HWSNBN and Harwell

[rugger1869]

I was always curious about the rumor during HWSNBN tenure that he had an aide de camp, complete with silver cord and two-star general officer license plates affixed to his POV?

((*sigh*))  Yes, there are photos of a couple of Senior members dressed like over-excited cadets, complete with silver-tipped aiguillettes.
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2190.0

http://www.capvolunteernow.com/media/cms/CAP_Volunteer_MayJun_07_hirespdf_6F12C45DEE485.pdf

I know of at least one other photo which shows the aides behind HWSRN, but the below gives you the idea.

Looks like Hoss is busting H/W in that uniform.

[NIN]

Looks like Hoss is busting H/W in that uniform.

"The camera adds 20lbs"

[MSG Mac]

Thanks Eclipse...... reading that link you posted: a protective service detail...really?!?!?!

That's interesting considering Fat Tony was a member of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (Florida's version of the FBI) at the time

[Eclipse]

Looks like Hoss is busting H/W in that uniform.

"The camera adds 20lbs"

"How many cameras are on you?"

[abdsp51]

This cracks me up considering no one has been able to show concrete proof outside of hearsay and assumption the berry boards and now the grey ones were/are punitive. 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

The other photos make me lament the uniform that was taken from us.

I found the story on the Tuskegee Airmen much more interesting.

One of them, Major Charles B Hall, was from my wife's hometown and a street there is named for him.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

This cracks me up considering no one has been able to show concrete proof outside of hearsay and assumption the berry boards and now the grey ones were/are punitive.

The berry boards were.

The grey ones were/are a half-way attempt to come up with something not as ugly.

[abdsp51]

The berry boards were.

Again I say prove it, with fact, hard documentation and solid evidence.  BLUF you can't so therefore it's hearsay and assumptions. 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

The berry boards were.

Again I say prove it, with fact, hard documentation and solid evidence.  BLUF you can't so therefore it's hearsay and assumptions.

Were you in when the berry boards were imposed?  I came in just after that.  Every CAP officer I knew, including my squadron commander (later a Wing Commander and Region PDO, and a man of unimpeachable character), who was personal friends with then-NatCC BG Richard Anderson (he went to Maxwell a lot), my then-Wing Commander and personnel from Lieutenants to Lieutenant Colonels said that was the reason.  I never heard any other reason.

OK, call it rumour and hearsay if you like.  You know that I (or you) do not have access to any Air Force paper instructions on that.

BLUF - believe what you will.

[abdsp51]

The berry boards were.

Again I say prove it, with fact, hard documentation and solid evidence.  BLUF you can't so therefore it's hearsay and assumptions.

Were you in when the berry boards were imposed?  I came in just after that.  Every CAP officer I knew, including my squadron commander (later a Wing Commander and Region PDO, and a man of unimpeachable character), who was personal friends with then-NatCC BG Richard Anderson (he went to Maxwell a lot), my then-Wing Commander and personnel from Lieutenants to Lieutenant Colonels said that was the reason.  I never heard any other reason.

OK, call it rumour and hearsay if you like.  You know that I (or you) do not have access to any Air Force paper instructions on that.

BLUF - believe what you will.

I joined shortly after that tyvm. I guess you never heard of doing a FOIA request have you.  You nor anyone else has solid proof other than word of mouth it was punitive. 

BLUF I believe evidence that proves or disproves assumptions.  BLUF II support your assumptions with more than hearsay otherwise its an old rumor you should let die.

[rugger1869]

[lordmonar]

The berry boards were.

Again I say prove it, with fact, hard documentation and solid evidence.  BLUF you can't so therefore it's hearsay and assumptions.

Were you in when the berry boards were imposed?  I came in just after that.  Every CAP officer I knew, including my squadron commander (later a Wing Commander and Region PDO, and a man of unimpeachable character), who was personal friends with then-NatCC BG Richard Anderson (he went to Maxwell a lot), my then-Wing Commander and personnel from Lieutenants to Lieutenant Colonels said that was the reason.  I never heard any other reason.

OK, call it rumour and hearsay if you like.  You know that I (or you) do not have access to any Air Force paper instructions on that.

BLUF - believe what you will.

I joined shortly after that tyvm. I guess you never heard of doing a FOIA request have you.  You nor anyone else has solid proof other than word of mouth it was punitive. 

BLUF I believe evidence that proves or disproves assumptions.  BLUF II support your assumptions with more than hearsay otherwise its an old rumor you should let die.

Are you suggesting that the Barry Boards and the following Gray Boards were something that CAP members wanted?  If so....I suggest you support that position.

I understand what you are saying........"prove it".......but there may not be any proof.   There may not be any written documents for a FOIA.   Even if there are any documents covering that time period and covering the change of uniforms.....they may not have the "real" reason why the change was made.

Assuming for a moment that the Barry Board were not some sort of punitive or remedial action on the part of the USAF......where is the denials from NHQ or CAP-USAF saying "No!  That's not the reason for the change."

Kind of like the CSU change.......I highly doubt that there are any offical documents from the USAF to the BoG or National CC saying "Look guys we really hate these things, and now that "HE" is gone, let's ditch them."......but I bet you that is more or less what happened.

[abdsp51]

Are you suggesting that the Barry Boards and the following Gray Boards were something that CAP members wanted?  If so....I suggest you support that position.

I understand what you are saying........"prove it".......but there may not be any proof.   There may not be any written documents for a FOIA.   Even if there are any documents covering that time period and covering the change of uniforms.....they may not have the "real" reason why the change was made.

Assuming for a moment that the Barry Board were not some sort of punitive or remedial action on the part of the USAF......where is the denials from NHQ or CAP-USAF saying "No!  That's not the reason for the change."

Kind of like the CSU change.......I highly doubt that there are any offical documents from the USAF to the BoG or National CC saying "Look guys we really hate these things, and now that "HE" is gone, let's ditch them."......but I bet you that is more or less what happened.

No sir I am not saying by any means that is what the membership wanted.  I am saying that its a long standing wives tail that Harwell is the reason for the switch.  What I have collected otherwise says something different.  There very well maybe documentation but the question is has anyone truly bothered putting for the effort to dig and ask?

Knowing someone, who knows someone who said something is what is called hearsay, and sorry but unless there is something to say otherwise that's all it is in regards to the berry boards.  I know impeachable people myself but I don't always believe what they say. 

It's like continuing to say that OJ or Zimmerman committed murder and got away with it, evidence and courts disagree but you will still have people who feel otherwise. 

[Eclipse]

Kind of like the CSU change.......I highly doubt that there are any offical documents from the USAF to the BoG or National CC saying "Look guys we really hate these things, and now that "HE" is gone, let's ditch them."......but I bet you that is more or less what happened.

Yep.

(Where's Fox Mulder when you need him.  Odds are Smoking Man is involved.)

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

IF there was any documentation, since it would have come from the Air Force, it is likely it is not subject to FOIA.

[abdsp51]

IF there was any documentation, since it would have come from the Air Force, it is likely it is not subject to FOIA.

Ah, Herr Cyborg that is where you are mistaken.. Even the DOD is subject to FOIA requests and are require to answer within a set period of time.  There are set instances where they will not release information specifically anything classified or related to National Security but they are still subject to it.

[Eclipse]

Yeah, pretty much everybody is FOIA-able, at least in as much as they have to formally justify the denial when it's made.

If you get government money at any level, there are no secrets, unless it's specifically designated "secret" (etc.).

[abdsp51]

This was an email I received back from NHQ last year on this topic in response to my request.  I have submitted a FOIA request as well on this topic requesting any and all documentation on this.  This was a reply given:

I apologize for the delay in responding to your recent question.  As a
result of an AF IG Functional Management Inspection in 1989, the
Secretary of the Air Force directed a Broad Area Review of the CAP
program in February 1990.  When the final report was received one of the
findings was that the CAP uniform should be more distinctive from the
Air Force uniform.  CAP was given the opportunity to propose a
distinctive change and a proposal was submitted to the Air Force
requesting permission to use a maroon epaulet on the AF-style shirts and
blouses and a smaller maroon circlet to be worn with the metal grade on
the service coat.  The Air Force disapproved the wear of the circlet but
approved the wear of the maroon epaulet on both the shirts and service
coat in October 1990.  The maroon epaulet was not fully accepted by CAP
and in 1995 CAP requested a change of color from maroon to gray which
the AF subsequently approved.

If I can assist you with anything else please let me know.

SUSAN P. PARKER
CAP National Headquarters
105 S. Hansell Street
Maxwell AFB AL 36112-5937
Phone:  877-227-9142 extension 212
FAX:  334-953-4262

Pending what is received or not received from the AF the berry boards being imposed are hearsay and rumor. 

[a2capt]

"not fully accepted". They were ugly, and clashed with the drapes. Plain and simple.

[Cindi]

This was an email I received back from NHQ last year on this topic in response to my request.  I have submitted a FOIA request as well on this topic requesting any and all documentation on this.  This was a reply given:

I apologize for the delay in responding to your recent question.  As a
result of an AF IG Functional Management Inspection in 1989, the
Secretary of the Air Force directed a Broad Area Review of the CAP
program in February 1990.  When the final report was received one of the
findings was that the CAP uniform should be more distinctive from the
Air Force uniform.  CAP was given the opportunity to propose a
distinctive change and a proposal was submitted to the Air Force
requesting permission to use a maroon epaulet on the AF-style shirts and
blouses and a smaller maroon circlet to be worn with the metal grade on
the service coat.  The Air Force disapproved the wear of the circlet but
approved the wear of the maroon epaulet on both the shirts and service
coat in October 1990.  The maroon epaulet was not fully accepted by CAP
and in 1995 CAP requested a change of color from maroon to gray which
the AF subsequently approved.

If I can assist you with anything else please let me know.

SUSAN P. PARKER
CAP National Headquarters
105 S. Hansell Street
Maxwell AFB AL 36112-5937
Phone:  877-227-9142 extension 212
FAX:  334-953-4262

Pending what is received or not received from the AF the berry boards being imposed are hearsay and rumor.

Thank you berry much for clearing that up!

I wish we had a distinctive uniform more along these lines:



And for the ladies: