Main Menu

Property Return

Started by SARDOC, October 08, 2019, 08:55:17 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SARDOC

In some of the older regulations, there used to be a provision that uniforms provided by the USAF for cadets, if the cadet stopped participating within the first year that the uniform was to be returned.

With the changes to now the allowance being used to purchase them through Vanguard, are they still considered to be government property and must be returned, since I believe the USAF still funds that but now we shuffle the money through NHQ is this still a requirement.

Any information would be helpful.

Spam


Hi Doc.

Although (in some cases) uniforms may be considered to have been bought with appropriated funds, their fair market value is less then $2,000 on an individual basis and they are specifically listed as expendable. Therefore, per Table 2-1 – CAP Property Categories of CAPR 67-1 they are designated to be in the "Expendable" category of property, and clothing is specifically listed in Attachment 3 as Expendable (in the same list as block and tackle sets, garden tools, and coffee makers. Expendable property is not tracked in CATS. We use the CAPF 111 to issue and transfer expendable property.

Members who then receive a direct issue from Vanguard via a voucher or allowance are directly issued an expendable item which needn't be tracked. If they outgrow a shirt, the unit might want to take it in donation/exchange for a larger one (a common practice we've probably all seen).

It is generally a best practice to keep a 3 ring binder with blank 111s to have members (cadets or adults) sign out all issued gear. It reinforces the concept that they are part of a unit and should take care of the issued gear/clothing, but really, only certain items are "must have back". See Attachment 3 for that list of what is, regardless of cost under $2k, is considered non expendable or "pilferable" (such as field gear - compasses, tents, binoculars, etc.) and which must be tracked/returned.

Specific items MUST be issued via a CAP Form 37 hand receipt, such as radios and practice ELTs. Members who damage/destroy issued gear are on the hook to repair/replace it. But, not clothing.

V/r
Spam

Ref:
https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/CAPR_671_03D99FCAF3CA4.pdf









SARDOC

Spam,

Thanks for the response.  I like the idea of thinking they are part of something bigger.  When I was a SQ/CC I encouraged Cadets and Senior Members leaving the program for one reason or another to consider donating serviceable items.

I'm just making sure we aren't running afoul of government rules concerning property purchased with government funds.  Just making sure we are being good stewards and at least making an attempt at due diligence.

I know it's not a lot in the grand scheme...just want to make sure, we're sending an Email/Letter, phone call or whatever else may be appropriate.

Eclipse

You can (and should) ask, and even insinuate they are guv'mint property, but in the end CAP has no way
to compel the return outside a civil action, and these days they aren't going after radios not returned,
let alone cadet uniforms.

"That Others May Zoom"

Eclipse

Quote from: Spam on October 08, 2019, 09:55:41 PM
It is generally a best practice to keep a 3 ring binder with blank 111s to have members (cadets or adults) sign out all issued gear.

67-1 was replaced by 174-1 at least 7 years ago:
https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/R_174_001_26_Dec_2012_C3_ICL_1904_4D4DD57912238.pdf

The F111 was replaced by the "online F111" that is found in ORMS / Expendable property.

"That Others May Zoom"

Spam


(THWOCKWOCWOCWOC)
Sound of smacking self in forehead.

Sorry Doc, should have checked for the update (I should know better).

Thanks Eclipse!
Spam




Eclipse

No biggie - first thing I though was about "pilferable" property (something of value to the mission or operations
but old enough to have no monetary value), which hasn't been a "thing" for ages.

"That Others May Zoom"

etodd

Quote


https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/CAPR_671_03D99FCAF3CA4.pdf


^^^^   Out of date.

We see this so often. Out of date docs, forms, task guides ... that HDQS never seems to want to delete. New members come in and Google and these old docs show up.  And a new member will make the assumption that it must be current if its on the official website.

"Someone" puts the new docs online. Why does that person never think to delete the old version?

"Don't try to explain it, just bow your head
Breathe in, breathe out, move on ..."

Holding Pattern

Quote from: etodd on October 09, 2019, 04:03:37 PM
Quote


https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/CAPR_671_03D99FCAF3CA4.pdf


^^^^   Out of date.

We see this so often. Out of date docs, forms, task guides ... that HDQS never seems to want to delete. New members come in and Google and these old docs show up.  And a new member will make the assumption that it must be current if its on the official website.

"Someone" puts the new docs online. Why does that person never think to delete the old version?

No need to delete the old version. What should be done is that they should be watermarked with a big red "SUPERCEDED" note.

Historical regulations serve to help people understand what guided the regulations to where they are today. This is why among other things the comms website keeps historical regulations uploaded back 50+ years.

Eclipse

Quote from: etodd on October 09, 2019, 04:03:37 PM
"Someone" puts the new docs online. Why does that person never think to delete the old version?

This has escaped me in the same way it makes no sense that typos and factual corrections
seem to require a full majority of both houses.

Moreso in light of the recent re-working of the website(s) and the (apparently now dormant) renumbering
project.  If it's important to leave the old version up, move the links to a "retired" section, and put a big red
"replaced" watermark on it before you reup load it.

I agree, if the CMS returns documents from the NHQ website, it's fair game people would think it's current.

For those scoring at home, this is also why local websites should not be posting their own copies of things, because
those get limbo'ed and live forever.

"That Others May Zoom"

NIN

Quote from: Holding Pattern on October 09, 2019, 04:16:13 PM
No need to delete the old version. What should be done is that they should be watermarked with a big red "SUPERCEDED" note.

Historical regulations serve to help people understand what guided the regulations to where they are today. This is why among other things the comms website keeps historical regulations uploaded back 50+ years.

The problem with the CMS is that every upload has a hash assigned to it. You take the old pub, change it, and re-upload, now its a different filename.

So a PDF called "CAPR850-9.pdf" uploaded today becomes "CAPR850-9_A7B6C5D4E3.pdf" (made up filename) but if I take the exact same file, modify it and upload it again, its "CAPR850_B1C2D3E4F5.pdf"  You really have to kill the old ones.


Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

SarDragon

I have never gotten an outdated pub from the NHQ site. If folks would restrict their pub source to Indexes, Regulations and Manuals, the problem would go away.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

xyzzy

Quote from: SarDragon on October 09, 2019, 07:45:56 PM
I have never gotten an outdated pub from the NHQ site. If folks would restrict their pub source to Indexes, Regulations and Manuals, the problem would go away.

I don't know how to do that with Google, and CAP provided searches, if they exist at all, are so bad that I don't even try them.

arajca

Quote from: xyzzy on October 09, 2019, 08:36:49 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on October 09, 2019, 07:45:56 PM
I have never gotten an outdated pub from the NHQ site. If folks would restrict their pub source to Indexes, Regulations and Manuals, the problem would go away.

I don't know how to do that with Google, and CAP provided searches, if they exist at all, are so bad that I don't even try them.
Don't use Google. Use www.gocivilairpatrol.com | Members | Publications | Indexs, Regulations, and Manuals. Contrary to popular belief, Google is not the be-all, end-all for information sources.

SarDragon

Quote from: xyzzy on October 09, 2019, 08:36:49 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on October 09, 2019, 07:45:56 PM
I have never gotten an outdated pub from the NHQ site. If folks would restrict their pub source to Indexes, Regulations and Manuals, the problem would go away.

I don't know how to do that with Google, and CAP provided searches, if they exist at all, are so bad that I don't even try them.
I gave you the link. No searching required. Click the blue words in my last post and it takes you right there.

Sent using Tapatalk

Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

Eclipse

Yes it does, but this isn't the way people use the internet.

People type a search term in the URL bar and run down the street with the first link.

3/4 of the US economy is based on this simple fact, and if NHQ's publications site was properly
configured, with old documents removed, there would be no issue.

"That Others May Zoom"