Wanted to check

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

But I also don't think this is a problem.  Does most of the Air Force need to know who we are?  Do we want them to know who we are just so we can get the warm fuzzies instead of strange stares?  Not a compelling reason to me.

The situation you describe is how the CG treats their Auxiliary...I got none of the reaction from AD/Reserve CG personnel that I've got from AF personnel.

I believe CG recruits at Cape May are made aware of their Auxiliary.

Personally, I'm tired of this growing gulf between CAP and the AF.

It's time to fish or cut bait regarding our "relationship" with the AF.

Nothing lasts forever, and, as Eclipse has pointed out, change is inevitable.

If we are no longer needed/wanted by the AF, and if CAP has no more raison d'etre, then close the books rather than this increasing distance by an inch here, a half-inch there.

[abdsp51]

Every group commander and up in the AF structure knows we exist and what our mission is.  It is part of their indoctrination as group commanders and up.  A good chunk of SNCOs know we exist even though they may not understand or know the mission.  And what's really stopping us from talking to the folks who run the newcomers briefings or commanders for time during commanders call?

[Devil Doc]

If we seperate totally from the AF, how would we have missions? Majority of CAP missions and training is paid for by the AF. It would totally change our mission wouldnt it? Then we would have to change uniforms, design our own etc? Sounds like a lot of work.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

If we seperate totally from the AF, how would we have missions? Majority of CAP missions and training is paid for by the AF. It would totally change our mission wouldnt it? Then we would have to change uniforms, design our own etc? Sounds like a lot of work.

Uniforms?  It would just be a matter of not being allowed to wear the AF uniform any more, and probably ditching the rank structure.

Missions/funding?  It would probably shift entirely to beg/borrow from state and local governments; maybe DHS, but not likely since they already have the CG and its Auxiliary.

No, actually, it would be quite simple.  We would no longer exist.

[Devil Doc]

I dont want to no longer Exist I just joined 5+ months ago. I still got lots to do. Sad day if CAP goes under.

[FW]

An interesting turn to this thread...

The metaphysical aspect of who we are and, does the Air Force care, is always good meat for chewing.  I just wonder if the discussion should be focused on our continuing motivation for CAP's success as an organization; no matter who feeds us.  Change is always happening and, we need to change with the times.  That's obvious. 

How we are to remain relavant is something that has been on our leadership's mind for quite some time now.  It's a reason for the GAO study, it's a reason for our governance changes and, it's a reason why the "Air Force Auxiliary" status is only for those operations the Air Force oversees.

In 2011, Gen Carr stated that CAP is "not a social organization".  So, how should we work together as "active members" accomplishing our missions to insure we continue as opposed to "closing the books"? 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Sir, to my mind a large part of the raison d'etre (or soul, if you like) for CAP was lost when we only got the "part-time Auxiliary" status.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but if we are finally cut loose from the Air Force it will be the day CAP will be one less member.  I had to take a medical discharge from the ANG.  Supporting the Air Force is the overriding reason why I am still a member of CAP; it was kind of picking up where I left off.  If that is lost, the primary motivator for me to remain in CAP will be lost.

However, if it's time to do that, I prefer that it be done all-at-once instead of spending years navel-gazing and wondering if we are still any use to the Air Force.  I say we need to ask them straight-out, and be prepared for whatever they say.  My own feeling is the main reason they keep us is the cadets (warm bodies through the gates of Lackland).  It wouldn't take too much to fold that into AFJROTC.

I've read some of the GAO documentation.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-56

DHS oversees the Coast Guard in peacetime.  If we were to be folded into the CG/CGAUX somehow, I wouldn't mind that.  However, if we're just to be some sort of quasi-ICE agency (no offence to them, I live in a border city and they've got a very hard job), I'll pass, thanks very much.

I don't want it to be like staying in a bad marriage for the sake of the kids.

I learnt a long time ago that nothing lasts forever in this life.  John McCain almost axed us in 1995.  Now it seems we are in large part doing it to ourselves by further distancing ourselves from the Air Force.

Or it's like the ongoing "separatist" nonsense between Quebec and the rest of Canada (hi, JeffDG!).  For almost fifty years, Quebec has been threatening to secede from Canada (and have held three referenda on the issue, none clearly worded), but yet they won't make a clean break (they still want to use Canadian currency, be protected by the Canadian military, covered under Canadian health care, etc.), so it just drags on and on, and they hold the threat of "separatism" and use it to extort from the Canadian government.  My relatives in Ontario say "just let them go."

Britain did that with the RAF's Royal Observer Corps after the Cold War.

If it becomes time for us to go, then I can say I did the best I could with what I had for the better part of 20 years and move on.

I've been in relationships, job situations, etc. where in retrospect it would have been best to make a clean break than to pretend something was still there that really wasn't.

The Air Force in large part is ignorant of CAP and doesn't show any sign of that changing.

I believe it to be cards-on-the-table time, for the benefit of both the AF and CAP.

[Pylon]

CyBorg.  I see none of these issues you're talking about.  None.

The Air Force brass who make decisions know who we are and many continue to make very positive, enthusiastic, public and private statements about CAP.   CAP-USAF continues exist in the Air Force structure to oversee and support CAP.  We continue to receive funding from the Air Force, the Air Force still buys our aircraft (despite some budget cuts, which the entire Air Force and government has been subject to, not just us).  We still get AFAMs and calls from AFRCC, we still have daily briefings on CAP missions to the 1AF/CC.  CAP units still meet on AFB's and ANGB's nationwide and around the world.  On many of those bases, members report very warm and receptive relationships with the Air Force and Base Commanders.  We continue to enjoy authorization to wear AF-style uniforms.  Not a single Air Force or CAP general, nor the BoG, has mentioned or even suggested anything about making any sort of break from the Air Force. 

So where exactly are you getting this "sense" that CAP is getting farther from the Air Force?  Because of some changes in window dressing?  Design changes to logos or aircraft lettering?  Do you really those those superficial items are actually substantive representations of our relationship with the Air Force or do you think everything I listed above is actually the substantive stuff?

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

CyBorg.  I see none of these issues you're talking about.  None.

I see it from a ground-level, worker-bee level.

The Air Force brass who make decisions know who we are and many continue to make very positive, enthusiastic, public and private statements about CAP.

That's as maybe, I don't dispute that.  You quite possibly have more contact than I do with the top levels (which is none).

However, I know that I am not the only one who has got chilly receptions on AFB's (not so much on Reserve/Guard installations) from individual AF members.  I don't know whether or not they have had bad experiences with CAP members, or if they listen to the "trolling-for-salutes" rumour mill, or if they just don't know anything about us.  Nature abhorrs a vacuum, and where there is a vacuum of knowledge, usually the vacuum is filled by misinformation.

CAP-USAF continues exist in the Air Force structure to oversee and support CAP.  We continue to receive funding from the Air Force, the Air Force still buys our aircraft (despite some budget cuts, which the entire Air Force and government has been subject to, not just us).  We still get AFAMs and calls from AFRCC, we still have daily briefings on CAP missions to the 1AF/CC. 

I don't dispute that either...but again that's in the upper levels where I have no contact.  I have never been to Maxwell AFB.  I live at the other end of the country (north).

When I first joined CAP (1993), I did notice a generally friendly reception on AFB's, but over the decades I personally have noticed a "cooling" of that.  If you have not, then your experience is different to mine.

CAP units still meet on AFB's and ANGB's nationwide and around the world.  On many of those bases, members report very warm and receptive relationships with the Air Force and Base Commanders. 

I also know of the opposite...of CAP units kicked off AFB's (especially in the aftermath of 9/11) and of individual CAP members denied access to AFB's (ie, for MCSS).

We continue to enjoy authorization to wear AF-style uniforms.

For the moment, yes, correct.  There are also a very vocal group within our organisation who push (some silently, some not so) for only the cadets to wear the AF uniform and for the rest of us to be "corporate."  From the Air Force's POV, if they hear that, I would not be surprised, nor blame them, for feeling a bit of ag: "we allow the CAP to wear our uniform (with limitations) and this is the thanks we get...people in the CAP saying they shouldn't be wearing the uniform?"

Not a single Air Force or CAP general, nor the BoG, has mentioned or even suggested anything about making any sort of break from the Air Force. 

Again, sir, you would know more about that than I do, as I have no experience with upper echelons other than having briefly met two national CC's: the late General Bergman (nice guy), and the unlamented former National CC who is not named on this board.

So where exactly are you getting this "sense" that CAP is getting farther from the Air Force?  Because of some changes in window dressing?  Design changes to logos or aircraft lettering?  Do you really those those superficial items are actually substantive representations of our relationship with the Air Force or do you think everything I listed above is actually the substantive stuff?

Sir, though you wouldn't know it from CT, I am a very reserved, blend-into-the-background, you-don't-even-know-I'm-there much of the time type.  I spend a lot of time listening, and that includes CAP.  When I hear Air Force personnel call us "wannabes," "poseurs," etc., to me that's not a very good harbinger.  I am not one to rub shoulders with the top brass; that's way out of my league.  I am not comfortable in such situations, because I never know what to say, and often someone with such reserve is misinterpreted as "cold" or "aloof," so I prefer to avoid those situations if I can.

However, I have met LO's/State Directors who speak as though they could give a monkey's about anything to do with CAP other than our cadets, including the infamous "visit/briefing" one of my units received from an SD who basically flogged to death the importance of our mentoring cadets to get their Mitchell awards (which I don't discount).  Several of us asked this SD about senior issues (mostly professional development) and he kept returning the conversation to "cadets being our lifeblood."  I wasn't the only one on squadron who noticed.

WRT the "window dressing" items, as you call them, I don't see those in themselves as being substantive issues.  However, I do see them as symptomatic of changes in attitudes between CAP and the Air Force, especially since about the mid-90s, when the "corporatist" mindset really began to take hold.

I think the worst thing that has happened to this organisation, far greater than the "berry boards," CSU or any uniform issue, is when we were put on "you're only the Auxiliary of the AF when doing an AFAM."

That's just my perspective, from someone at the bottom of the food chain.

I have tried to be respectful; forgive me if I have failed.

[LGM30GMCC]

I have the benefit of getting to see this issue from two different perspectives; that of a CAP member and that of a USAF CGO.

From the USAF side there is a definite lack of attention given to CAP in training but I believe this is truly a matter of 'too much information to cram into someone in not enough time.' Initial training is devoted to taking people who know nothing about the USAF and turning them into Airmen. That is a huge undertaking and the really important lessons, or hammered lessons need to have the focus. A 10-15 minute briefing about CAP would probably be forgotten by lunchtime the next day.

However, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, CAP is in fine company with the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve. In 4 years of ROTC I think maybe 15-20 minutes was spent on the guard/reserve and it basically consisted of 'They exist and support some of these missions and the guard is also partly controlled by the states.' At least that is how much I retained about that training. Air and Space Basic Course (which no longer exists) didn't add anything to that, SOS does not add to that. The biggest reason for this is that isn't the point. CGOs and Airman generally are not, on a day-to-day basis going to have anything to do with CAP in the regular execution of their duties. It isn't relevant to them, it is 'gee whiz nice to know information.'

I have to disagree though with Devil Doc when he said CAP is the USAF's "brothers in arms, we do alot of missions that they do not want to do." To a limited degree, to the wrong person, this can cause a degree of that viewing of 'wannabeism.' The reason for that is because CAP does not directly support the USAF's primary missions of combat execution or combat support. CAP is not subject to the vast majority of hardships that separate the USAF from the general population (e.g. deployments, PCSing, PT requirements, the UCMJ, the 'you have no choice do this crappy assignment').

As to doing missions that 'they do not want to do', the simple matter is that isn't true. The USAF would take on all of the SAR happily provided it was given the resources to do so. Partly because of CAP it doesn't need to expend resources on that. This is one area that makes the USAF senior leadership happy, they get a $240M asset for about $45M. That being said, if CAP ceased to exist and the USAF grew by 30,000 people and $240M they likely would be happy as a clam. Additionally, they would be able to use those resources for things that CAP cannot do.

One of the differences in visibility between the CGAux and CAP comes down to the proportion between the parent service and its auxiliary. The Coast Guard consists of approximately 41,000 active personnel and 8000 reservists. The CGAux is approximately 30,000 strong. To have the same proportional size to the USAF that the CGAux has to the CG, CAP would need approximately 300,000 members. (So let's get recruiting!)

Another thing to consider is that the CGAux directly provides support to the CG's primary mission set. Since 9/11 we have seen CAP actually starting to move in this direction in a number of areas: surrogate predator and the air intercept training missions. This is the type of thing that can really perk up ears and increase our relevance from the GO down to the CGO level. It also address the factor of day-to-day interactions.

The more CAP is directly working with the USAF, rather than 'for' or 'instead of' the USAF, the more positive interactions between the USAF's membership and our own. CAP is less that odd group that they may have heard about they become those guys they work with. I am willing to bet the F-16 pilots that have intercepted our aircraft have a much clearer memory of who we are and what we do. The same with the surrogate predator program. These are the types of missions where we can really build long lasting relationships with CGOs/FGOs who could become the USAF's next senior leaders and could think of ways to use us that no one else would have.

I can speak to that last point from personal experience as well. There was a mission set and need at a previous assignment that CAP could definitely assist with. I was looking at how to use CAP both from the CAP and USAF sides. However, while CAP had the material resources to support the mission set, it definitely did not have the human resources. The members were embarrassingly unprofessional and fought the kind of standardization and methods that would give them the credibility to get their feet in the door. (A note, poor uniform wear was a symptom of this. The Corporate uniform can look very professional if it is worn properly and the person wearing it carries themselves in a professional manner.) I knew and loved CAP and didn't want these craptastic members to give CAP as a whole a bad image. Additionally, I did not have confidence they would carry out the mission effectively and credibly. As a USAF officer I was unwilling to put my reputation on the line for these CAP members. Imagine if I saw these folks and wasn't a member, especially if I was supposed to work with them on a mission to support USAF needs.

Those kinds of challenges are what can affect things down at the base level. Some bases have a warm reception or decent relationship with their CAP unit. WYWG has its Headquarters prominently on the main road with the 90th Missile Wing's HQ, MTWG has the use of a fantastic space, albeit tucked away on the back side of the base. (It was an available building), RMR has a good working relationship with the Vossler NCO academy on Peterson AFB (though an RCLS a few years ago nearly cost this relationship), while other bases have little or no interaction with their home unit. The chilly reception isn't just toward CAP, it's toward the population in general. If CAP members behave professionally and know who to talk to, senior officers can easily be convinced of the value of CAP as an organization and then the right people can possibly start to support the base's mission. That's one of the keys to remember though, the primary concern a base commander is to ensure mission accomplishment. If you can help that the amount of support available could quickly expand to amazing levels.

So what about the 'Big AF' image with CAP. That's the type of thing the good colonel was talking about. The previous CSAF was a fan of CAP. The commander of 1st AF is a BIG fan of CAP. The Commander of NORTHCOM is a fan of CAP. On a routine basis they get to see the great things we as an organization at the macro level are accomplishing. Unfortunately, podunk cadet squadron in the middle of nowhere will likely never see/hear about this sort of thing. This is one of the problems with the number of folks that join, live, and die in the same unit. They may only have the occasional hint of a glimpse of the big picture. At the micro level it can definitely seem like the USAF is neglecting us.

What about other evidence? Here is a link to Airman the Book 2011: http://www.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-110914-024.pdf. On page 16 you'll notice we are right there in with other units. This happened sometime around 2009. That may not seem like much, but that's a pretty big sign we are starting to be noticed.

As to the patch/emblem whatnot lacking the USAF Aux terminology I wouldn't necessarily worry about that. Air Mobility Command, Air Education and Training Command, and Pacific Air Forces all lack direct mention of the USAF on their patch. Look at our command patch though and compare it to the MAJCOM's. It's the same shape and a similar color scheme. Our command patch and seal are VERY close to the USAF. Our command patch is closer to the modern Air Force than our old emblem. To me this shows we are closer to our parent service. So we lost the 'US' and 'Air Force Auxiliary' on it, oh well. 'Civil Air Patrol United States Air Force Auxiliary' would be too much to cram on a scroll under the shield. Civil Air Patrol gives our clear name, and the shape/color scheme ties us to the USAF. Who cares if they don't know we're their Aux as long as they can tell we're on the same team.

Legally we may only be functioning as the Aux during AFAMs, but this is political and a matter of money control. The USAF is risking potentially quite a bit of money on us, I don't blame them for only putting up that money when they have a bit more control over our actions. Think of it like the National Guard - they're only acting as part of the DoD when they fall under Title 10 provisions, otherwise they are part of the state. We may not be as closely linked as the guard is, but you don't see the guard saying they 'aren't part of the USAF' when they are functioning on title 39. Don't worry about that legal semantic crap. That's for lawyers to worry about.

As for what I'd like to see...if we really looked hard at ourselves, and absolutely committed to ACTING like a MAJCOM (and I don't mean 'playing pretend' I mean accomplishing our mission to the highest standards, holding people accountable, being superb stewards of money, and being consistent across the whole nation) I could see us becoming a MAJCOM next to the AFRES and ANG. I could see the USAF going 'ya know, you're the same size as some of our smaller MAJCOMs. Your regions function like NAFs' and really treating us as just another MAJCOM. However that is going to take a MAJOR shift in culture, one which will have to fight corporatists on the entire way. To behave in a manner similar to the USAF would be incredible for us overall, and it would easily counter some of the oddities we have in terms of uniforms, mannerisms, and the like. And some of those might even evaporate if we did it.

[Pylon]

CyBorg, you can't extrapolate your personal experience at the local level to insinuate there's some such national trend. 


On top of that, whether or not Airmen on a base give you a cold reception or not doesn't speak at all to CAP's relationship with the Air Force.  Guess what?  Every group does that to every other group.  In the Marine Corps, when air wingers come through an infantry building in their flight suits, they get weird stares and a cold reception.  On base, sometimes soldiers get dirty looks from Marines.  Salty been-there-done-that types give steely death glares to brand new boots with their screaming high-n-tights and baby faces. 


You can't make everyone like you.  Or us.   But luckily, policy isn't made based on how much rank-and-file members of one group or another "like" the other group.  And like I said before, people at the levels where policy is made —substantive matters that actually affect the organization— have nothing but great, positive things to say about CAP, the Air Force, and our relationship.


If you feel there's a local disconnect on base, maybe you should talk to the PAO about reaching out to do some awareness work on base.  Work together with the airmen on community projects.  Find ways to strengthen that relationship, educate, hold worthwhile events, and fix that localized issue.  But don't let your local view give you the impression that it's like your experience everywhere.  It's not.

[a2capt]

Along the same lines, there's a lot more people in the world, there's a lot more competition for those jobs, slots, billets, etc. People are generally more uptight than they used to be. I find "cranky" people all over the place, or just plain old indifferent ones.

The Air Force is doing more with Less. Just like much of corporate America. With College being required of even some enlisted specialties, even on their first enlistment, and certainly more as they go up against others for second, third.. enlistments. 

It's not the same Air Force it used to be. It's not the same CAP either.

A lot of those people you're dealing with on bases are civilians anymore and other than a job, a lot of them don't have that background.

[Texas Raiders]

I believe CG recruits at Cape May are made aware of their Auxiliary.

Negative, CyBorg.  Well, at least not when I went through boot camp.  That might have changed.

[Rick-DEL]

There would be too much downside to eliminating CAP, folding it into the CGAUX, or making it its own entity. One, CAP cadets would be hit the hardest. CGAUX is 17+ in age, what happens to the 12-16 year old cadets? One of our goals is to prepare these kids for life, building leaders, etc. The adults would adjust most likely, either we mold into CGAUX mode or part ways. But, the kids, not so much. And, I would hope that this is always a consideration. With CAP taking on 85% of inland SAR activities, the USAF needs that capability. Especially with the thinning down of the services.

Just my opinion...

On a personal note, I enjoy CAP for many reasons. One being that it is, in a weird sort of way, a way for me to maintain my ties to the USAF. I did not retire from the USAF and too old to go back (AD/ANG)