard is all it is.  Right now CAP-USAF has that administrative control and they don't micromanage our missions at that level, and that would continue to be the case if the SD were under the NG. 

[ThorntonOL]

The difference would be that I think it would be much more likely that such requests would be made since they would have a CAP State Director somewhere on their staff pushing for it.

This is the person yo are suggesting be in charge of CAP:

Who is this guy by the way?

[Capt M. Sherrod]

The recently impeached governor of Illinois.

[DNall]

If cadet programs & AE are the most important part of CAP (to the AF) then it's perfectly positioned in AU alongside AFROTC & AFJROTC. Those functions could not happen effectively anywhere else in the AF command structure. In fact those functions of CAP would make us a burden on any other command's support of combatant commanders.

If ES is all-important & CP/AE don't matter, then CAP belongs under 1AF & can't effectively execute ES operations under the AETC structure.

So... we compromise. 95% of the time we're not on missions, and CAP-USAF works for AETC under those circumstances. The 5% of the time we are on missions, operational control of involved personnel (CAP-USAF & CAP) is transferred to 1AF. It works exactly as though we were permanently assigned to them.

As far as national guard, you're missing the boat on that one. 1AF does have some ANG fighter and recon units assigned to perform Homeland defense missions, but 1AF is not itself a guard organization. Even is you moved CAP to 1AF, CAP-USAF would not then move it's personnel to ANG. If your intent is to have state directors answering through the ANG state chain of command to 1AF, that can't work that way either. All you'd be doing is turning CAP over to the Army National Guard on a national scale, and with 52+ ways of doing everything.

The CAP-USAF personnel we get are either active duty assigned to the job, a few drilling reservists who are basically in IMA status, and everyone else is doing extra duty for retirement points (either from active reserve status or more likely from the IRR). What you want is a standardized structure with centralized control on the national level working down, not a state structure that tells the national side what to do, and not a big confusing power sharing arrangement that can't get anything done cause no one is in charge.

I think CAP-USAF is right where it needs to be. I think it'd be more appropriate if CAP were placed fully in that chain of command (albeit made up of unpaid civilian volunteers) and cease the multi-level civilian control that is ultimately not responsible or accountable to AF. And I certainly think CAP-USAF could use more resources to support CAP - meaning more paid reserve slots for CAP-RAPs at the local level, to include junior to mid-grade enlisted that could help with unit administration.

[RiverAux]

If cadet programs & AE are the most important part of CAP (to the AF) then it's perfectly positioned in AU alongside AFROTC & AFJROTC. Those functions could not happen effectively anywhere else in the AF command structure. In fact those functions of CAP would make us a burden on any other command's support of combatant commanders.

If ES is all-important & CP/AE don't matter, then CAP belongs under 1AF & can't effectively execute ES operations under the AETC structure.

The only reason the AF ever calls CAP is to ask for operational support and that is reflected in the fact that our ES budget is almost 4 times bigger than our Cadet budget.  Beyond that we're getting metaphysical, but there is no reason that the cadet program would change one iota just because CAP-USAF is in 1st AF rather than AETC. 

Who said that ES was all important?  However, it is undeniable that unlike any other part of AETC, and especially unlike AF JROTC, CAP has a major operational mission.  It doesn't slight CP to recognize that the AF uses CAP primarily as an operational asset that also happens to have a cadet program (that also can be considered an operational asset). 

As far as national guard, you're missing the boat on that one. 1AF does have some ANG fighter and recon units assigned to perform Homeland defense missions, but 1AF is not itself a guard organization

Never said it was.  The important part of 1AF is that it houses the 2 primary AF units that we work for -- AFRCC and AFNSEP. 

Even is you moved CAP to 1AF, CAP-USAF would not then move it's personnel to ANG.

Didn't propose that.  All the current CAP-USAF military members would maintain their current structure, but report to 1st AF rather than the Air University.  Only the State Directors (and possibly the CAP-RAPs -- moving them to the NG isn't critical to the plan) would go to the NG either in their current civilian role or possibly back to a military position. 

All you'd be doing is turning CAP over to the Army National Guard on a national scale, and with 52+ ways of doing everything.

Not a bit.  The State Directors would still be bound by the AFIs that govern the use of CAP just like states have to follow federal military regulations.  Each NG doens't make up its own uniform regulations for example. 

[RiverAux]

I'll say it before someone else does -- it is obvious that every once in a while the AF will perform some sort of informal analysis about where CAP is placed and that obviously the last time they did that they decided that AETC was the best place.

However, it hasn't always been the case.  We've actually split our history about equally between AF headquarters and AETC (or related predecessors).  But, from 1959-1968 we were in Continental Air Command, which was the part of the AF responsible for administering the AF Reserve and Air National Guard and had air defense duties like 1st Air Force. 

By the way, we left CAC when it was inactivated and its duties split up and its not like they made a conscious decision that CAP wasn't a good fit.  The AF has seemed to have refocused again on homeland defense and has been using CAP (to a limited extent) for that purpose so I see my proposal as fitting in pretty well with the current trends. 

[Major Carrales]

How is it that some many of you think you know better where CAP fits than the USAF?  Hubris...perhaps?

In anycase, I can imagine a situation where CAP was a SG type place.  Imagine how many possible distinctive State CAP uniforms there could be!!! Bwahahahahah!!! 

I can see it now, stetsons and cowboy boots for the Southwest region, "Royal Canadian" red tunics and Smokie the Bears for the Northwesters and who could forget the Hawaiian floral patterns for the BDUs for our friends out on the "50th!"

Some Wings will authorize the carrying of weapons, others to relect their herritage by the use of command Kilts.  The National Board would be a weak confederation that will make the United Nations or Nato command centers look like everyone was in the same exact uniform.

Hyperbole aside, the idea of a CAP beholden to State Government might open so many Pandora's boxes that you..."will be sorry!"

[es_g0d]

Funny, the Air National Guard doesn't seem so beholden to the states to which they belong...

Truthfully, the ANG model is probably about right for the operational side of Civil Air Patrol.

[ELTHunter]

What about the Air Force Reserve Command?  I would think that would be a nice fit.  Still a direct command of the USAF (not under state authority), but they are familiar with a citizen/airman type of role.

[Major Carrales]

Funny, the Air National Guard doesn't seem so beholden to the states to which they belong...

Truthfully, the ANG model is probably about right for the operational side of Civil Air Patrol.

You know, the Air National Guard gets PAID!!!  Totally apples and oranges. Quite likely, CAP would end up like the State Defense Forces of some states; underfunded, back-burnered and forgotten.

I think the status quo, where CAP is a player in the assistance of States in disasters is better than State control...especially since some states are having fiscal problems of their own at this time.