Quote from: MSG Mac on June 23, 2014, 05:20:26 PM
My point: 52-16 specifically states "Cadets will only wear the grade earned" and as shown in CAPVA 52-100"

C/Command Chief Master Sergeant Insignia is not displayed on the CAPVA-52-100

Sir, I'm still a little unclear on this.

Was the Command Chief wearing an improper insignia and/or hat at this year's encampment? 

Did you happen to get a picture, by any chance?

Insignia only, no picture, though I'm sure it's evident on the web page.

Quote from: Chaplaindon on June 23, 2014, 12:51:53 PM
Talk about hyperbole. MSG, are you seriously comparing this to the Holocaust? A child using an "arguably" unpermitted position title at a CAP encampment is analogous to the deliberate murder of millions?

Perhaps you'd best stay away from encampments. You'll be happier and CAP will be the better for it.

Lot of great answers but best answer right here. 

Nuremberg aside... Having a cadet wear some fandangled CCMSgt insignia is incorrect and against regs.  Having such a position with the title is acceptable.  It is the same as having an Adjutant, Superimtendent, or any other made up staff title.  If you "promote" them to a non-existent rank that is also not ok.  It would be the same as promoting a cadet to Cadet Brigadier General just so he can be the Cadet Commander or promoting a Major to Lt Col because you want your C/CC to be a Lt Col.

Personally.. Call the position Encampment First Sergeant or Superintendent and give it to the most qualified NCO regardless of rank.

Quote from: Private Investigator on June 23, 2014, 07:53:00 PM

Quote from: Chaplaindon on June 23, 2014, 12:51:53 PM
Talk about hyperbole. MSG, are you seriously comparing this to the Holocaust? A child using an "arguably" unpermitted position title at a CAP encampment is analogous to the deliberate murder of millions?

Perhaps you'd best stay away from encampments. You'll be happier and CAP will be the better for it.

Lot of great answers but best answer right here. 

Where is there any mention of the holocaust in my posts? I thought PI's were supposed to find the facts, not add on to a great misassumption by another poster.

Quote from: MSG Mac on June 23, 2014, 08:21:12 PM

Quote from: Private Investigator on June 23, 2014, 07:53:00 PM

Quote from: Chaplaindon on June 23, 2014, 12:51:53 PM
Talk about hyperbole. MSG, are you seriously comparing this to the Holocaust? A child using an "arguably" unpermitted position title at a CAP encampment is analogous to the deliberate murder of millions?

Perhaps you'd best stay away from encampments. You'll be happier and CAP will be the better for it.

Lot of great answers but best answer right here. 

Where is there any mention of the holocaust in my posts? I thought PI's were supposed to find the facts, not add on to a great misassumption by another poster.

At the Nuremberg trials, German prisoners were tried for their role in the Holocaust (when millions of innocent people were murdered) and other war crimes. Hence, by comparing what a cadet said to what a prisoner said at the Nuremberg trials, you compared a cadet's excuse to someone's excuse for the Holocaust.


Member 1: "Why are you a C/Command Chief Master Sergeant?"
Member 2: "My commander said I could be one."


Prosecutor: "Why did you authorize the murder of millions?"
German Prisoner: "Der Fuhrer said it vuz okay."


One is valid, one is not.

I think all he's saying is that "I was told to" is not [always] a great reason... using the Nuremberg trials as an example.

Quote from: MajorM on June 23, 2014, 02:27:28 AM
it is not a promotion or grade, it is a position.  First Sergeant is not a grade or promotion either, it is a position.

My Army veteran dad told me "It's the First Sergeant who really runs the Company."

Well that's probably true... Except when they're 14

Quote from: CyBorg on June 23, 2014, 09:49:17 PM

Quote from: MajorM on June 23, 2014, 02:27:28 AM
it is not a promotion or grade, it is a position.  First Sergeant is not a grade or promotion either, it is a position.

My Army veteran dad told me "It's the First Sergeant who really runs the Company."

That may be true in the Army, but not so much in the Air Force.

In the Army, First Sergeant is a rank (E-8) and they outrank Master Sergeants (also E-8s). In the Air Force, First Sergeant is a position not a rank, even though it has a chevron insignia. MSgt (E-7) through CMSgt (E-9) can hold the position, although MSgt is the most common grade within a standard squadron.

First Sergeants report directly to the commander, but are not in the actual chain of command. They're responsible for morale, welfare and discipline of the enlisted members in a squadron and are advisers to the commander on issues regarding the enlisted force.

Having been in the ANG, I remember the distinction between an Army "Top" and an AF "First Shirt."

Thankfully, I had no run-ins with mine.

Quote from: lordmonar on June 23, 2014, 01:25:14 PM
So long as the order is "lawful" it is okay.   Lawful and against the regs are two different things.

In CAP they are literally the exact same thing.

No one in CAP is allowed to direct another member to violate regulations at any time, for any reason.
And you can leave "what about an emergency" at the door, since this certainly doesn't rise to that level,
nor does anything in CAP 99.99999% of the time, and usually that .000001& that it does could have been
avoided with ORM or simple common sense.

Quote from: lordmonar on June 23, 2014, 05:27:26 PMMy commander told me to" is a valid argument.   It was a "lawful" order.

No, it wasn't.

A - because CAP commanders do not issue "lawful orders" they issues "regulatory orders" or "directives" at best.
The concept of "lawful order" does not exist with a CAP parlance, since CAP commanders have no weight of law or sovereign commission.
someone disobeying the directive of a superior, risks, at most, CAP termination, and given the right circumstance, the
potential loss of CAP protection(s) in regards to financial liability, they would not, however, ever be incarcerated for the simple act
of disobeying.

B - It violates standing, simple regulations, so therefore should not be obeyed.

Now, with that said, would I expect a cadet, being told to do something they want to do that is is "cool"
by a superior to stand up and say "no"?  Of course not, but once so informed, the encampment CC
should knock it off, or be told to knock it off.

It'll be fun to see how many encampment and other activities stop wearing grade on their caps this summer as well.
since that has never been authorized, but is (or was) explicitly called out in the phantom 39-1 draft, dog bowling and
ranger rolling, too.

Based on the encampment's publicly available guide: https://www.dropbox.com/s/i74r5fb76fyalim/2014%20Pre-Encampment%20Guide.pdf


The position is just the First Shirt, why they need the affectation of "C/CCMsgt" is beyond me, but nothing wrong, really,
with the description of duties.

"9.5 Command Chief Master Sergeant- The Command Chief Master Sergeant (CCMSgt) is responsible
for ensuring that the NCOs of the Encampment are familiar with their duties and responsibilities. The
Command Chief reports to the C/CC, representing the interests of the staff cadet NCOs"

More troubling is the apparent lack of awareness of the prohibition of Firewatch or CQ:
(See Page 14 of the document above)


http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/Encampment_Manual_June_2014_1F6A5D093CD05.pdf
Page 7 "Safety 2.5"
b. Cadet Charge of Quarters or Firewatch. Cadet CQ programs are ineffective as safety precautions, do
not impart meaningful learning, are potentially hazardous, and are therefore prohibited. Cadets will not serve as
sentries or safety monitors during the overnight hours. A senior member must bunk in close proximity to the
cadets (at least one senior per floor or wing is suggested) and be available to respond to any emergencies that
arise between lights-out and reveille.

I suppose it's possible that the instructions are for senior members acting in this capacity, but some of the language
appears more directed at cadets in this role than an adult.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 23, 2014, 10:27:16 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on June 23, 2014, 01:25:14 PM
So long as the order is "lawful" it is okay.   Lawful and against the regs are two different things.

In CAP they are literally the exact same thing.

QuoteNo one in CAP is allowed to direct another member to violate regulations at any time, for any reason.

Not true in the USAF, not true in a civilian company, not true in CAP.

QuoteAnd you can leave "what about an emergency" at the door, since this certainly doesn't rise to that level,
nor does anything in CAP 99.99999% of the time, and usually that .000001& that it does could have been
avoided with ORM or simple common sense.

Speaking of hypothetical we do take things to where we don't normally operate....that's the purpose of hypothetical thought experiments.

You don't think so and under your command you will never violate the regs, nor alllow anyone to violate the regs, or tell someone to violate the regs.......good for you.  Other people in other command situations may think differently.

Quote

Quote from: lordmonar on June 23, 2014, 05:27:26 PMMy commander told me to" is a valid argument.   It was a "lawful" order.

No, it wasn't.

What law did it violate?

QuoteA - because CAP commanders do not issue "lawful orders" they issues "regulatory orders" or "directives" at best.
The concept of "lawful order" does not exist with a CAP parlance, since CAP commanders have no weight of law or sovereign commission.
someone disobeying the directive of a superior, risks, at most, CAP termination, and given the right circumstance, the
potential loss of CAP protection(s) in regards to financial liability, they would not, however, ever be incarcerated for the simple act
of disobeying.

Cite please.   CAP leaders issue orders.   They are either legal orders or illegal orders.   

QuoteB - It violates standing, simple regulations, so therefore should not be obeyed.

Again.....wrong.   Following the military model of how to follow orders.....we follow orders that are lawful....i.e. an order that does not violate a law....not a regulation, an AFI, a policy, but a law.

Now the commander who issues said order may be taken to task for it by his leadership....but not the people who followed the order.   So long as it is legal.

QuoteNow, with that said, would I expect a cadet, being told to do something they want to do that is is "cool"
by a superior to stand up and say "no"?  Of course not, but once so informed, the encampment CC
should knock it off, or be told to knock it off.

Agree

QuoteIt'll be fun to see how many encampment and other activities stop wearing grade on their caps this summer as well.
since that has never been authorized, but is (or was) explicitly called out in the phantom 39-1 draft, dog bowling and
ranger rolling, too.

One of the reasons why we need a NHQ team to visit each encampment to get an eye ball on what sort of BS is going on.

Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on June 23, 2014, 08:38:27 AM

Quote from: MSG Mac on June 23, 2014, 01:21:40 AM
Didn't jack him up. Asked if he knew it wasn't allowed, and got the answer that the Commander had authorized it.

I'm puzzled.

You said you "visited encampment" and questioned a staff cadet about his position, telling him that it was unauthorized. As a former encampment commander, my first reaction to that was to think "Challenging cadet staff? How rude!"

As a visitor, wouldn't it have been better to have addressed your concern through the chain of command? Or am I missing something?

Before this gets lost, I'd like to say that I'd really appreciate an answer. I simply can't envision anyone short of one of the involved Wing Commanders, Region Commander, National Commander or, possibly, an assigned IG from one of those HQ's being empowered to "visit" encampment, skip several layers of command and start questioning cadet staff, followed by informing them of perceived errors.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with a Cadet Command CMSgt.  The AF uses them across the board at many levels.  Is the issue the title or the insignia worn?  Why couldn't we theoretically create the position and insignia for things such as encampment or other major activities?

Quote from: abdsp51 on June 24, 2014, 01:28:32 AM
Personally I don't see anything wrong with a Cadet Command CMSgt.  The AF uses them across the board at many levels.  Is the issue the title or the insignia worn?  Why couldn't we theoretically create the position and insignia for things such as encampment or other major activities?

The issue is twofold:

1. The possibility that an illegal grade insignia was issued, and

2. The complicity of 3 wing commanders and an encampment commander if the insignia was issued and worn contrary to regs plainly stating that no such insignia be issued.

The position is moot. They could appoint an Imperial Grand Llama Super Potentate Grand Admiral Kangaroo Weasel Niblick Whoops, Where's My Thribble, as long as no illegal grade was issued.

Quote from: Garibaldi on June 24, 2014, 01:34:49 AM

Quote from: abdsp51 on June 24, 2014, 01:28:32 AM
Personally I don't see anything wrong with a Cadet Command CMSgt.  The AF uses them across the board at many levels.  Is the issue the title or the insignia worn?  Why couldn't we theoretically create the position and insignia for things such as encampment or other major activities?

The issue is twofold:

1. The possibility that an illegal grade insignia was issued, and

2. The complicity of 3 wing commanders and an encampment commander if the insignia was issued and worn contrary to regs plainly stating that no such insignia be issued.

The position is moot. They could appoint an Imperial Grand Llama Super Potentate Grand Admiral Kangaroo Weasel Niblick Whoops, Where's My Thribble, as long as no illegal grade was issued.

If unauthorized insignia was used then something should be done.  But why not create it for such a purpose?

Help me out here. Where is the specific reference that someone was actually wearing improper insignia?