HWSNBN and Harwell

[Mitchell 1969]

A good theory, but fails when you consider it would have been a lot easier to just take his second star back then
to redo all the uniforms.

He kept the star.

I was around then. That's the way I remember it. Can I document it? No.

I think that the petty USAF response to CAP as ann organization, rather than to one person, was due to USAF being embarrassed about it all. The promotion had been engineered through SECAF and not USAF chain of command, so it was done and USAF couldn't undo it. Also, USAF discovered that they could not stop similar things from happening based on how things were set up. So....USAF flexed its muscles to show CAP who was boss.

[MSG Mac]

So... Harwell decides to self-promote himself to MJ in 1987, angering the Air Force Chief of Staff.  After an "audit" (ordered by who?) it was found that CAP uniforms needed to be more "more distinctive" in 1990.  And so enters the maroon epaulets.  I'm sure the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.  Not at all.

A good theory, but fails when you consider it would have been a lot easier to just take his second star back then
to redo all the uniforms.

He kept the second star.

"...a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma..."

At that time USAF didn't have control over CAP grade and the star was legit, as a result of the NEC vote. Immediately thereafter the USAF took that control, especially stating that General Officer appointments had to be approved by the USAF. Harwell's was ambitious, but the promotion was legal. My concern with him was his telling a member who was passed over for a Squadron command " There has never been a black commander in NCWG, and as long as I'm commander, there never will be".

[lordmonar]

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.

So you are just trolling. 

[lordmonar]

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.

Being in the USAF for 22 years.....I can read the double talk here.

"as a result of an IG....."  That's code for we sicked our dogs against you.
"one of the findings was that the CAP uniform should be more distinctive from the
Air Force uniform".....that's code for "those bastards want to be generals.....we'll make them look like clowns"

Nothing from this response makes me think that this was not PUNITIVE....it may have been written up in reasonable managment IG speak....but that is how you play at that level.....no one ever gets fired....they look for employment elsewhere or look to improve their home life.

[lordmonar]

I have a vested interest in making sure that facts and the truth are stated and not hearsay or rumors.  You and a few others specifically you have been adamant about making sure that a falsity stays alive, again you have no proof that the boards were punitive in nature outside of hearsay.

You have vested interest?    In what way?   

[abdsp51]

So you are just trolling. 

No sir.  The premise is simply that without proof it's hearsay and rumor, and no one outside of word of mouth has been able to substantiate that the change was forced based on one incident.  This topic comes up frequently but and its the same thing that oh we're still being punished for this incident but no one has any proof.  This is the same premise as gossip and rumors running around.  I ask you sir do you always take things at face value?

And to answer your previous question reread the post, the truth and the facts are presented and not hearsay.  Someone please show me some documentation to indicate it was punitive?

[lordmonar]

My apologies for missing that. I see it now.

while I understand your zeal in quashing the hearsay, I had a serious doubt you'll find much more than an "official version" of events in an FOIA request. Why might the SECAF have decided "You know, that functional inspection... We should just do a broad area review on CAP, you know, to be sure.."?

Unless there were reasons.  The non-official version could have been a doorway conversation that went like this:  "Jerry, I'm sending you down to Maxwell to do a broad review of the CAP.  After that whole Harwell thing, I want a closer look at these people."

It's quite possible, however I am not buying that Harwell is the sole reason for the change.  An old saying that I have always strive to do things by "Trust but verify".  I'm not buying the hearsay and really without something solid that's all it is is hearsay.  How many can honestly say they have dug into this at all?

No one is saying Harwell is the sole reason.  There was also the CAP major who got M-16 from some SP Airman who could not tell the difference between a CAP officer and a "real" officer.  There was also all those "wive tales" of CAP officers pulling rank and trolling for salutes on base.   No one is saying Harwell was the straw that broke the camels back even.......but we are saying that the USAF was pissed at CAP and they got their revenge by forcing us to wear maroon boards....and now gray boards.

And there is now way for me to back that up....because there is no way that was ever written down....USAF generals are usually not that stupid.

[lordmonar]

So... Harwell decides to self-promote himself to MJ in 1987, angering the Air Force Chief of Staff.  After an "audit" (ordered by who?) it was found that CAP uniforms needed to be more "more distinctive" in 1990.  And so enters the maroon epaulets.  I'm sure the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.  Not at all.

A good theory, but fails when you consider it would have been a lot easier to just take his second star back then
to redo all the uniforms.

He kept the second star.

"...a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma..."

Because AF Chief of Staff found out he did not have to power to take back the star....but he could open an IG audit and he could make sure that CAP got it's pee pee whacked.   

[abdsp51]

My apologies for missing that. I see it now.

while I understand your zeal in quashing the hearsay, I had a serious doubt you'll find much more than an "official version" of events in an FOIA request. Why might the SECAF have decided "You know, that functional inspection... We should just do a broad area review on CAP, you know, to be sure.."?

Unless there were reasons.  The non-official version could have been a doorway conversation that went like this:  "Jerry, I'm sending you down to Maxwell to do a broad review of the CAP.  After that whole Harwell thing, I want a closer look at these people."

It's quite possible, however I am not buying that Harwell is the sole reason for the change.  An old saying that I have always strive to do things by "Trust but verify".  I'm not buying the hearsay and really without something solid that's all it is is hearsay.  How many can honestly say they have dug into this at all?

No one is saying Harwell is the sole reason.  There was also the CAP major who got M-16 from some SP Airman who could not tell the difference between a CAP officer and a "real" officer.  There was also all those "wive tales" of CAP officers pulling rank and trolling for salutes on base.   No one is saying Harwell was the straw that broke the camels back even.......but we are saying that the USAF was pissed at CAP and they got their revenge by forcing us to wear maroon boards....and now gray boards.

And there is now way for me to back that up....because there is no way that was ever written down....USAF generals are usually not that stupid.

I can name a few incidents where a few have been stupid.

[lordmonar]

"usually"   

[Panache]

Because AF Chief of Staff found out he did not have to power to take back the star....but he could open an IG audit and he could make sure that CAP got it's pee pee whacked.   

And it's probably a safe bet that the AF Chief of Staff (who, according to Wiki, was a General Larry D. Welch) told the IG exactly what he wanted to results to be.

[Panache]

And to answer your previous question reread the post, the truth and the facts are presented and not hearsay.  Someone please show me some documentation to indicate it was punitive?

And there is no proof that the theory of evolution or the Big Bang are true, either.  But, based on the preponderance of the available data, I personally believe that both theories are the most probable answers.

[FW]

When the change from hard rank to maroon "slides" came into effect, I was just asked to join my wing's staff. I remember that first wing conference when the ppt. came on, giving us instructions on the B.A.R. and our new grade insignia.  Everyone in the room got the message when our Wing Liason Officer gave us the "official" reasons.  Later that night, we got the scuddlebut.  Yes, it was just "hearsay".  We now all understood the "why".  Many members felt it was a slap in our collective faces and left CAP for good.  I didn't hear the story about the conflicts between the SECAF and CSAF until just a few years ago by the National Historian.  He said we have documents in the archives that are clear cut.  IF true, it would settle the matter, however it would cut off the discussion.  Kind of like cutting off the disscussion about the "CSU" after reading the letter from the SECAF's office saying the uniform was acceptable. 

[Garibaldi]

Geeez, how did we turn this thread into another uniform thread? It is incredibly amazing. 

There's a scientific method to the madness. I don't have a name for it, but it goes something like this:

CAP members are obsessed with uniforms.
The half-life for any topic degenerating into a uniform thread is 1.2 pages.
Therefore the half-life of CAPTalk reverting to a uniform-only board is...past due.
Form over function is 83% of the argument.
The argument is split almost evenly between historical precedent, H/W standards, and public perception.
The other 17% relates to cadets and is irrelevant, but is also split almost evenly between regional variants, Honor Guard, and the argument of spit shining boots and pressing and starching BDUs.
Member opinion counts for 83% of the topic drift. The other 17% is based on fact (regs).

Conclusion: CAP is mostly driven by member opinion of the uniform's form over function.

[NIN]

Member opinion counts for 83% of the topic drift. The other 17% is based on fact (regs).

You do realize that 93.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot, right?

[PHall]

Member opinion counts for 83% of the topic drift. The other 17% is based on fact (regs).

You do realize that 93.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot, right?

And 50% of those are wrong!

[NIN]

And 50% of those are wrong!

Only 45% Phil.

[MSG Mac]

Member opinion counts for 83% of the topic drift. The other 17% is based on fact (regs).

You do realize that 93.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot, right?

Lies, [darn] Lies, Statistics.

[rugger1869]

So lets see it.

What audit? Who did the audit? HAF? CAP-USAF? 

An email from NHQ, sorry to say, reflecting an action that took place 25 years ago, is not what I would call "conclusive."

What does HAF mean? I saw this recently in another USAF context and I can't seem to find a definition.

[a2capt]

HQ AF.