Corporate vs. Aux

[Smokey]

A number of discussions have revolved around what seems to be a shift towards a corporate CAP vs. being the USAF Aux.  These include the move towards a non-military scary triangle thingy, uniforms (here you go RM!), corporate flying missions (tracking animals, etc).

I'd like to hear from those who advocating towards moving away from the AF Aux towards a more corporate CAP (yes I know we are a corporation).  Why is  it  you don't care for the USAF Aux?  Is it a loathing of the military? Is it too much regulation and you would rather be a flying club? Are you scared of uniforms?

If you don't like the USAF Aux side, why did you join knowing CAP was the Air Force Aux?  Were you misinformed during your first squadron meetings?  Did someone recruit you by telling you it was a type of flying club?

I'm curious as to the reasons for wanting to move away from the Air Force?

Now I know this mostly covers the ES side as compared to the cadet side of the organization.

Discus....

[Eclipse]

Now I know this mostly covers the ES side as compared to the cadet side of the organization.

It actually doesn't - there are far too many leaders on the cadet side who run their units as rec centers and would be just as happy if they
could turn CAP into the Cavaliers without any need or expectation of performance by the adults involved.

[RiverAux]

Is it too much regulation and you would rather be a flying club?

I don't think "regulations" would be significantly reduced if CAP had no affiliation with the AF.  There would still need to be accounting for money, property, equipment, etc. which account for most of the burdensome regulations. 

Frankly, I don't think there are actually many who want to actually move away from the AF.  Even the polo shirt crowd probably likes the AF affiliation. 

And those that really don't care for the AF probably don't actually care enough about CAP to be on CAPTalk anyway.

[NCRblues]

We do get a lot of anti-Aux. talk here on captalk, but its just that, talk.

CAP would fail if we ever went away from the AF. Logistically, financially ... anyway you slice it we would not make it.

I always like to scare our flying club members...wait i mean pilots when they talk about how they dislike the AUX thing and the uniforms. I say to them "yes, but without the AF funding, who is going to pay for your cheap flying"... They give me the look of "i might not be in hell, but I sure can see if from here"

I think the only 2 people on here who really want us moved away from the AF are RADIOMAN and HARDSHELL CLAM. 

[coudano]

I'd like to hear from those who advocating towards moving away from the AF Aux towards a more corporate CAP (yes I know we are a corporation).

You asked for it, you got it (Toyota!)

Smokey, how long have you been around?

You do understand that we are only "an" Auxiliary of the USAF when we are in a USAF mission status?
So the rest of the time we have to be "something else" when we are in some other status.

You do understand that our "Air Force" mission set has, is, and will continue to shrink? (leaving us largely high and dry?) (regardless of our 'aux on' or 'aux off' status?)

You do understand that when we were in auxiliary status 100% of the time, we had to pass on viable missions, that we were well suited for and WANTED to do, BECAUSE of our Aux status?

You do understand that CAP existed before the USAF, and before it was made the Auxiliary of the USAF, right?
And that it operated autonomously then, as well?

Why is  it  you don't care for the USAF Aux?  Is it a loathing of the military?

Again, it's "a" USAF Aux, not "the" USAF Aux.

I fully support the dual status.  It's not a loathing of the military (I am _IN_ the military).
The dual status CAP is modelled roughly similarly to the national guard which operates either in a federal or state status.
The rules and funds change as the national guard changes its status/hat.

CAP operates in a federal or corporate status.
And likewise, the rules and funds change somewhat when CAP changes its status/hat.

In select cases, CAP can even act in a sort of quasi-"state" status (which is really just a corporate status, but with a State MOU and state legal protections.

This provides us the best flexibility to meet the needs of most customers, which is ultimately in the best interest of USAF, as we are more relevant, better trained, and experienced based on opstempo that USAF can't and won't provide to us alone.  It's a win-win for CAP and the USAF (and our external customers).  The increased opstempo keeps our people happier as well.  If you joined just to do AFAMs you are going to be pretty bored.

Is it too much regulation and you would rather be a flying club?

I'm not a pilot lately, so no I wouldn't rather just be a flying club.  I fly the cadet program, and some portions of ES.
Do I need to be in a military style uniform to run a rockin local cadet program?
Apparently not...

And CAP's "too much regulation" syndrome doesn't come from its association with USAF,
that's just pure and straight CAP internal corporate stupidity.

A wickedly brutal AFSO21-ing of CAP by a usaf lean team would do us a whole lot of good (if we actually listened to it and implemented the process improvement recommendations)

Are you scared of uniforms?

Nope, I like my uniforms.
Infact, I happen to be wearing my grey pants and golf shirt combo right now (just got home from a CAP thing)
The other senior members at that thing were wearing the same thing,
That's a funny little concept, you know, a UNI form.  That means One Form.  Not thirty-six depending on your personal taste, and weight and grooming status.

Just last night, I was wearing the aviator combo at my squadron's cadet meeting.
And so were the other senior members there too.
All lined up together and wearing the aviator combo right, we looked pretty sharp...

I only wear corporates to CAP these days.  I (might) get up into BDU's for a ground team or a flight suit for an aircrew sortie.
(then again, I might just wear the golf shirt)

When I go play military, I wear my military uniforms, and I wear them with excellence and pride.

I am inside weight and grooming for both, all the time.

If you don't like the USAF Aux side, why did you join knowing CAP was the Air Force Aux?  Were you misinformed during your first squadron meetings?  Did someone recruit you by telling you it was a type of flying club?

N/A, for me, anyway.

I'm curious as to the reasons for wanting to move away from the Air Force?

Like I said, above.  It's mutually beneficial to both us and the USAF.
You can fight that tide if you want, but it's a little foolish.

Now I know this mostly covers the ES side as compared to the cadet side of the organization.

Aren't you forgetting the aerospace side of the organization?
That's an equilateral portion of our foundation and mission.
Is that getting "de-militarized" too?

[NCRblues]

CAP operates in a federal or corporate status.
And likewise, the rules and funds change somewhat when CAP changes its status/hat.

Really? I seem to recall that when the AF recently withheld funding from CAP, that even CORPORATE missions where placed on hold.

According to your world, we should have shruged and just "changed hats" and went about on our other non-AF missions.

So, where do these "funds" come from when we change hats?

[coudano]

CAP isn't written in stone.  We aren't the ten commandments that never change.
It is constantly in flux, and in process, and in progress.

Really? I seem to recall that when the AF recently withheld funding from CAP, that even CORPORATE missions where placed on hold

CAP's ridiculous and ill-advised knee-jerk over-reactions to the drama of the week from mother blue notwithstanding,

There are a lot of things, like maintenance, that touch appropriated funds in some way.
So when appropriated funds freeze, so do those functions that touch them.

That said, our leadership would be smart to figure out ways to cover situations like that, and I truly believe that they are working on that RIGHT NOW, specifically after this past month's situation.

According to your world, we should have shruged and just "changed hats" and went about on our other non-AF missions.

Yes. (EDIT: and that is to say that we are "by default" in non-aux status what 99% of the time...  we only go aux on for specific situations and only temporarily, )

So, where do these "funds" come from when we change hats?

Paying customers including but not limited to corporate funded operations, and member funded operations.

[RADIOMAN015]

We do get a lot of anti-Aux. talk here on captalk, but its just that, talk.


I think the only 2 people on here who really want us moved away from the AF are RADIOMAN and HARDSHELL CLAM. 

I don't think CAP would EVER be successful IF they lost AF funding completely.  My only issue from a public relations standpoint is one standard field uniform that everyone can wear and allows very strong identification as the members of CIVIL AIR PATROL.   The current batch of various military utility uniforms do not adequately accomplish this.   HOWEVER, since a fair number of the membership is "hung up on" playing military dress up, it's unlikely we will see only one CAP field uniform

BTW my understanding is CAP actually asked for the capability to be AF AUX Off, because it gives us a chance to perform more (reimbursable) missions than what we could do under the AF AUX On all the time status.

I really don't see much of this changing in the future, so I'll do my best at the squadron level and press on doing what I enjoy volunteering my time for.
RM     

[RiverAux]

You do understand that when we were in auxiliary status 100% of the time, we had to pass on viable missions, that we were well suited for and WANTED to do, BECAUSE of our Aux status?

Please provide examples....

CAP has been doing missions for other local and state agencies in our corporate status for as long as we've been around.  The Aux On/Aux Off stuff didn't result in any real changes in our operations since the only thing it really makes a difference in is who pays when a CAP member gets hurt or causes an accident.  Even before the changes in federal law that created the so-called AuxOn/AuxOff status the same issues were handled the same way -- if you were on an AFAM the AF paid, if not, then corporate.  The legal change just clarified it a bit. 

The only thing about our status that supposedly caused any issues with doing things for others was the USAF Aux painted on our airplanes that supposedly caused problems with doing CD missions (even though having US Army painted on NG helicopters wasn't a problem).  So, we took that off.  But that had nothing to do with our actual legal status, just appearances.  We were always doing those missions under the federal law that specifically allowed the military to do some CD work so our AuxOn status was never in doubt. 

And, the AuxOn/AuxOff stuff actually doesn't apply to the organization, just individual members.  CAP always has at least one open AFAM so as an organization we are in AuxOn status all the time, but only the individuals participating in that mission are actually being "covered" by that status.  There is a thread I started on this issue, so I won't go in depth on that. 

[flyboy53]

We live in a society these days where volunteer fire departments and groups like the Red Cross are all scrambling for members but there are fewer and fewer takers or people who have an interest to get involved. A lot of that, of course, is because we as a society have families that require multiple sources of income to maintain the standard of living that we set for ourselves. Even more, however, is a trend where many people are not interested in devoting their spare time to outside causes.

One of the drawing cards of this organization has always been it's Air Force Auxiliary status. It has been one of the recruiting points that peaked the interest in new members. Yet there seems to be a trend that once those individuls get more entenched into this organization, they like the rank and the status that it brings, but lack the personal responsibility to conform to various personal or mission-related standards that are required of us as volunteers doing missions for the Air Force...and you end up with the back story, especially the loss of equipment or funding, that resulted in the Congressional Legislation that formally specified the Aux On/Aux Off status.

Without that formal Auxiliary status, we become nothing more than another aviation related not-for-profit that in the grand scheme of things would be too expensive to function or carry any type of official status; which means what would you do with us then. Without the Air Force funding, it would be too expensive to maintain the level of personnel and equipment and if that cost was futher born on the membership, the organization would probably fold.

It would probably also absolutely trash the cadet program because there would no reason to join. There are already other means for teens to pursue their military or aviation interests. Between National Guard youth programs and Scouts, you can't tell me that many CAP cadets would then jump ship and persue something else more meaningful to their goals and objectives.

Even the Boy Scouts are talking about brining back the Explorer Program -- which I'm an alumni of.

I really think what needs to happen with this organization is a bottom up reoriganization where the corporate side is severed, so to say, from the organization side to co-exist as the fundraising foundation. The organization side could be geared as military-like as you lke and the foundation would then function as the corporate business foundation entity.

You could actually have a whole new class of members on the foundation side who are supporters but not required to participate. That's the way a volunteer fire department or rescue squad is set up. That's the way the Coast Guard Auxiliary is set up. Why aren't we.

[Cliff_Chambliss]

Corporate of Aux?  What I really dislike is the lack of which direction the CAP Leadership is willing to go.  The appearance of just floating along with the breeze and tide does not instill cofidence in either camp.

What would I like?  First, Flying regulations:  While CAPR 60-1 is fairly good there are still too many areas in which it could be improved.  I would like to see CAPR 60-1 be rewiten to be more in line with AFMAN 34-232, and even the Army AR215-1 appendix dealing with flying activities.

If CAP is to be a quasi-military organization, then LETS DO IT and get away from the good-ol-boy crap.   Way too may squadrons are run by committeee rather than by a commander.   It does no good to try to instill military bearing and discipline on a group of cadets when they can see a senior member 2LT and LTC walking around outside without headgear and maybe even holding hands.  We have to have a "One Size Fits All" series or regulations and procedures.

A Question:  Are unit commanders the best qualified for the job or are they selected by being the slowest person to clear the room when a vacancy opens up?

Develop unit training programs and training schedules and expect them to be followed  (Of course trying to get a bunch of senior members to commit to training is sometimes only a bit more difficult than herding cats).  A pilot is taking a plane out for proficiency flying,   List the proficency flight profile number and on the next CAPF5/91 check ride emphasize those maneuvers.

I was a CAP Cadet in the early 1960's, and then in the mid 60's a Senior member in squadrons in Birmingham, Al., and Atlanta, Ga.  Later in Texas, in the mid 1980's I rejoined and assisited in organizing a Squadron in Central Texas.  In the early 1990's I again rejoined CAP and it took the good ol boys there about 3 meetings to run me off.  In 2009 I again rejoined, only because my grandson expressed an interest.  However, now I am back in (my grandson decided CAP was not for him). 

What do I see different between now and then?  The biggest is the lack of loyality.  Loyality to the organization, the unit, and the commander either for the most part is lacking or is flawed.  Way to much what's in it for me and not enough of what can I do to make it better.

Ask youself the question What have I done to make CAP a better organization?  (attending meetings and warming a seat does not count.
How many training classes have you organized and taught?
How Many Cadet Activiteis have you helped organize and conduct?
How many internal Squadron Administrative Tasks have you done just because they needed to be done?

How many hours have you spent [censored]in about everything that is wrnog with the organization but not done anything to right those wrongs.

On the otherhand, if CAP wants to go corporate, then dump all the regulations, manuals, forms, uniforms, etc., and just get a couple of flying club guides from the AOPA and then go there.

[MIKE]

You could actually have a whole new class of members on the foundation side who are supporters but not required to participate. That's the way a volunteer fire department or rescue squad is set up.  That's the way the Coast Guard Auxiliary is set up. Why aren't we.

Not quite.  I dunno how many people would just pay $25 or $50 to CGAuxA versus paying for membership in the Auxiliary.  I have members of my own flotilla who just pay their $30 every year.  Odds are that the individuals who would give money to CGAuxA are also dues paying members.

[ZigZag911]

Given the tarnished reputation of Corporate America these days, my personal preference is to emphasize the Auxiliary aspects, leave corporate for behind the scenes legal and financial practical matters.

[Eclipse]

You could actually have a whole new class of members on the foundation side who are supporters but not required to participate. That's the way a volunteer fire department or rescue squad is set up. That's the way the Coast Guard Auxiliary is set up. Why aren't we.

We already have those, they are called "Patrons".

That supposed to be the only reason that class of membership exists.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I also do not like the way CAP tries to ride the fence on "are we corporate or are we a military auxiliary."

When I joined, it was all Auxiliary, all the time.

My first squadron (1993-99) wore the blue uniform and BDU's almost exclusively, and we wore them correctly, bog-awful berry boards notwithstanding.  If you didn't wear it correctly, you got one warning, and after that you got sent home.  However, one member persisted with a dirty uniform, so the then-CC disallowed him from wearing anything but the smurf suit.

Coudano, I would have put us in our blues looking just as sharp as your unit in G/W any day of the week.

We were about 50/50 prior/non-prior service, and we produced a Spaatz cadet.

I never would have dreamed we would not be the Auxiliary of the Air Force.  OK, kids, I know about the "an Auxiliary" phrase, but what other Auxiliary has there ever been, or to ever be?  There is MARS, but the AF could save a lot of money by folding that into CAP.

Radioman, I don't hear anyone but you griping about our field uniforms.  We are never going to look like the Red Cross or Salvation Army, no matter how much you may wish it.

A big problem is looking at the people we help as "customers."  The Air Force is not our "customer," it is our parent military service.  The AF "chops" us to other agencies as needed, just as the AG of a State "chops" the ARNG/ANG to assist State and local law enforcement/emergency services agencies as needed.

If the Air Force Auxiliary side of us were ever completely removed, and I know there are CAP members who would like that, for us to just be flying SAR/DR, all the time, I think a lot of people would leave.

[flyboy53]

Every time this stuff starts up again, it's because we have weak leadership and there is a scorned part of the membership who think that they have enough of a following to either force things their way of split up the organization to start their own thing. So goes the way of the US Ranger Corps, which in a very real way is everything that the Aux Off contenders want to be...playing...and it is led by a disgraced former commander who lied and was corrupt.

I wish we had a membership that ascribed themselves to voluntarily accept the standards placed before them so that we can work to reverse that legislation and then commit ourselves to perform the duties before us in the most devoted manner. So what if the membership shrinks. To get the very best precious metal, you have to endure the fire that burns off the slag.

We, as an organization, should commit ourselves to being our very best to show the Air Force and the federal leadership that we are worthy of being called the Air Force's auxiliary and not a bunch of wannabes who immediately chirp "I'm a civilian," and go home every time the rubber hits the road.

[PHall]

We, as an organization, should commit ourselves to being our very best to show the Air Force and the federal leadership that we are worthy of being called the Air Force's auxiliary and not a bunch of wannabes who immediately chirp "I'm a civilian volunteer," and go home every time the rubber hits the road.

Fixed that for ya!

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

So goes the way of the US Ranger Corps, which in a very real way is everything that the Aux Off contenders want to be...playing

What bothers me about that segment of the membership is the element who don't want "Ma Blue telling them what to do," who don't like the so-called "Air Force wannabes," who don't want CAP wearing the AF uniform because they don't want to wear it...but yet don't at all mind getting flying hours in on the Air Force's nickel.

[Hardshell Clam]

I think the only 2 people on here who really want us moved away from the AF are RADIOMAN and HARDSHELL CLAM. 

Just a cheap shot, but then you can't help yourself so please countinue...

[jimmydeanno]

I am a huge supporter of CAP, and have been for 15 years now.  I see distinct advantages to having our corporate side, but I don't think we take advantage of them enough.  I also think that there are distinct advantages to being the Air Force Auxiliary.  It's a symbiotic relationship, and they can't be mutually exclusive of one another.

Our membership should be in CAP because they care about the missions we perform, not because of who we are associated with.  If you don't believe in the mission, but want to be in the AF Auxiliary, it's the wrong mindset.  Our missions, what we do and who we help, should be our primary focus.  If we lost the association, I can't say that I'd quit because I believe that what we do needs to be done and I would want to continue doing it.

To me, we don't act like a corporation enough.  This doesn't mean that I support ditching our uniforms and biting my thumb at the Air Force.  What it means is that we need to leverage the advantages of being a 501(c)(3) corporation to continue expanding and performing our Congressionaly mandated mission.  This means fundraising, building an endowment fund, advertising, partnerships, streamlining our cost structures and procedures to match those of the most successful non-profits, instead of creating an environment that is designed around the most inefficient, bureaucratic, bloated organization on the planet (DoD).

I believe that we've leaned too heavily on the Air Force to "fix" our problems.  We need money, so we ask the tax payers.  Well, now we see what happens when the taxpayers don't want to pay our bills - we can't get our mission done.  Had we done our fiduciary responsibility, we would have a cash reserve that we could draw from to bridge the gaps.  Appropriated funds are nice to have, but as a responsible corporation, we can't rely solely on them to keep us afloat or we'll be gone any year that we don't get funding.

We need to behave like a corporation, yet leverage the relationship between us and the Air Force.

[agriffa]

I am new to this forum and relatively new to CAP, having joined 10 months ago, so let me give you my perspective on why I joined CAP in the light of this discussion: CAP AF vs CAP corporate.
So back to my point: 10 months ago, I decided to join The Civil Air Patrol, United States Air Force Auxiliary (see gocivilairpatrol.com our marketing recruiting piece for the definition, if you want).
And in this wording, it lays my decision.

First, United States. I wanted to join an organization that is undoubtedly recognized as part of this country, unique to this country, with a strong tie to the country, particularly valuable for somebody like me, not born in this country.

Second, Air Force: I did not want to join the Red Cross or the Boy Scout, all fine and outstanding organizations (my son is a cub scout). I wanted to join an organization similar or that resembles a military organization. I would use the word para-military but I am afraid that this will draw a long lash of remarks and harsh comments, so please scratch that, but you got my point. And with this choice, it comes the honor, the privilege and the pride of wearing the uniform of the US Air Force. If you do not like uniforms then go and join the local flying club and wear flip flops and short pants as you wish. But as the choice is, and I am repeating myself, CAP, US Air Force Auxiliary, then the wearing of a military uniform cannot be criticized or put under questioning. Use of a CAP corporate uniform, puzzles me, as it goes against my previous the point; I might accept it only because the need to a accommodate weight requirements. I am absolutely pride to wear the CAP uniform any time I can, to show my allegiance to such as professional organization. When I work for corporate in my daily job I wear corporate dress: slacks and shirts or whatever it is required that day to look and be professional. When at a CAP meeting and CAP  function, I wear CAP uniform. Easy and simple.

Third, Auxiliary: I joined because I wanted to give something back to the community; i did not want to join any other non-profit organization, I wanted CAP because I love anything that has to do with airplanes, aviation and flying. But having joined an auxiliary (read voluntarily) it means also that somehow, somebody has to give us (the organization) some money to perform our duties. So where do we get the money from? Well, the answer is in the wording again: CAP, US Air Force Auxiliary.... That means the Air Force is allocating money (well through congress, DoD and all the chain of command) to us to perform duties as per our charter. This does not mean we cannot get money from other entities such as the state or AF Reserve, but our primary allegiance and obligation is to the Air Force.

Every organization is evolving: our society is evolving, our school system is evolving, the Air Force is evolving and why not CAP?
I hear that CAP is doing less SAR than before, so what else can we do? I believe that under the AF umbrella there are a lot of activities we can do, still keeping CAP tightly connected with the Air Force.  From aerial surveillance to aerial photography, from education of new generation in flying with flight simulators (the future belongs to drones!!) to disaster relief, all in close connection with Air Force.
I really want to see this organization growing as part of AF because the root is closer to the Air Force than any other corporation also sharing the same core values (remember? Integrity, excellence and respect) with the Air Force and not with any other corporation.
Corporate? I  am not sure which kind of strong values they can offer, which kind of leadership  they can provide and which kind of strong allegiance to this beautiful country they can offer when compared to AF values.

So, now, if you are still with me so far, you got my point: future of the CAP is with AF!
Gosh, what a long rambling!!!!

Semper Vigilans

[flyboy53]

That's why I advocate for the corporate not-for-profit side of the organization to be split off.

We're in the era of big business shaping everything and don't think that hasn't happened to CAP as well. Afterall, the big guns in this organization get the corporate attorneys to focus on all the little guys where we used to get our uniform insignias so that one company gets to have a monoply on just about everything but the uniforms themselves. This is done with the guise that CAP gets a rebate of sorts, but the benefits of those funds are things that the average member will NEVER see.

Then dues go through the roof to pay for rent on headquarters, paid staff, and things like vehicles or aircraft....the old slang of CAP = Come And Pay.

This argument is not too unlike what has happened with the Red Cross. The bean counters take over, you have to pay, are billed, or are required to provide reimbursement for services (even military members) to the point where a standard first aid class now costs a student as much as $75 for a volunteer to teach them -- that's $75 for a member to shell out just for certain ES qualifications.

Never think that the corporate side of this organization hasn't significantly influenced were we are now.

And one other thing, I realize we have a constitution and bylaws that specify how the corporate side of this organization goes, but that also means that each one of us is a stakeholder and should be allowed to vote or register our concerns about different issues that go before the NB or the NEC....tell me the last time that occurred. Tell me when it was that my opinion counted for anything.

[Eclipse]

That's why I advocate for the corporate not-for-profit side of the organization to be split off.

And do what?

We're in the era of big business shaping everything and don't think that hasn't happened to CAP as well. Afterall, the big guns in this organization get the corporate attorneys to focus on all the little guys where we used to get our uniform insignias so that one company gets to have a monoply on just about everything but the uniforms themselves. This is done with the guise that CAP gets a rebate of sorts, but the benefits of those funds are things that the average member will NEVER see.

So we should just let anyone who wants to profit off of CAP's insignia and logos, regardless of the law or quality?  No thanks.

This argument is not too unlike what has happened with the Red Cross. The bean counters take over, you have to pay, are billed, or are required to provide reimbursement for services (even military members) to the point where a standard first aid class now costs a student as much as $75 for a volunteer to teach them -- that's $75 for a member to shell out just for certain ES qualifications.

Imagine having to pay for things...you can always choose someone else, there are plenty of options.

Then dues go through the roof to pay for rent on headquarters, paid staff, and things like vehicles or aircraft....the old slang of CAP = Come And Pay.

Exactly, because absent the "corporate baggage", people will just give us gas, buildings, and airplanes, or better still, we can just get free space and resources from the local military base, after all, those are abundant...oh, wait...

[Eclipse]

And one other thing, I realize we have a constitution and bylaws that specify how the corporate side of this organization goes, but that also means that each one of us is a stakeholder and should be allowed to vote or register our concerns about different issues that go before the NB or the NEC....tell me the last time that occurred. Tell me when it was that my opinion counted for anything.

Locally?I feel as though I have a fair amount of influence and input.

Nationally?  Probably at an equal level with your average airman.

[PHall]

And one other thing, I realize we have a constitution and bylaws that specify how the corporate side of this organization goes, but that also means that each one of us is a stakeholder and should be allowed to vote or register our concerns about different issues that go before the NB or the NEC....tell me the last time that occurred. Tell me when it was that my opinion counted for anything.

Locally?I feel as though I have a fair amount of influence and input.

Nationally?  Probably at an equal level with your average airman.

Really Bob? You have influence? Does that mean you're a member of your wing's GOB club?

Because they seem to be the only ones who make any decisions. Everybody else is either ignored or shown the door if they get too nosey.

[Short Field]

Because they seem to be the only ones who make any decisions. Everybody else is either ignored or shown the door if they get too nosey.

I would have swore we were in different wings.... 

[Eclipse]

And one other thing, I realize we have a constitution and bylaws that specify how the corporate side of this organization goes, but that also means that each one of us is a stakeholder and should be allowed to vote or register our concerns about different issues that go before the NB or the NEC....tell me the last time that occurred. Tell me when it was that my opinion counted for anything.

Locally?I feel as though I have a fair amount of influence and input.

Nationally?  Probably at an equal level with your average airman.

Really Bob? You have influence? Does that mean you're a member of your wing's GOB club?

Because they seem to be the only ones who make any decisions. Everybody else is either ignored or shown the door if they get too nosey.

Yes, really.  And surprise! I'm not a pilot.  It comes down to knowledge, experience, staying in your lane, and waiting your turn.
We have far too many people who are sold a bill of goods about influence! and input! on day one, before they even know
where the bathrooms are, and then we wonder why nothing ever gets done.  CAP is no different, better or worse, than any large
organization.  Everybody else is "The Man", until people get their chance, and then they are "working in CAP's best interest".

If you're a commander and not "commanding", it's your fault.

If you're a staffer trying to command, it's your fault.

If you're anyone who has created a shortcut that does an end-run around the real procedure simply to avoid an uncomfortable conversation, it's your fault.

I've done all of these things, they all fail eventually.

The path to success is working the core program, without filter, arming yourself with knowledge and experience, and making sure you speak
in short sentences with regulations as periods.

[COL Land]

Here's a view from the other side...

The U.S. Army Cadet Corps <www.goarmycadets.com> (USAC) has five membership categories (Officers, Noncommissioned Officers, Uniformed Instructors, Civilians and Cadets).   Officers command and manage our units and programs.   NCOs' "make it happen."   Cadets are the sole reason for our program.  Uniformed Instructors are DoD personnel who are insured through USAC, but wear their regular uniforms.  (They may not hold a command slot in that capacity).  Then there are our civilians.   I think this is where we have learned a lot from "Big Army." 

USAC adults who do not wish, or are not qualified, to wear a uniform (this can range from a lack of personal desire towards "stars and bars," grooming standards, weight, etc.) are enrolled as USAC Civilians.   This also applies to those who wish to minimize their participation with USAC (understanding that in our culture, seniority is clearly tied to responsibility...if you are senior, you ARE in charge).   

Our USAC Civilians are an extremely important and valued part of the USAC team and are fully engaged in the day-to-day operation of the program, much like DA Civilians are within the Army culture in garrison.   (I was recently told there are 2.3 civilians for every uniformed warfighter...whether true or not, the civilian force is absolutely essential to the Army's ability to protect America's interests).  A USAC Civilian or USAC Civilian Executive (a senior USAC Civilian with authority equivalent to a Major) can fill any position, except command, at most any level of the organization.   While not saluted (unless they retired as a commissioned officer from DoD or USAC), they are fully empowered as civilians, with authority over uniformed personnel, when appropriate.   

This results in a number of positive benefits for our program:

a.   Maintains the military structure and uniformity of USAC.   Uniformed personnel wear a uniform, civilians wear standardized civilian attire (polo/dockers or coat/tie and slacks).   Military personnel are always in a single prescribed uniform and customs and courtesies are universally adhered to.  In most cases, with the exception of the required modifications to the uniform, our personnel easily fit in with active, Guard and reserve personnel.

b.   Civilians who are in civilian attire are fully engaged with the program, with appropriate authority, responsibility and title, yet are not using a military rank that does not correspond to their dress.

c.   About 80% of what we do can be done by civilians in civilian clothing.  However, those skills that are clearly military in nature (Drill and Ceremonies, Field Training, etc.) are led by uniformed professionals in a military uniform.

d.   We've created a promotion system to fully recognize USAC Civilians for their proficiency and value to the program.   As with DA Civilians, it's important to recognized our civilian professionals just as we those who we pin ribbons and stripes onto.

e.   Provides a valid opportunity for service to individuals who are not really prone towards the regimentation of the program, such as those with no military background, nor interest in learning such skills; military retirees who have had their share of spit and polish, yet still want to serve; and those who offer a level of expertise which is of value to the program, and wish to serve, yet do not want the added responsibility of military rank.

Much like the Army, when a Commander comes into a room, everyone (military and civilian) rises.   The civilians do so out of respect, rather than a regulated response.   Civilians are not required to form up for Retreat, yet many do for the same reasons.   Our USAC Civilians are fully engaged in the USAC program and are essential to our future success.   By putting people where they are most comfortable, yet still maintaining a consistent standard for the program, we are best able to provide our Cadets with a realistic view of the Army...which is our primary mission.

This is not to say we're "right" or "better," by any means...just a point of comparison. 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

As I told Short Field on another thread, CAP's identity seems to be getting more and more schizoid as time goes by.

We've come a long way from this:




...and not in a good way.

[Short Field]

The path to success is working the core program, without filter, arming yourself with knowledge and experience, and making sure you speak
in short sentences with regulations as periods.

:clap:  :clap:  :clap:

CyBorg:  Our partnership with the USAF is as strong now as it ever was in the past.  We partner daily on missions and activities.  My squadron is routinely called to help AD squadrons when they need assistance.  We are consider part of the base family.   The only problem with CAP's identity are the members who try to ignore the Civil part.

[NCRblues]

CyBorg:  Our partnership with the USAF is as strong now as it ever was in the past.

Maybe, maybe not as well...im no longer sure anyone knows anymore.

We partner daily on missions and activities.

Less missions every day. About the activites, are you talking about CAP or your squadron?

My squadron is routinely called to help AD squadrons when they need assistance.

You must be one of the only squadrons around who do so.

We are consider part of the base family.

Again, very rare.

The only problem with CAP's identity are the members who try to ignore the Civil part.

Disagree, IMO, the problem is with people who demand that we sing the CIVIL part ALL the time.

[Short Field]

Maybe, maybe not as well...im no longer sure anyone knows anymore.

But that doesn't stop people from complaining that it isn't.

Less missions every day. About the activities, are you talking about CAP or your squadron?

CAP  And there is not a lot you can do about there being fewer lost airplanes.

You must be one of the only squadrons around who do so.

That happens when you live on a active duty base, have members in the different squadrons, and don't demand to lead the parade.

The only problem with CAP's identity are the members who try to ignore the Civil part.

Disagree, IMO, the problem is with people who demand that we sing the CIVIL part ALL the time.

I am Civil Air Patrol all the time.  Sometimes I function as an auxiliary to the USAF when I am on a AFAM.  What's so hard to understand.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I agree with NCRblues on most counts.

I really doubt a partnership can be considered "strong" when much of the senior partner doesn't know the junior partner exists, except for rumour and hearsay about overweight, ungroomed oldsters wearing "their" uniform disgracefully and trying to force them to salute when they don't have the right to.

It may well be that Short Field is fortunate enough for his unit to be called upon to partner with the active duty AF.  That, in my experience, is rare and getting more so.  My unit is on an ANG installation with two flying units and we hardly ever interact with them.  I think YMMV applies here.

I also agree that the problem is not with members who "try to ignore the Civil part," it is moreso with members who are steadily trying to push CAP away from its Air Force background.  In 18 years of CAP, serving in four squadrons of all types in two wings, I have never known anyone who has tried to equate us with the Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve, or tried to push the POV that we are something we are not: a military service.  The only remotely related examples would be (few and far between) cadets who think that CAP is "Full Metal Jacket" and they have the right to be Gunny Hartman, and they are straightened out double quick.

I still maintain that our identity is a largely unknown quantity among our members, and if you would get a roomful of CAP members chosen at random and told them to define in one paragraph what CAP is, it would be a venture akin to trying to herd cats.

[SamFranklin]

I'm tired of hearing half-baked, unsupported claims that the Air Force / CAP relationship is "more schizoid" (Cyborg's phrase) as time goes by. A few chronic naysayers here focus on superficial matters like the format of the ID card, NHQ's use of the triangle logo, and the popularity of the polo shirt uniform, and then deduce that the AF hates CAP, or that CAP is deliberately stepping away from its parent service. 

I suggest that those who focus on superficial matters are telling us more about their unmet esteem needs than the AF relationship or CAP identity they are purportedly explaining.

An objective assessment of the AF / CAP partnership will show that the relationship is stronger than it has been in decades.

Improved funding & new missions:
AE:  Funding for ACE program
CP:  Cadet textbook funding, NCSA travel funding
ES:  Surrogate Predator, Noble Eagle missions

General Visibility:  2- and 3-star generals serve on our board of governors


Notable comments on CAP / AF relations:

"The CAP, in its AF Auxiliary role, is being recognized as an 'Air Force Air component' as important to our nation and our mission as the Guard and Reserve components. The AFAux does the majority of the day-to-day USAF DSCA missions; from search and rescue to aerial imagery and Federal Agency support.  Their volunteers are true patriots - immediately available for tasking and providing quick response to our requirements - they have never failed us.  The USAF could not do its DSCA and Homeland Defense missions without the CAP."

Maj Gen Hank Morrow                         
AFNORTH/CC  (former)


"CAP is available to assist federal, state and local authorities in performing various reconnaissance, emergency services, disaster relief and homeland security missions. With ever expanding mission sets, CAP as the AF Auxiliary, plays an integral role in the defense of our country.  From providing support during Operation Noble Eagle training sorties to coordinating with our Federal partners, the AF Aux has direct impact on the safety of our nation's citizens. The AF Auxiliary is a force multiplier and plays a large part in the success of the AFNORTH mission.  I continue to be amazed at the true professionalism and dedication of the CAP volunteers -- from the senior leaders down to the cadets, the service provided to the USAF is outstanding."

Maj Gen Garry Dean
AFNORTH/CC  (former)



Really, truly, it's time to stop this whiny, unsubstantiated line of discussion.

[SamFranklin]

  My unit is on an ANG installation with two flying units and we hardly ever interact with them.

Shame on you for doing such a poor job building a relationship with them.

[coudano]

And there is not a lot you can do about there being fewer lost airplanes.

To be fair, there probably aren't any fewer missing airplanes than there were before.
What there are fewer of is 'false alarm' and non-distress ELT's (which it turns out was the vast majority --high 90%s-- of them in the first place)

[davedove]

You do understand that we are only "an" Auxiliary of the USAF when we are in a USAF mission status?
So the rest of the time we have to be "something else" when we are in some other status.

Again, it's "a" USAF Aux, not "the" USAF Aux.

I've always had a problem when people make this distinction.  Why would we be "an" auxiliary?  Is there ANOTHER AF Aux out there that I don't know about?

I think it would be better to say that we are the official auziliary, but we sometimes do other jobs outside the AF mission.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Shame on you for doing such a poor job building a relationship with them.

There's no reason to insult me.

All our current and past command staff have made the Guard brass aware that we stand ready to assist them.

If they don't have a use for us, they don't have a use for us.  That's a two-way street.

You can quote top brass all you like, but when the rubber meets the road, at the local/squadron level, I see less interaction than any time since I first joined CAP in 1993.  Most of the AF interest I have seen is in the cadet side of things.

And, sir, you are closing your eyes if you haven't seen cultural shifts in the CAP-USAF relationship over the past 20 years.

[Major Lord]

I was not sure who Maj Gen Garry Dean was, so I found his bio: http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=10748

Major Lord

[Ned]

I was not sure who Maj Gen Garry Dean was, so I found his bio: http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=10748

Major Lord

An outstanding officer and true supporter of CAP.  He briefed the BoG using his ATO for AFNORTH which showed CAP as the large majority of his sorties.

The AF thought he was such a good commander that they had to replace him with a three star in the same billet 

He will be missed on the BoG.

[wingnut55]

I guess my take on all this is that It is not Corporate that is the problem, it seems we the membership need to stand up and speak out more about the truths that we see in our own ranks. I learned a phrase here that sums up many of our problems and that is "GOB", Good Old Boys". I have often run into brick walls because the GOBs say 'NO", you can't do that. When often if not most of the time they are just plain wrong and obstructive.

The organization has a structure, code of conduct, Federal Mandate, USAF regulations, USAF Auxiliary Regulations, CAP regulations.

The organization as it exists works well when run by the Books and formal guidance best practices. However, there is some fierce personal attacks on people who descent counter to GOB entrenchment

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

The organization as it exists works well when run by the Books and formal guidance best practices. However, there is some fierce personal attacks on people who descent counter to GOB entrenchment

BTDT and learnt a very painful lesson.

In another wing, I filed an IG complaint against another officer for, let's say, behaviour contrary to CAP procedures.  I had my CC's full support behind me and, in fact, the Commander's Commendation I have came out of that incident.  I also had citations out of regs for every action I had taken.

I had verbally warned this person and told him if he persisted I would go up the chain with it.  He didn't know me well enough to know that I have a bad habit of usually doing exactly what I say I am going to do (my dad always told me "never make idle threats...don't threaten to do something, DO it!").  I had many more years of experience in CAP than this person and I knew the regulations...but it didn't matter.

I still have the paperwork relating to that.

However, the bad actor had a lot more friends at Wing than I did...the result was my commander lost command of the unit, I got verbally reprimanded and I resigned from CAP (my own choice) and said I would never serve in that wing again, and I didn't.

Corporate v. Auxiliary didn't even come into that, nor did ranks, nor did regulations, nor did going through proper channels. 

[davidsinn]

the result was my commander lost command of the unit, I got verbally reprimanded and I resigned from CAP (my own choice)

Sounds like another IG complaint at a higher level to me.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Sounds like another IG complaint at a higher level to me.

I thought of that, but by then I was so bloody disgusted, and I knew I was going to be moving out of state anyway.

By then my deep-seated cynicism had kicked in and I thought, if the guy's got friends in high places at Wing, he's probably got them all the way up to the Pentagon.

[Eclipse]

^ A sad state of affairs, to be sure, but we need to separate the reality of human nature and bad actors from the actual
program as written.

There isn't an organization known to the history of man that hasn't been sullied at one time or another by people out for
their own gain, or with hidden agendas, not a one, but that's an indictment of human failings, not the systems we inhabit.

[Hardshell Clam]

In another wing, I filed an IG complaint against another officer for, let's say, behaviour contrary to CAP procedures. 

What was the outcome of the IG investigation?

[NCRblues]

I'm sure he will get right on telling you that...

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

^^Oh, very simple, actually.

I was told in no uncertain terms by two lieutenant colonels that I was too much a stickler for the regs.

[SARDOC]

^^Oh, very simple, actually.

I was told in no uncertain terms by two lieutenant colonels that I was too much a stickler for the regs.

The funny part is that doesn't mean your complaint was unjustified, they just determined that regulations aren't important in that wing.  Which means you should have notified National IG.

[JeffDG]

^^Oh, very simple, actually.

I was told in no uncertain terms by two lieutenant colonels that I was too much a stickler for the regs.

The funny part is that doesn't mean your complaint was unjustified, they just determined that regulations aren't important in that wing.  Which means you should have notified National IG.

Well, Region first I would suggest...

[Hardshell Clam]

I'm sure he will get right on telling you that...

Hummmm, strange.

[jimmydeanno]

I'm sure he will get right on telling you that...

Hummmm, strange.

Not really, it seems par for the course.  I've never seen an IG investigation go well.  Not because the complaint wasn't justified, but because the IG's have never followed their own program rules, or play the "we've suspended them, so we'll just let them expire, because they're angry at CAP, instead of pursuing the complaint" deal.

[RRLE]

Why would we be "an" auxiliary?  Is there ANOTHER AF Aux out there that I don't know about?

USAF MARS

The Military Auxiliary Radio System (MARS) - formerly known as Military Affiliate Radio System - is a Department of Defense (DOD) sponsored program, established as separate managed and operated programs by the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The program consists of licensed amateur radio operators who are interested in military communications. They contribute to the MARS mission providing auxiliary or emergency communications on a local, national, and international basis as an adjunct to normal communications.

[Ned]

I've never seen an IG investigation go well. 

Not really all that surprising since - unless you are the complainant, the IG, or the commander - you will typically never see an investigation.  In order to protect the interests of both the complainant and the subject of the complaint, the ROI is confidential.  (See CAPR 123-2 para 8(o))  The regulation requires that the complainant be kept informed periodically on the status of the complaint and there are procedures for a complainant to request further review if they are unsatisfied with the result.  There IG's records are held confidentially and have a destruction schedule to preserve the confidentiality of the process.

Reasonable minds can differ about how confidential an IG process should be, and I imagine that different organizations do it somewhat differently.  The IGs tell me that our system (including the confidentiality aspects) is modeled closely on the USAF model, with some necessary differences.

Bottom line, most CAP members will never see how an IG investigation "goes," one way or another.

[jimmydeanno]

I have no problem with the confidentiality, and I have no problem with the process as written.  However, I have never seen an IG investigation that followed those prescribed rules, either on the IG side, or the actions taken by the Wing Commander.  I was a member of a unit who had 8 of it's members suspended because a cadet filed a false sexual harassment complaint against them.  The suspension limits listed and the actions required to be done by specific deadlines were never completed.

The investigating officer decided that they weren't going to pursue the investigation because most of the members were close enough to their membership expiration dates that they just "hoped" that none of them would renew.  None of the subjects of the complaint were ever informed of the status of the investigation, nor the result.

It was the same thing for the next four that I had to participate in. 

[Ned]

I have never seen an IG investigation that followed those prescribed rules, either on the IG side, or the actions taken by the Wing Commander.

So, how many IG investigations have you participated in?  (Your answer suggests five.)  In how many of them were you the IO, IG, complainant, or subject?

IOW, how do you know that the rules were not followed?

I'm not suggesting that IGs are not overworked or even inefficient on occasion.  Sometimes, regular complaints get bumped by "priority" investigations (see CAPR 123-2).  Based on the briefings I get, I know that not all investigations are completed within the timelines in the reg.

But based on the logs and documents I see, it appears that the great majority of IG investigations are completed in a timely manner. 

I was a member of a unit who had 8 of it's members suspended because a cadet filed a false sexual harassment complaint against them.  [. . .]

Sounds like a large investigation, all right.  I don't envy the IO or IG assigned.  But how do you know what the motivations of the IO were?

To be personally involved in five or more IG investigations is a little unusual.  Most CAP members go through their career without ever being involved in a single one.

I do think that we need to improve our IG system to increase accountability and speed of investigations.  It might be as simple as adequately resourcing the existing system to allow IGs time and resources to get out into the field and do the investigations.  It might take a more systemic fix.  And I think that some additional sunshine would help set the standards all of us.  I have suggested that the IG staff periodically publish sanitized ROIs along with actions taken; sorta like Uncle Sam does for safety situations.  That way we can all learn from other's mistakes, and see that wrongdoer's (and commanders) are held accountable.

It's on my list of CAP Stuff to Do.

[peter rabbit]

I'm not suggesting that IGs are not overworked or even inefficient on occasion.  Sometimes, regular complaints get bumped by "priority" investigations (see CAPR 123-2).  Based on the briefings I get, I know that not all investigations are completed within the timelines in the reg.

But based on the logs and documents I see, it appears that the great majority of IG investigations are completed in a timely manner. 

I do think that we need to improve our IG system to increase accountability and speed of investigations.  It might be as simple as adequately resourcing the existing system to allow IGs time and resources to get out into the field and do the investigations.  It might take a more systemic fix.  And I think that some additional sunshine would help set the standards all of us.  I have suggested that the IG staff periodically publish sanitized ROIs along with actions taken; sorta like Uncle Sam does for safety situations.  That way we can all learn from other's mistakes, and see that wrongdoer's (and commanders) are held accountable.

It's on my list of CAP Stuff to Do.

I've had the opportunity to be involved in the IG system. For the most part, I've seen it work well - few people became aware that there was an investigation, members were cooperative, the facts were determined within a reasonable period of time considering work schedules, other factors. There were gripes by complainants that wanted to know who complained and the exact nature of the complaint, but the process as written worked the way is was supposed to - the complainant was protected, and there weren't legal "games".

However, other than the regulation stating

Promoting, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of ethical conduct in Civil Air Patrol is a command responsibility.

there is no requirement that any action be taken or within a time frame.

Ned, on your list of stuff to do, would you consider adding:
1. Require that an ROI be acted on by the commander within a reasonable time period. The credibility of the system is impaired when the ROI sits for months - even years.
2. Either require some action be taken when serious findings are sustained - or provide some means of reviewing/modifying the results when no action is taken. Maybe your idea of publishing a santitized ROI along with a sanitized commander's response would be a start.
3. Require that non-member parents of cadets agree to the ethics code as a part of permitting their cadet to participate.
4. Require that non-member parents of cadets agree to the rules of the complaint process if they file or participate in a complaint.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I really doubt I would have got anywhere by going to Region or National.

What would I have gained?

First of all, consider the time period: The Generalissimo was National CC.  Not a high point on the ethics calendar for CAP's upper echelons.

Second, the subject had a position at Wing and was much better known there than this unimportant worker bee, not to mention a lot better at glad-handing (you wouldn't know it from my posts on CT, but I really am very reserved) than I will ever be.

Third, when I got the little "motivational speech" from the higher-ups (with the subject present) I was left with much less of my butt than I had before, plus I was ordered to apologise to the subject for initiating the investigation.  Fortunately, I did hold my cool (amazing even to me in retrospect).

I'm pretty good at reading situations...comes from doing a lot of observing and little talking...and the chorus from Kenny Rogers' The Gambler came to mind.  When my membership came up for renewal, I let it expire.

Oh, it was handled expeditiously, all right...in fact, the preparation of the paperwork and supporting documentation that I did took longer to do than it did for the powers that be to reach a decision.

Chances are very good that if I had pursued it further, all I would have ended up with is a 2B.

But, that was a long time ago and chances are very good I'll never see any of that lot again, unless it is at a National conference or something like that.

I will not make use of the IG system again, not unless I'm ordered to.

[peter rabbit]

Third, when I got the little "motivational speech" from the higher-ups (with the subject present) I was left with much less of my butt than I had before, plus I was ordered to apologise to the subject for initiating the investigation.  Fortunately, I did hold my cool (amazing even to me in retrospect).

IMO, ordering you to apologize to the subject for initiating the investigation is a violation of the current complaint process, as it disclosed the identity of the complainant to the subject.

[peter rabbit]

Back to the original topic: I joined because it was a way for me to fly, and for me to give back to my community and country. I've stayed because of the friends I've made and because I believe in our ability to contribute - like at DWH. I have encountered problems like will be found in any large organization. One is the issue of uniforms. What would I prefer: standardized, reasonably stable, accepted by most, and no corporate vs aux mentality. Will it happen? I don't know.

We need the affiliation with the AF, it is a part of our tradition, and it can make us better than other organizations. However, we also need the corporate missions to help justify the expense and to provide opportunities to keep members active and interested. Why can't both sides accept that and play well together?

[Hardshell Clam]

The investigating officer decided that they weren't going to pursue the investigation because most of the members were close enough to their membership expiration dates that they just "hoped" that none of them would renew.  None of the subjects of the complaint were ever informed of the status of the investigation, nor the result.

It was the same thing for the next four that I had to participate in.

First the disclaimer: I am in no way staing that is did not happen, however I accept no liability for the content of this email, or for the constequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided   Hope this keeps the flamers happy.

Now that question: How did you become privy to this information?

[jimmydeanno]

At the time, most of those suspended were cadets.  When 8 of your most active members disappear out of the blue, you know something is up. 

I was also contacted by parents of the cadets suspended to determine what their options were (since the IG, nor the Wing Commander provided any information on how an IG investigation was supposed to go, nor the rules of the suspension enacted). It really is fun to get 6 scathing phone calls from parents because some random person just called them to tell them that their child is accused of some sort of sexual deviancy and can't go to CAP anymore.

It's even more fun to get phone calls from senior members with security clearances, jobs that deal with children, etc. worried that this false accusation might affect their real life jobs and how they're supposed to deal with it.

I was briefed on the reason the members were suspended.  60 days later, after all the parents of the cadets had heard nothing about the investigation, yet their child was still suspended, they came to me to find out their options and why their cadet wasn't reinstated per the regulations at the time. 

(3) Suspected Cadet Abuse or Unfavorable Information. Any member may be suspended for alleged or suspected cadet abuse, any time other information is received which, if substantiated, would make the member subject to termination, or while an internal investigation of such allegations is pending. The suspension is effective for up to 60 days and may be continued beyond that time in the event criminal actions are pending or further internal investigation is required. Additional 60 day suspensions will be approved by the next higher authority with justification why the extension is required. Suspensions pending an internal investigation may not exceed 180 days without approval of the National Executive Committee.

Since those members were not told of the internal investigation status, after 60 days they came back.  The Wing Commander told them they were still suspended, and the regulation battle ensued.  The wing commander then told us that "These members are close enough to their membership expiration that they'll hopefully just go away."  even though they did nothing wrong.

Three of those cadets have since graduated from the USAFA, the seniors have moved on with their lives, and the accuser who has apparently made an unsubstantiated claim of a sexual nature is, to my knowledge, still a member of CAP.  Of course, none of the parties ever received the result of the investigation, but it must be unsubstantiated because none of the seniors were arrested, none of the cadets were terminated.

I'm not sure if there was any correlation, but a few months later, we had a "Lt Col XXXX, former Wing Commander." 

The other investigations that I've been privy to (because they don't happen in a vacuum, there is always some indication that something is going on, whether it be providing witness statements, getting notification of suspension from members, etc) have also resulted in a half-assed investigation that is geared towards hoping the parties involved just don't renew - without any further mention of the status of the investigation.

Is it any wonder we have so many MARB actions?

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

IMO, ordering you to apologize to the subject for initiating the investigation is a violation of the current complaint process, as it disclosed the identity of the complainant to the subject.

The subject already knew.

We'd been at cross purposes for some time.