2B for felony charge

[CAPC/officer125]

I have researched regs and forms and need an opinion or better reg cite.
I just found out that I have a cadet that is in jail for felony assault. She is 17 and her membership lapses at the end of the month. Would it be wise to try to get a 2B through, in the case that she isn't convicted?
I have looked through the regs and I don't see anything specific to felonies (charge or conviction) on termination or suspension of membership for a cadet or senior.
What is your opinion?

[RiverAux]

Pass the information up your chain of command.  They're the ones that will be making the decision. 

[Eclipse]

As a cadet its not your call - pass the information you have to your Commander (no need to share it publicly, even though you just did), and let him handle it.

[ZigZag911]

Why 2B someone once they're acquitted?

In other words, are we terminating members for being arrested now?

Suppose it's mistaken identity, which happens all the time?

In the American justice system you  are innocent until proven guilty!

[Eclipse]

A member does not have to be convicted of anything to violate 2-2 F  "Be of good moral character".

At a minimum the cadet will need to explain the situation to the satisfaction of the commander (or higher), whether she's ultimately convicted, pleas out, has the records suppressed as a minor is irrelevant if she did something  that pops 2-2F.

You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube...

[ZigZag911]

What if she were falsely or erroneously accused?

Then there isn't any toothpaste to put back.

[Eclipse]

What if she were falsely or erroneously accused?

Then there isn't any toothpaste to put back.

Its perfectly acceptable to actually read the threads you're responding to.

At a minimum the cadet will need to explain the situation to the satisfaction of the commander (or higher),

The entire situation is "out of the tube" and she will need to explain herself.

[IceNine]

Eclipse is 100% correct.

This isn't anyone's call except the senior chain of command directly over the member.  I'm sorry but this isn't even a discussion that a cadet should be having with anyone, except the unit commander directly.

Tell your Squadron Commander and don't talk about it any more.  Just talking about this could lead to an unpleasant situation for you all around.

[Airrace]

Pass the information up your chain of command.  They're the ones that will be making the decision.

I would agree with this post!

[Spike]

umm..... innocent until proved guilty.  What part of that does everyone here not understand??

I don't care if you sat in jail for a week, if you are NOT CONVICTED, you have no felony record.

Just being arrested means jack squat. 

Using the logic of Eclipse and other here, We should be terminating memberships of anyone involved with the judicial system.  So, divorces and summons to appear should also carry with it the "explanation". 

Face it, people do not have to explain anything. 

Lets not pretend we have more power in CAP than we really do.  If you read that the person was convicted of a felony in your paper.....perhaps then you can ask questions. 

I hope someone here actually tries to terminate the membership of an innocent person.....you could find yourself in court with a civil lawsuit.  Then I guess we would need to terminate your membership.   

[Eclipse]

Spike, you can't just ignore 2-2F because it helps your argument.

"Innocent before proven guilty" has no bearing in this discussion - that's a criminal legal pillar of the US.
CAP has no ability to incarcerate members, and it is an "at will" organization, charged with the protection of minors, property and financial assets, and in some cases the general public, so from a membership and internal standing standpoint, your being legally "innocent" in a criminal case doesn't make much difference.

I'm sure you're not naive enough to believe that all of those adjudicated as "innocent" are actually free from any culpability or involvement in the respective crime?

"Innocent" and "guilty" are objective terms which have very specific meanings within and outside of the court system.

The judgment of "Good moral character" is a subjective responsibility we charge our commanders with.
Once a CC at any level finds out that a member, cadet or senior, has been arrested for anything, especially a violent crime, it's their responsibility to ask direct questions, and make decisions based on those answers.

If the charges are serious enough to ultimately result in an automatic termination of membership, then a suspension of membership pending outcome is warranted and reasonable, and even if closed from a criminal perspective, the member's behavior in the situation may still warrant termination.

[capchiro]

Cadets can't 2B anyone the way I read CAPR 35-3.  I had a cadet come back from a Leadership Weekend and he informed me that he was taught how to write up a 2B.  I told him that was an entire waste of time.  He didn't last much longer in the program after that..

[Eclipse]

Cadets can't 2B anyone the way I read CAPR 35-3.  I had a cadet come back from a Leadership Weekend and he informed me that he was taught how to write up a 2B.  I told him that was an entire waste of time.  He didn't last much longer in the program after that..

That's true, and a cadet recommending an otherwise oblivious CC or CDC on the termination of another cadet smacks of larger problems across the board.

[Spike]

Eclipse.....a huge part of our society is based on the presumption of innocence.  Many people (possibly you) forget that being charged with a crime is not a crime in itself. 

How would you even write up a termination for "charged with ____________"??

The actions of a person always have to be proved whether through documentation or witness. 

Today most if not all people are blind to the fact that a person can be dragged trough our justice system just so we can keep people employed in said justice system. 

Please also don't forget that just "reading a sentence" in the police blotter is not grounds enough for any CAP negative action. 

A persons name is all they have, and when we go around terminating members for something that they may not even have done, we add to how jacked up our culture is.  Plus, I am privy to 3 lawsuits against CAP in which members have sued for defamation each of which was a result of overzealous members trying to play "lawyer or cop".

Don't forget I can call your Commnader, and tell them I know you are a felon and make up a story.  Should they immediately terminate or suspend your membership??

   

[Spike]

I just found out that I have a cadet that is in jail for felony assault. She is 17 and her membership lapses at the end of the month. Would it be wise to try to get a 2B through, in the case that she isn't convicted?

How did you find out?

[Eclipse]

Spike - again you're ignoring the actual conversation above just to try and make your point.

This situation involves the CC finding out to his best ability exactly what happened, not a knee-jerk termination based on hearsay.

But once the situation is known, if the behavior warrants termination, whether the member is ultimately convicted in the courts is irrelevant.

The 2b would indicate the actual behavior, not the allegation, though certainly the arrest could be mentioned.

[lordmonar]

umm..... innocent until proved guilty.  What part of that does everyone here not understand??

I don't care if you sat in jail for a week, if you are NOT CONVICTED, you have no felony record.

Just being arrested means jack squat. 

Using the logic of Eclipse and other here, We should be terminating memberships of anyone involved with the judicial system.  So, divorces and summons to appear should also carry with it the "explanation". 

Face it, people do not have to explain anything. 

Lets not pretend we have more power in CAP than we really do.  If you read that the person was convicted of a felony in your paper.....perhaps then you can ask questions. 

I hope someone here actually tries to terminate the membership of an innocent person.....you could find yourself in court with a civil lawsuit.  Then I guess we would need to terminate your membership.   

First......on principle yes we should go slow and be sure of ourselves before we proceed on any 2b action.

Second....just beacue you are not convicted does not mean you did not do it...or that you are otherwise not suitable for CAP.

Third....people most certainly do have to explain things.  If I were the commander and I "heard" that one of my members got arrest you can be sure that I will be asking questions.  If that person refuses then I 2b him for insubordination.

One of the cool things about CAP is that we are not a law enforcement agency......no one has a right to be a member of our organisation.  If our regulations allowed we can kick you out because your name started with an "H" and it was the third Tuesday on a month that started with a J.

It is right for members and commanders to look into any criminal activity of their members....even susspected activity.  As I said before they need to go slow and make sure of their facts.  But we have a duty to insure that anyone who is not suitable for our organisation is removed as soon as possivle.

So....in this case......report it to your commander who should ask for guidance from the wing legal officer.

[capchiro]

Spike, also, anyone facing a 2B has quite an appeal process to help them protect their rights.  It's not automatic.  On the other hand, if a member is accused of inappropriate conduct with a cadet, they will be automatically suspended, and an investigation will determine if the charges are legit or not.  In the mean time the member is suspended..  So, not is all cases are you presumed innocent until proven guilty.. Actually in this case it is to provide protection to the cadet and other cadets until determination if there is a true danger or not..   

[ZigZag911]

Spike - again you're ignoring the actual conversation above just to try and make your point.

This situation involves the CC finding out to his best ability exactly what happened, not a knee-jerk termination based on hearsay.

But once the situation is known, if the behavior warrants termination, whether the member is ultimately convicted in the courts is irrelevant.

The 2b would indicate the actual behavior, not the allegation, though certainly the arrest could be mentioned.

If I understand what you're saying, you see a possibility for a 'conduct unbecoming' termination in some circumstances following an arrest but absent a conviction.

Presuming this is based on something substantial (but perhaps not admissible in court), there are times when administrative action such as this is justified.

Earlier posts (which i did read) sounded to me as if some of the posters were hanging the cadet out to dry simply for being arrested.

[IceNine]

Except that everyone keeps ignoring the fact that both Eclipse and I said "Go talk to your commander".  Which is sound advice all around, none of us have any right or privilege to provide advice on this matter beyond that.

Anything after the above is simply an expression on how that person would handle such an issue.  But the only advice that the OP should take away is again talk to the appropriate commander.

Then he said on multiple occasions that there are possible grounds for termination, but you can't tell without the aforementioned commander ASKING THE QUESTIONS.

At the end of the day, conviction, accusal, rumor, perception, arrest, or whatever other terms you can imagine are simply the instigators of appropriate questioning.

I don't care if a member is accused of taking dime store candy or murder if I hear about it I'm asking the questions so that I can hear both sides and make the judgement I've been charged with as a commander of this organization.  If I don't ask the question I can't accurately respond.  That response can be anything from defending the member to termination.

[NCRblues]

I need to make sure that i read those post right. Do some of you maintain that even though a person was found innocent from the charges, you still might kick them out? I just want to make sure that was your point.

[Eclipse]

I need to make sure that i read those post right. Do some of you maintain that even though a person was found innocent from the charges, you still might kick them out? I just want to make sure that was your point.

Yes.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I need to make sure that i read those post right. Do some of you maintain that even though a person was found innocent from the charges, you still might kick them out? I just want to make sure that was your point.

Cadet gets busted for [insert illegal substance]. Gets arrested, pays a fine. What do yo do?

[RogueLeader]

Agreeing to pay the fine usually means that you consent tohaving a guilty plea being entered into the record. . .

[NCRblues]

oh boy here we go again. So by this standard, any cap member receiving a traffic ticket (because in most states a traffic ticket is in lieu of an arrest, with a promise to show to court, or plead guilty and pay a fine) should be kicked out, even if it was PROVEN innocent in a court of law. So the court system (backed by the Judaical system and the government) says your innocent, you as a squadron commander will say oh no i think you did it, or you made us look bad, goodbye. How are you going to support your reasoning when this person takes it to marb? This is such a joke, this is cap personnel overstepping their bounds again. Forgetting that cap does not run my life. Outside of cap you have no power over me. I feel so bad for the men and women who serve under you. Go ahead and talk down to me eclipse i know its coming, but your wrong on this. This is not the way to treat people at all.

[RiverAux]

Obviously you're over-reacting to what is being said.  All anyone has said is that they would want to know exactly what it was all about and under certain circumstances even if not proven guilty (you're not proven innocent, by the way), they might still kick them out.

Heres an example.  Guy gets arrested for murder and during the course of the trail admits to being a drug dealer.  But, he gets off on the murder charge and for some procedural issue the cops can't charge him for drug dealing.  Do you ignore that fact and let him stay in CAP? 

[Eclipse]

NCR, if you're literally not going to even read the thread, there's not much room for conversation, is there?

[NCRblues]

I read the post several times. You clearly stated that even if their found not guilty of the crime you don't care. "whether the member is ultimately convicted in the courts is irrelevant" was one of your posts, "At a minimum the cadet will need to explain the situation to the satisfaction of the commander (or higher), whether she's ultimately convicted, pleas out, has the records suppressed as a minor is irrelevant if she did something  that pops 2-2F" was another. Do not preach to me about not reading. Once again i ask you how are you going to defend your actions of a 2b if the person was proven innocent on the charges in court? Are you going to say, well a jury of their peers did not think they did anything wrong, but by god i do so goodbye? This makes no sense to me. Answer my questions, do not speak to me like i am two sir.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I read the post several times. You clearly stated that even if their found not guilty of the crime you don't care. "whether the member is ultimately convicted in the courts is irrelevant" was one of your posts, "At a minimum the cadet will need to explain the situation to the satisfaction of the commander (or higher), whether she's ultimately convicted, pleas out, has the records suppressed as a minor is irrelevant if she did something  that pops 2-2F" was another. Do not preach to me about not reading. Once again i ask you how are you going to defend your actions of a 2b if the person was proven innocent on the charges in court? Are you going to say, well a jury of their peers did not think they did anything wrong, but by god i do so goodbye? This makes no sense to me. Answer my questions, do not speak to me like i am two sir.

Ah...none of the quotes you make mention 2b at all. If someone was arrested for ANYTHING I would want to know.

[arajca]

1. In a court, a person is either guilty or not guilty. There is no innocent.

2. It is very possible, and unfortunately not too uncommon, for someone to be found not guilty because of a technical mistake. That does not negate the fact they did the act. If one side or the other misses a deadline by as little as five minutes, the case can - and has at times - been thrown out.

3. As for defending actions of filling a 2B for conduct unbecoming, that's why the member and the commander need to have a discussion about the incident that lead to the charges  (WHICH HAS BEEN MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES). At the very least, the member can be suspended pending the outcome of the trial. That is acceptable.

4. If I, as a commander, feel the members actions warrant a 2B, I will file it, following the required procedures - which includes the member's right to appeal. The results of the court case may not necessarily affect that decision.

5. Juries do not always find a person not guilty because the accused did not do the crime. They have been known to find a person not guilty due to extenuating circumstances. Does that mean the accused did not commit the crime?

6. There are some other options available to commanders besides the 2B. Again, what action is taken needs to be determined by the commander AFTER a discussion with the member, unless the member does not want to discuss it. Then the commander can make the decision based on available information.

7. A cadet can be 2B'd for not progressing (2 achievements per year is the minimum REQUIRED rate). 

8. Yes, the results of the court case can be irrelevent for a member to be kicked out.

9. Commanders, and other members as well, can talk with CAP legal officers about potential 2B actions. It is highly recommended that commanders contemplating 2B'ing someone do consult with the wing legal officer, as well as their next higher commander, who will evaluate the appeal, if one is filed.

[Майор Хаткевич]

^^^ Thank you for reading my mind and turning it into readable format.

[flyerthom]

At the risk of playing semantics the operative word is may.

Examples:
Case one - person is arrested for excessive speed and blowing a red light because he's driving his wife to L&D because she's in labor
Case two - person is arrested for excessive speed and blowing a red light because he's street racing.

essentially the same charges but intent is very different.

example:

Person is hunting without a license and shoots a doe in buck season and tries to hide it. Convicted fined etc.

Person is hunting with a license and shoot a doe in buck season. Self reports is convicted and fined.

Similar charges but different response.

This is why members can be suspended while the process plays out.  The street racer and poacher would most likely be gone. The father and the mistake shooter most likley won't (although they won't be drving CAP vans or taking the cadets to NRA courses).

There is an IG process. Follow it.

In the original post has the IG been notified? It is their job to get the facts and move from there.

[Eclipse]

In the original post has the IG been notified? It is their job to get the facts and move from there.

As described, this is not an IG issue unless there is an allegation of improper procedure regarding
the termination itself.

IG's are not the secret police of CAP, they are simply fact-finders who function at the behest of a respective commander, and only when requested to do so by that commander or a higher HQ.

Handled properly, a termination is a routine act of a commander, in this case the unit CC process the termination, and if an appeal is made, it would be to the Group (or Wing if they don't have Groups).  Generally the appeals live or die at that level.

The MARB generally focus' their attention on Corporate-officers and Wing-level terminations.

[FW]

^Correct on point one however, the MARB focuses on all termination  proceedings which are apealed to it.  For the apeal to be heard, there must be an "allegation of retaliation, lack of due process or failure to follow the regulations".   The MARB does not care if it is a member at the squadron or a corporate officer.

[lordmonar]

I need to make sure that i read those post right. Do some of you maintain that even though a person was found innocent from the charges, you still might kick them out? I just want to make sure that was your point.

Yep.

O-Jay was found innocent......anyone think he did not do it?

[IceNine]

I read the post several times. You clearly stated that even if their found not guilty of the crime you don't care. "whether the member is ultimately convicted in the courts is irrelevant" was one of your posts, "At a minimum the cadet will need to explain the situation to the satisfaction of the commander (or higher), whether she's ultimately convicted, pleas out, has the records suppressed as a minor is irrelevant if she did something  that pops 2-2F" was another. Do not preach to me about not reading. Once again i ask you how are you going to defend your actions of a 2b if the person was proven innocent on the charges in court? Are you going to say, well a jury of their peers did not think they did anything wrong, but by god i do so goodbye? This makes no sense to me. Answer my questions, do not speak to me like i am two sir.

You are in fact very creatively ignoring what we are say. 

We do not have "power" over what you do outside of CAP.  We do however have an obligation to protect this organization and all associated members and equipment.

We are talking about ASKING QUESTIONS not throwing people out.  IF the answers to those questions warrant termination then that is by all means an appropriate response.  If it warrants a demotion, or removal from a staff position, or another appropriate response then by all means do that.

IF the answers to those questions warrant no action, then the commander will direct his staff that there is nothing to see here and they need to move along.

Termination of membership does not live in a vacuum of things that you did while in uniform.  It is a process that encompasses your entire existence as a member.

And again these questions are in no way designed as a witch hunt we are not burning someone at the stake because we haven't done that in a while.  We are working to protect the organization.  Which is a fundamental responsibility when assuming command.

[NIN]

The MARB generally focus' their attention on Corporate-officers and Wing-level terminations.

Partially accurate. Rank & file members probably make up the *bulk* of the MARB's proceedings, and not all are terminations.

(EDIT: Would have helped had I read FW's post.. Heheheh)

[Eclipse]

The MARB generally focus' their attention on Corporate-officers and Wing-level terminations.

Partially accurate. Rank & file members probably make up the *bulk* of the MARB's proceedings, and not all are terminations.

What else are they considering?  Below Wing CC there's no protection for staff or command slots.
(I guess I mentally lump being removed as a Wing CC and membership termination as the same thing.)

[lordmonar]

What else are they considering?  Below Wing CC there's no protection for staff or command slots.
(I guess I mentally lump being removed as a Wing CC and membership termination as the same thing.)

From the last MARB report only 2 of the 12 cases heard were for wing commanders.  All the rest were group and below including several that were just members in staff (not command) positions.

[Eclipse]

What else are they considering?  Below Wing CC there's no protection for staff or command slots.
(I guess I mentally lump being removed as a Wing CC and membership termination as the same thing.)

From the last MARB report only 2 of the 12 cases heard were for wing commanders.  All the rest were group and below including several that were just members in staff (not command) positions.

Were these membership terminations or removal from the staff jobs?

[lordmonar]

What else are they considering?  Below Wing CC there's no protection for staff or command slots.
(I guess I mentally lump being removed as a Wing CC and membership termination as the same thing.)

From the last MARB report only 2 of the 12 cases heard were for wing commanders.  All the rest were group and below including several that were just members in staff (not command) positions.

Were these membership terminations or removal from the staff jobs?

Terminations, removal from jobs, and demotions.

[Eclipse]

What else are they considering?  Below Wing CC there's no protection for staff or command slots.
(I guess I mentally lump being removed as a Wing CC and membership termination as the same thing.)

From the last MARB report only 2 of the 12 cases heard were for wing commanders.  All the rest were group and below including several that were just members in staff (not command) positions.

Were these membership terminations or removal from the staff jobs?

Terminations, removal from jobs, and demotions.

OK, well terminations and demotions I can understand, but removal from jobs is an at-will situation, forgive me for not reading the doc myself, but the MARB is getting involved when a unit-level line staffer  (AEO, etc.) is removed from a job?

[lordmonar]

By regulation the MARB only looks at suspentions, demotions, terminations and removal of commanders.....but they may look at other situations (such as staff removals) at the discrsion of the MARB chairman.

[FW]

Actually, (and we're way off topic), the MARB will only look at what is authorized unless the MARB votes to hear a special case deamed in the interest of CAP.  The chair can only waive rules found in the regulation as to "timely reporting".  They have looked into the removal of a person from such positions as IC or other mission specialty when a suspension/termination made them unqualified for renewal however, to date, have never done anything about it. 

[lordmonar]

Actually, (and we're way off topic), the MARB will only look at what is authorized unless the MARB votes to hear a special case deamed in the interest of CAP.  The chair can only waive rules found in the regulation as to "timely reporting".  They have looked into the removal of a person from such positions as IC or other mission specialty when a suspension/termination made them unqualified for renewal however, to date, have never done anything about it.

I was looking at this paragraph.

b. The MARB shall accept an appeal of a final adverse membership action only if the MARB, by majority vote, determines after its initial review of the materials that there exists sufficient credible evidence and documentation within the appellant's material that, if true, would establish that the action was motivated by retaliation, reached without due process, or involved a material failure to follow applicable CAP regulations. The MARB may, within its sole discretion, accept or decline an appeal of a final adverse membership action in all other cases which do not meet the criteria above but which present issues of importance to Civil Air Patrol, the resolution of which will benefit the organization.

This allows the MARB to look at anthing that is classified as "advers membership action".  They have look at someone getting their ES qualifications pulled.  And ruled that the individual has the right to re-earn those qualifications.

d. On 17 December 2007, Captain Patrick L. Benoit, Group II, Texas Wing, appealed his demotion to the grade of captain and membership suspension of 60 days stating they were reached without due process and were retaliatory in nature as a result of his resignation as Texas Wing, Deputy Director of Operations. On 31 May 2007, then Col Reggie L. Chitwood, Commander, Southwest Region, initiated the actions based on then Major Benoit's insubordination and misconduct in accordance with his distribution of his resignation letter as Texas Wing Deputy Director of Operations. Additionally, on 1 June 2007 his emergency services qualifications were suspended until the Texas Wing commander determined and certified to the Region Commander that his attitude did not pose a safety risk for participating in CAP Emergency Services operations. Although the membership suspension was completed in August 2007, Captain Benoit's Emergency Services qualifications remained suspended on 1 November 2007 when Lt Col Owen Younger, Commander, Group II, Texas Wing, notified him that he had been unable to determine what action needed to be completed to reinstate the Emergency Services qualifications. The MARB decided to hear the case using the 1 November date as the end of all administrative/appeal actions. On 3 July 2008, the MARB determined that the demotion and membership suspension were not based upon retaliation, lack of due process or a material breach of regulations. They did, however, find that the requirement to requalify for his Emergency Services qualifications with only certain personnel was inconsistent with and unduly restrictive when compared to existing regulations. The MARB ruled that Captain Benoit was to be provided with an opportunity to requalify/recertify for the ES ratings with any qualified Emergency Services personnel at the Group or Wing level who were qualified by regulation to evaluate and certify qualifications.

e. The Chairman of the MARB may revoke, amend, or waive any provision of this regulation for good cause unless Article XVI of the CAP Constitution requires application of the provision. The Chairman of the MARB must give notice of the waiver to all parties, but is not required to give the parties an opportunity to respond

By definition the MARB has extraordinary powers to look into injuctices.

[Eclipse]

By definition the MARB has extraordinary powers to look into injustices.

Not by the letter of what you have up there - I'd agree they may have some powers in regards to member situations that have a process, but the appointment of local staff officers doesn't have a process, or an appeal.

Demotions and ES are different beasts, since the 60-series outlines specifics on suspension of quals, and demotions have their own regs.

I can't imagine them considering some random local staff officer who is no longer on the CC's Christmas card list, since the only process for appointment or removal is a CAPF 2a and the CC's whim.  The only avenue of "appeal" would be the next higher HQ, who would likely support the decision unless the commander himself was being replaced.

The last thing you'd want is higher-hq's dictating your staff officers, or the MARB forcing a local CC to keep someone they didn't want to work with.

[lordmonar]

The MARB may, within its sole discretion, accept or decline an appeal of a final adverse membership action in all other cases which do not meet the criteria above but which present issues of importance to Civil Air Patrol, the resolution of which will benefit the organization.

If presents issues of important to CAP....they may look at it.  You are right I can't think of anything off hand where the MARB would think that I fired my admin officer would be of imporatnt to CAP....but the MARB my disagree and act if they so choose.

At least that is how I read the regulation.  It probably will never happen....but the reg allows for it.  And in the case of Capt Benoit they did act outside the basic letter of the regulation and look at the ES qualification issue.

And I disagree with you wanting higher HQ getting involved.  I think Group and Wing should be involved in staff selections.  It is their program.  If your unit level officers are not trained or can'f/won't do their job they should be able to force a change if a squadron CC won't or can't do it.

[Eclipse]

And I disagree with you wanting higher HQ getting involved.  I think Group and Wing should be involved in staff selections.  It is their program.  If your unit level officers are not trained or can'f/won't do their job they should be able to force a change if a squadron CC won't or can't do it.

The change then should be of the Squadron CC, not the staff officers below that level.

I expect and appreciate my next level CC holding my feet to the fire if my programs don't meet the minimums (at the least), but appointing my staff officers is micro-management.

[RiverAux]

If I'm the squadron ES officer and working on my ES specialty track and the squadron commander relieves me of that position, it certainly is going to have an adverse impact on my CAP career since it would eliminate my ability to fulfill the specialty track requirements.  And if that same commander didn't want to appoint me to another position I would essentially be frozen at my current rank forever.  Seems like something I'd have a problem with. 

[lordmonar]

And I disagree with you wanting higher HQ getting involved.  I think Group and Wing should be involved in staff selections.  It is their program.  If your unit level officers are not trained or can'f/won't do their job they should be able to force a change if a squadron CC won't or can't do it.

The change then should be of the Squadron CC, not the staff officers below that level.

I expect and appreciate my next level CC holding my feet to the fire if my programs don't meet the minimums (at the least), but appointing my staff officers is micro-management.

One leads to the other.  Yes allowing wing to appoint staff officer is micro-management....but if you strip them of any input you end up with they do not even have the ability to remove an ineffectual commander.

It is a balancing act.  We give commanders power to appoint their staff but retain the ability to force changes where needed.

[Eclipse]

If I'm the squadron ES officer and working on my ES specialty track and the squadron commander relieves me of that position, it certainly is going to have an adverse impact on my CAP career since it would eliminate my ability to fulfill the specialty track requirements.  And if that same commander didn't want to appoint me to another position I would essentially be frozen at my current rank forever.  Seems like something I'd have a problem with.

Agreed, but if you can't work and play well with others, or are adversarial regarding the CC's plans, your personal CAP is going to feel the pain.

[lordmonar]

If I'm the squadron ES officer and working on my ES specialty track and the squadron commander relieves me of that position, it certainly is going to have an adverse impact on my CAP career since it would eliminate my ability to fulfill the specialty track requirements.  And if that same commander didn't want to appoint me to another position I would essentially be frozen at my current rank forever.  Seems like something I'd have a problem with.

Agreed, but if you can't work and play well with others, or are adversarial regarding the CC's plans, your personal CAP is going to feel the pain.

Hence the reason for an appeal system.

If ES officer Jones is appointed and dismissed solely on the whims of his commander...he has a route to appeal....via his chain of command up to the MARB.

If ES officer Jones is dismissed because he is no good then they system corrects itself. 

The MARB is there to ensure they system works.  It forces commanders to have valid reasons before they do anything that could be seen as an "adverse action".

IIRC the NB awhile back wanted to put all adverse actions into one regulation.  Everthing from 2bs to demotions, to grounding pilots, removal from command, staff postions, suspentions and ES qualifications.

As usuall we have not seen anything about this.

[FW]

If I'm the squadron ES officer and working on my ES specialty track and the squadron commander relieves me of that position, it certainly is going to have an adverse impact on my CAP career since it would eliminate my ability to fulfill the specialty track requirements.  And if that same commander didn't want to appoint me to another position I would essentially be frozen at my current rank forever.  Seems like something I'd have a problem with. 

The MARB would not generally look at such an issue as it is not defined as an "adverse membership action" however, if you were terminated from membership because you no longer had a "job" in CAP, the MARB may look at such an issue as part of the termination; it may reinstate you as the squadron ES officer as it reinstates your membership.  Yes, the MARB does have the authority.  "We" do use "judicial restraint" however, there may come a time in the future....

[FW]

Hence the reason for an appeal system.

...he has a route to appeal....via his chain of command up to the MARB.

A member does NOT go through the chain of command to the MARB. 
The MARB is completely outside the chain of command.  It lets a member who feels unjustly treated to appeal without worrying about delays or unjust treatment (after all other methods are used).  I think the current regulation is pretty clear on the subject.

[lordmonar]

Hence the reason for an appeal system.

...he has a route to appeal....via his chain of command up to the MARB.

A member does NOT go through the chain of command to the MARB. 
The MARB is completely outside the chain of command.  It lets a member who feels unjustly treated to appeal without worrying about delays or unjust treatment (after all other methods are used).  I think the current regulation is pretty clear on the subject.

The MARB will only look at issues where normal procedures have been exhaulsted.

So if I got kicked out of my unit staff job...I would to go my CC, then up the chain.  If I did not get satisfaction I could appeal to the MARB directly.

If I got shot down by my Group CC and went VFR direct to the MARB they should/could kick it back because I have not  exhaulsted my normal adminstrative options.

[Eclipse]

If I got shot down by my Group CC and went VFR direct to the MARB they should/could kick it back because I have not  exhaulsted my normal adminstrative options.

+1

[FW]

Patrick, what part of my last few posts are not registering?  The MARB will not hear a "simple" case of removal of a staff position. It is not an "adverse action" as defined in CAPR 35-8.  You have no appeal at any level; as this is dependant only at the discresion of the commander who appointed you.  We (the MARB) would only consider your removal from a staff position if it also was part of a termination proceding. 
For example; your squadron commander 2b'd you.  The group/cc makes the final decision.  You may then go to the MARB for redress if you feel the 2b was processed because of retaliation, lack of due process or a material breach of following the regs. 
Or say the wing commander demoted you from major to captain. You would, appeal directly to the MARB for redress for the same reasons. 
As I said preveiously, the regulation is very clear on the process.  The MARB has latitude but, it's limitations are well spelled out. 
PM me if you want more detailed explanations.  I doubt anyone else is that interested.....

[Eclipse]

Um...I'm thinking you guys both said the same thing...

[FW]

Exactly.  I'm quite used to no one listening to me.....

[CAPC/officer125]

Thank you for all your comments. I have been advised by the person that told me to not comment any more on this matter. Could a mod lock and/or delete this thread?

[Spike]

Thank you for all your comments. I have been advised by the person that told me to not comment any more on this matter. Could a mod lock and/or delete this thread?

Oh no Cadet!  It is out there, and can be used against you now.  This is a good example and life lesson for you.  The moral of this story is to not air dirty laundry on the internet.  You signed it, you bought the consequences.  I would make sure that your chain of Command knows what you have done, so that it is not a surprise to everyone down the road.  Good luck!

Question.....when does the next MARB summary come out?  Is it every year or every 6 months?? 

[Eclipse]

Meetings convene at the discretion of the chairman.

[FW]

The MARB summary comes out when NHQ decides to publish it on eservices however, the chairman gives the report to the BoG every June and December during it's semi annual meeting. 

MARB meetings are conviened when there is something to meet about.  And, yes, the Chairman calls for the meeting.

[CAPC/officer125]

I still ask for a mod to at least lock this thread, as there has been enough comments made on the matter. I have learned my lesson on posting things that really shouldn't be posted.

[Spike]

^ This is a good discussion of something that may come up in the future in another unit.  Just because you may have made a bad decision does not mean the subject should be ignored.

I for one, think that before any negative actions take place regarding a member who may be in trouble with the law, the evidence should be presented to the Commander, not just rumor or speculation.  When you can show me the newspaper article or tell me to turn on the news for the report at 11, then I will ask questions.  Before that, it is all conjecture and hearsay. 

[IceNine]

Non-Concur.  I am going to ask directly and to the affected member.

the 2 grossly simplified ways this plays out is.  It didn't happen and they are upset by the allegations.  Or they tell me the story.

There are Truths, Half Truths, and Whole Lies none make for a comfortable situation when the assertion is "felony".

Me asking the question and telling the member what they have been accused of gives me control of the situation and prevents the member from being blindsided (if they don't already know).  The last thing I need is an upset member who just had their name smeared going rogue looking for their accuser.  At least being proactive give the ability to read the situation.