New CAP Chaplain uniform?

Started by jacklumanog, March 09, 2007, 12:45:04 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jacklumanog

Wow... did I miss something here?

From this news item on the CAP HQ website (http://capmsi.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&nodeID=6192&newsID=2836&year=2007&month=3), CAP Chaplains from the FLWG assisted with some exercise.  The CAP Chaplains are in a uniform that I don't recall being authorized to wear:





Again, did I miss something here?
Ch, Lt Col Jon I. Lumanog, CAP
Special Assistant to the National Chief of Chaplains for Diversity of Ministry

Chaplaindon

Note the ACU nametags worn "U.S. Air Force Aux" too ...

Regardless of the uniform issue(s), it's nice to see CAP HCs in the field supporting our military forces. That having been said, you'd think that NHQ would have chosen to feature them in an article in proper uniforms.

Hopefully this will not cause a rash of "U.S. Air Force Aux" nametags and unauthorized ACU wear by other members.
Rev. Don Brown, Ch., Lt Col, CAP (Ret.)
Former Deputy Director for CISM at CAP/HQ
Gill Robb Wilson Award # 1660
ACS-Chaplain, VFC, IPFC, DSO, NSO, USCG Auxiliary
AUXOP

RiverAux

At least he had the color rank insignia -- though lacking the blue background.

MIKE

Just for giggles... You can get flag blue on ACU insignia here.

If we had that uniform it would be a lot less hassle to change out the branch tapes.
Mike Johnston

LtCol White

Wonder what NHQ's opinion of the uniform will be. "Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm"
LtCol David P. White CAP   
HQ LAWG

Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska

Diplomacy - The ability to tell someone to "Go to hell" and have them look forward to making the trip.

RiverAux

Now, there was some sort of MOU signed for CAP Chaplains to assist Florida National Guard.  It is possible that there may have been some sort of special uniform clause that was part of it that "legalized" this -- though I sort of doubt it. 

Hawk200

#6
There are Airmen that wear the ACU's, so I guess it's not too much of a stretch. Personally, I'd like to see something in writing that authorizes it. Otherwise, it's trouble waiting to happen.

RiverAux

National public affairs watches this board pretty closely, I'll say that there is a good chance that those photos get taken off tomorrow....

Lamh Dearg

Just throwing it out there, but since the Chaplains are providing assistance to the military, should that not fall under the "USAF Aux side of the house" since they are working with a Federal entity? Assuming that's the case then they are indeed operating as USAF Aux personnel - now having said that, the question still remains who authorized the wear of ACUs and also the USAF Aux tape.

Personally, I think the fact that they are assisting an active duty unit and also work with other NG units is laudible and should fit well with what many on this board have called for which is more integration in an augment capacity with USAF and beyond.   

RiverAux

I'm sure it was an Air Force Assigned Mission. 

Another possibility might be that someone in the National Guard put together that uniform for them without understanding our regulations.

Chaplaindon

It could also be a sort of compulsory "When in Rome do as the Romans do" situation.

Imagine agreeing to volunteer for a military exercise as a CAP chaplain only to arrive on-site in your appropriately patched CAP/USAF woodland BDU and face a General Officer (let's say, for the sake of the scenario) who hands you an ACU (replete with your name emblazoned on it along with "U.S. AIR FORCE AUX.") and instructs (even orders) you to wear it.

Do you create a "scene" between a CAP Chaplain (Major) and a NG General Officer by refusing to do as instructed and walking away? Or do you salute and do as you are told?

I mean that General really can't order a CAP civilian to do anything. We are not subject to the UCMJ. But it could cause an enormous rift between the NG and CAP if poorly handled.

An interesting moral dilemma. I know, at worst, I wouldn't submit my photos to the CAP News.

Fodder for discussion at least ...
Rev. Don Brown, Ch., Lt Col, CAP (Ret.)
Former Deputy Director for CISM at CAP/HQ
Gill Robb Wilson Award # 1660
ACS-Chaplain, VFC, IPFC, DSO, NSO, USCG Auxiliary
AUXOP

DNall

Quote from: RiverAux on March 09, 2007, 03:15:53 AM
Another possibility might be that someone in the National Guard put together that uniform for them without understanding our regulations.
I was thinking the same thing. I very seriously doubt they went out & sprung for a full set of ACUs, and just so happened that both did the same thing.

Sure is an interesting look. I don't think NHQ will or should take down the pics (though they may cut the link to the big one where you can read the tape). I think it gets across just what they were doing & leaves enough doubt if the mil authorized it for them to get away with it.

The mroe I think about it it seems like this must be related to that NG thing, cause the story seemed like it was talking about an active duty AF unit, that would not be in ACUs.

Nick

Yeah, knowing how well-equipped the Army works ... I think the most realistic scenario is that they were issued those uniforms along with what looks like an entire TA-50 for the event, and I'm sure for the primary purpose of bringing in the chaplains as "part of the team", etc. etc.

On a personal note, I think it's excellent... they don't stand out as the red-headed step-children of the outfit, and I think they look quite professional.  But, I've also historically entrusted chaplains to be the most responsible and behaved subset of members. :)

I do wish that the Air Force (and CAP for that matter) would just go with the ACU and do away with this whole ABU product.  Save money, use already developed items.  But I wasn't invited to that project group. :)

(And an aside ... they're wearing the Army Chaplain insignia too. :))
Nicholas McLarty, Lt Col, CAP
Texas Wing Staff Guy
National Cadet Team Guy Emeritus

PhoenixRisen

I'm sure it's been brought up before; but has anyone ever suggested getting 'U.S. AIR FORCE AUX' on our tapes?

Chappie

Quote from: mclarty on March 09, 2007, 05:17:33 AM
Yeah, knowing how well-equipped the Army works ... I think the most realistic scenario is that they were issued those uniforms along with what looks like an entire TA-50 for the event, and I'm sure for the primary purpose of bringing in the chaplains as "part of the team", etc. etc.

On a personal note, I think it's excellent... they don't stand out as the red-headed step-children of the outfit, and I think they look quite professional.  But, I've also historically entrusted chaplains to be the most responsible and behaved subset of members. :)

<snip>

(And an aside ... they're wearing the Army Chaplain insignia too. :))

While the chaplains are not wearing a CAP uniform, I think McLarty's scenario is what took place.  They appear to be wearing National Guard uniforms....and as McLarty pointed out...the cross on their uniforms is that of the U.S. Army.  The USAF Chaplain Service does not wear subdued "hard" insignias on their BDUs (which are woodland pattern --- spent several days a couple of weeks ago at a CSRSC on an active AFB and took note of what the base chaplains wore as everyday uniforms....BDUs).
Disclaimer:  Not to be confused with the other user that goes by "Chappy"   :)

lordmonar

I am wearing my brown leather A-2 jacket with my Flight suit next SAREX.  I mean if national has is not going to back up its own regulations any better than that.  I guess I can do just about anything I want to.

Back a couple of years ago...my cadets performed a flag ceremony in Japan.  I submitted the story to NHQ with some pictures.....all my pictures were rejected because some had cadets with no wing patch or were wearing Gortex or no CAP name tapes.

But they allow this?  Great story....good for them.  What the hell is going on with the uniform.  Sure it's cool....but think of the message.  Anyone not totally outraged about this photo is not allowed to make a single comment out NHQ not following directives or too much bling or that PA wing is issuing pink berets! 
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

DNall

Quote from: lordmonar on March 09, 2007, 06:31:43 AM
that PA wing is issuing pink berets! 
Woohoo, pink berets for everyone... in san fran that is.

Of course you're right, and of course they shouldn't have posted it, but I think they'll leave it cause it seems to be leaning forward in a direction they like, or it'll slip out that it was authorized for this event by XYZ on request of ABC, and even though we all know that doesn't make it legal we'll just grumble on home & let it go. Meanwhile they call it leaning forward, so I don't think they'll take it down.

PS- I'm with Nick that AF should just drop ABU & stick beside the Army on this one. I really don't like the grade down there out of sight & loss of branch insignia, but otherwise ACUs are pretty good.

ddelaney103

This is wrong on so many levels I'm not sure where to begin.

Top of my list - why is there a CAP Chaplain in full "Battle Rattle?"  That's an image up there in the "PAO's nightmare" list with that picture of the Navy chaplain fully geared up forcefully presenting the cross (I can't find the link right now).

If they're supporting the exercise, they don't need a different uniform from CAP.  If they're participating, they're pushing the "non-combat support" role to the edge and beyond, as well as violating a few IG ORE ROE's.

FLWG, eh?  Why is it when I'm probing for where the pain's coming from, I usually find it in the SE Quadrant?

Psicorp

Quote from: ddelaney103 on March 09, 2007, 02:28:08 PM
This is wrong on so many levels I'm not sure where to begin.

Top of my list - why is there a CAP Chaplain in full "Battle Rattle?" 

I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that it was requested by the Army and approved by the Air Force...big stretch, but I'm willing to consider the possibility as plausible.

Quote
FLWG, eh?  Why is it when I'm probing for where the pain's coming from, I usually find it in the SE Quadrant?

One word...Maxwell.

Jamie Kahler, Capt., CAP
(C/Lt Col, ret.)
CC
GLR-MI-257

Chaplaindon

The "Battle Rattle" (by itself) isn't a problem for chaplains as long as they are not armed. You can wear the load bearing gear (in fact the current issue field chaplain's kit is designed to be attached to LBG hearness). A Kevlar helmet might be a useful safety adjunct in the field (sort of like the Nomex flying suits some of our flight crews wear, ostensibly for the same reason). Likewise, CAP members who've been fortunate enough to receive an orientation flight in a military tactical aircraft have been required to don the full "survival/safety/battle rattle" (less handgun) for the flight.

Military chaplains (and CAP chaplains) dress and are equiped --usually-- as are the folks they are serving (and serving with) and the operational setting they are in.

Mind you, I have issues with the uniform violations (insofar as the chaplains are CAP) displayed and the example it will set, however, as I wrote earlier, I could understand a scenario wherein I'd have to consider doing the same. Although I think I'd have sought to wear --at least-- my USAF/CAP chaplain's badge if my uniform listed some permutation of "USAF" as theirs did.

And IMHO (for what that's worth) the ACU is a great looking and functional uniform and I (personally) PREFER "U.S. AIR FORCE AUX." on my namestrip to "U.S. CIVIL AIR PATROL."

But the so-called "battle rattle" (exclusive of weaponry -- chaplains are noncombatants and are to be unarmed, however protected by enlisted Chaplain Assistants who are armed) isn't and shouldn't --of itself-- be a problem. I mean our GT's often carry as much kit (less the Kevlar cooking pot) in similar LBG in CAP ... as a GTM1 and a GTL, I know I have.

If, on the other hand, I pick up and "bear" a weapon while in uniform, I lose my ecclesiatical endorsement as a chaplain and would have to remove my badge from my uniform and assume duties as a non-chaplain CAP officer.
Rev. Don Brown, Ch., Lt Col, CAP (Ret.)
Former Deputy Director for CISM at CAP/HQ
Gill Robb Wilson Award # 1660
ACS-Chaplain, VFC, IPFC, DSO, NSO, USCG Auxiliary
AUXOP

pixelwonk

Geez guys, don't make this into a Spanish Inquisition.  ;)

NIN

Having seen situations like this (our wing chaplain has been requested to serve with the local NG chaplains when they do a de-mob of a unit returning from the SWA AOR, for example, and he's a fully involved member of the team. They treat him like they would any other Captain chaplain.. Period. He's even gotten to go with the NG chaplains to brief the higher-HQs on their process and such..), I would bet that the situation was a tactical one where the safety rules said "Everybody in K-pots..period!" and some forward thinking individual said "While you're at it, put these guys in ACUs so they don't stick out.."  and that was that.

Is it a problem?  I say "No." USAF personnel have, for YEARS, worn the uniform and patches of the non-USAF unit they're attached to.  They do it for the duration and then they stop doing it when they're done.

Now, if these said same chaplains were to arrive at a CAP encampment wearing their new-found ACUs and Auxiliary tapes, that would be an ENTIRELY different matter.

But it appears that this was done for the duration of a mobilization at the behest of the chain of command of the supported unit.  Smile, nod and continue on with life.



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

ddelaney103

Non concur.  Strenuously.

Military chaplains wear all the gear, sans arms, when serving in battlespace/gamespace, depending on whether it's real world or just an exercise.

For example, for our ORI "sky pilots" wore full harness and MOPP gear to do their jobs.  Same thing in-country.

CAP Chaplains don't serve in combat, period.  Likewise, CAP Chaplains should not be in the gamespace as players.  If they're supporting the exercise participants outside of gamespace, BDU's should be fine.

When these pictures get detached from the story, and they will, they will wander around the net leaving a trail of questions and mistaken ideas.  there's just no reason for it.

CAP Producer

As a PAO I think it's a win-win for us.

Our chaplains are being shown as part of the team and that is very cool.

This publicity will go a long way towards recruiting chaplains for CAP.

If a CAP chaplain can serve in his community and help the military once in a while we all win.

The uniforming is not a big deal as long as the rules are followed. My understanding is that the rule is you wear their (USA, USAF, USN, USMC) outfits with appropriate accoutrement's (your rank, service tape etc...) when working with them. We don't want our augmentees to be targets.

This is done with civilians all of the time in the warzone.

As far as other CAP members doing this kind of work. I just don't see it.

HC's must meet the same standards and have the same endorsements as military HC's. Hence they can be almost interchangeable and easily do this work.

Some very experienced and senior PAO's could be augmentees as an example. In my case I would be lost in an AF PAO's office and the work I could do would be somewhat limited without 1-2 weeks training on AF PA policy and procedures.

Most other CAP specialities with the exception of Legal Officers and Medical types have no comparison and the training time would be huge to bring them up to an acceptable standard.

Capt Al Pabon
Deputy Director, Public Affairs
North Central Region
AL PABON, Major, CAP

lordmonar

I can't see how this is a win-win situation.

Yes externally it looks good.  The ACUs are sharp, they look professional and they show how we are interacting and training with the National Guard.

But interally it is a total loss.

They are in an unauthorised uniform...they wearing branch tapes for a branch that does not exist.  With NHQ posting on their web sight they have given the go ahead for any squadron commander to direct his people to do the same at his location.

How can your local squadron commander correct someone who is wearing the uniform inproperly when national does not do the same.

Let's all go back to the boonie hat thread and look at our comments there.  If FLWG chaplains can wear ACU's with USAF-AUX on their name tapes and national praises them for it, I see no problem with authorising boonie hats and brown A-2 with the USAF flight suit.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Nick Critelli

Different rules apply to CAP Chaplains:

Title 10 USC 9446(b):  " Use of Civil Air Patrol chaplains.--The Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of Civil Air Patrol chaplains in support of the Air Force active duty and reserve component forces to the extent and under conditions that the Secretary determines appropriate."

Likewise the Secretary has the authority to assign them to assist any other military branch. The uniform that they wear would depend upon the situation and requirements of the assignment. 

When so tasked they are considered USAF Aux under Title 10 USC 9442.

RiverAux

The direct link to the article that was in the first post still works, but this article is no longer listed on the index of CAP News Online articles. 

This is absolutely the sort of work that CAP should be doing and eventually we should be wearing a uniform like that. 

However, different rules DO NOT apply to chaplains as cited by LTC Critelli.  The clause is essentially no different than the one under which any CAP member could augment for the AF.  I have no idea why they even inserted that particular statement as it is entirely redundant. 

I'm not outraged by it as I suspect, as I mentioned earlier and someone elaborated on, that someone in the NG gave them the uniform and they wore it out of politeness.  Yes, they could also have been put in the "blank" uniform like civilians often wear, but putting the USAF Aux on there went a tad too far. 

A.Member

I'm not going to speculate on what may or may not have transpired with uniforms or anything else.

However, I think it is fantastic that these two Chaplains were able to assist in such a way.  This is the type of work that should make us all proud! 

Furthermore, right/wrong/or other, I like the "U.S. Air Force Aux" nametape - if national insists upon changing the nametape, that is the change that should be made!
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Eclipse

Quote from: A.Member on March 09, 2007, 07:30:14 PM
However, I think it is fantastic that these two Chaplains were able to assist in such a way.  This is the type of work that should make us all proud! 

Furthermore, right/wrong/or other, I like the "U.S. Air Force Aux" nametape - if national insists upon changing the nametape, that is the change that should be made!

And THAT is the exact reason which is why this is Good Intentions, Rt 12, with an exit to Hell Valley.

what they were DOING is "fantastic", their leaders do not want to rock the boat by  quotig "silly regulations" that "just get in the way".

What they are forgetting is that those same "silly regulations" >PROTECT< their people and the organization.

It won't be a problem, until its a problem, and then the lawyers can have a field day with this.

Don't give NHQ credit for even readin those stories - I douobt anyone is looking at them until someone complains. 

"That Others May Zoom"

afgeo4

#29
Quote from: Chappie on March 09, 2007, 05:42:46 AM
Quote from: mclarty on March 09, 2007, 05:17:33 AM
Yeah, knowing how well-equipped the Army works ... I think the most realistic scenario is that they were issued those uniforms along with what looks like an entire TA-50 for the event, and I'm sure for the primary purpose of bringing in the chaplains as "part of the team", etc. etc.

On a personal note, I think it's excellent... they don't stand out as the red-headed step-children of the outfit, and I think they look quite professional.  But, I've also historically entrusted chaplains to be the most responsible and behaved subset of members. :)

<snip>

(And an aside ... they're wearing the Army Chaplain insignia too. :))

While the chaplains are not wearing a CAP uniform, I think McLarty's scenario is what took place.  They appear to be wearing National Guard uniforms....and as McLarty pointed out...the cross on their uniforms is that of the U.S. Army.  The USAF Chaplain Service does not wear subdued "hard" insignias on their BDUs (which are woodland pattern --- spent several days a couple of weeks ago at a CSRSC on an active AFB and took note of what the base chaplains wore as everyday uniforms....BDUs).

Take note again... subdued officer/chaplain insignia is authorized for wear with BDU covers (for ALL services excl USMC I believe). Bright metal insignia may be worn in Garrison (on base) only. That is the regulation for Army and Air Force. It has been interpreted as wear of bright metal is for all, but field situations while subdued insignia is worn in the field. As such, what you'd see on base would be bright metal insignia and what you'd see on a BDU cover or a PASGT helmet cover in training or combat would be either subdued metal or subdued sew-on insignia for officers and chaplains.

Having said that... the uniform combination in question may have been authorized by the Wing Military Liaison officer based on request from the US Army. The Army does not want their members to treat these chaplains any differently than any Army chaplains. They would also prefer that all friendlies wear the same uniform while training for combat. Thus, uniforms were issued and name tapes were made custom, authorized specifically for this mission. Considering that this unit is either under or supports the USSOC community, there's no surprise that they may have asked for special considerations.

Combat airmen of AFSOC on occasion wear the ACUs as well (TACP and Combat Weathermen specifically). Especially when attached to Army units. The last thing you want to do is look different from those that surround you in combat. It leads to friendly fire incidents, confusion among friendly forces, and specific targeting from the enemy when they start thinking that you're either a high ranked officer, a foreign officer, a dignitary, or perhaps a special agency officer. That's why you'll find USAF ACU name/branch tapes and rank tabs offered online in limited quantities.

Knowing that ACU accessories will be authorized (and perhaps the only ones authorized) for wear with ABU, I've purchased an ACUPAT assault pack and put an Air Force blue thread ACU nametape on it. A full color US flag as well. (No branch identifiers are on it, so it's legal.)
GEORGE LURYE

afgeo4

Anyone notice how with improperly positioned LBE/backpack the "Aux" part of a chaplain's branch tape is blocked leaving him to be identified as Air Force personnel? I'm pretty sure THAT may become the reason why we don't wear insignia such as that.
GEORGE LURYE

A.Member

Quote from: Eclipse on March 09, 2007, 07:38:30 PM
Quote from: A.Member on March 09, 2007, 07:30:14 PM
However, I think it is fantastic that these two Chaplains were able to assist in such a way.  This is the type of work that should make us all proud! 

Furthermore, right/wrong/or other, I like the "U.S. Air Force Aux" nametape - if national insists upon changing the nametape, that is the change that should be made!

And THAT is the exact reason which is why this is Good Intentions, Rt 12, with an exit to Hell Valley.

what they were DOING is "fantastic", their leaders do not want to rock the boat by  quotig "silly regulations" that "just get in the way".

What they are forgetting is that those same "silly regulations" >PROTECT< their people and the organization.

It won't be a problem, until its a problem, and then the lawyers can have a field day with this.

Don't give NHQ credit for even readin those stories - I douobt anyone is looking at them until someone complains. 
Do you or anyone else here know anything more around the circumstances of this other than what was described in the article?  If not, at best it's speculation and serves little useful purpose. 

None of us here knows what did or did not transpire with the uniforms.  Until we do, let's not get too wrapped around the axle.  Instead, I'll stick with what I know - and that is: what these guys did was a good thing that helps to foster the types of relationships we need!
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Nick Critelli

RiverAux

You've got it wrong.  Congress didn't create Title 10 USC 9446(b) to be "redundant."  They don't  work that way.  Chaplains and retired AF Personnel are the only individuals SECAF can specifically assign. The rest of the statute refers to the services of the CAP entity, meaning the Title 36 entity.  Remember the law governing CAP's use is entirely different than that which applies to the CG Aux.

Chaplaindon

I believe Col. Critelli to be correct in saying, "Congress didn't create Title 10 USC 9446(b) to be "redundant."  They don't  work that way.  Chaplains and retired AF Personnel are the only individuals SECAF can specifically assign."

That is the reason that CAP chaplains wear the actual USAF Chaplain insignia (Badge). 

And also why, with a very narrow-scope waiver program notwithstanding, CAP chaplains must meet the same educational requirements and ecclesiastical endorsement requirements (as actual/full MILITARY chaplains) as active duty chaplains.

On the other hand, CAP pilots, for example, don't have to match training and experience with the USAF and they aren't considered military pilots. They also don't wear USAF pilot wings either.
Rev. Don Brown, Ch., Lt Col, CAP (Ret.)
Former Deputy Director for CISM at CAP/HQ
Gill Robb Wilson Award # 1660
ACS-Chaplain, VFC, IPFC, DSO, NSO, USCG Auxiliary
AUXOP

LtCol White

Lets not forget, NHQ posted the pics with the article.

Many people are guessing "it was approved/it wasnt approved" Who knows? Only those involved. Lets not run off making any assumptions. Yes, the photos raise eyebrows, but leave it to NHQ to address if it is a prob.

All the random babble of "yes it is, no it isn't, yes the should, no they shouldn't" doesn't accomplish ANYTHING productive.




LtCol David P. White CAP   
HQ LAWG

Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska

Diplomacy - The ability to tell someone to "Go to hell" and have them look forward to making the trip.

RiverAux

Sorry, as discussed in any one of the many augmentation threads, CAP members can be used in ANY noncombat mission of the AF as an Air Force assigned mission.
Quote§ 9442. Status as volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force

(a) Volunteer Civilian Auxiliary.— The Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government.
(b) Use by Air Force.—
(1) The Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of the Civil Air Patrol to fulfill the noncombat programs and missions of the Department of the Air Force.
(2) The Civil Air Patrol shall be deemed to be an instrumentality of the United States with respect to any act or omission of the Civil Air Patrol, including any member of the Civil Air Patrol, in carrying out a mission assigned by the Secretary of the Air Force.

The intent of the text in bold is no different than the Chaplain wording.

LtCol White

Quote from: RiverAux on March 09, 2007, 08:47:20 PM
Sorry, as discussed in any one of the many augmentation threads, CAP members can be used in ANY noncombat mission of the AF as an Air Force assigned mission.
Quote§ 9442. Status as volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force

(a) Volunteer Civilian Auxiliary.— The Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government.
(b) Use by Air Force.—
(1) The Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of the Civil Air Patrol to fulfill the noncombat programs and missions of the Department of the Air Force.
(2) The Civil Air Patrol shall be deemed to be an instrumentality of the United States with respect to any act or omission of the Civil Air Patrol, including any member of the Civil Air Patrol, in carrying out a mission assigned by the Secretary of the Air Force.

The intent of the text in bold is no different than the Chaplain wording.

I'm sure it has been done in the past but I remember this practice during the first Gulf War in 1991. I was with GA Wing at the time and Chaplains and legal officers were asked to help out as well as cadet color guards.
LtCol David P. White CAP   
HQ LAWG

Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska

Diplomacy - The ability to tell someone to "Go to hell" and have them look forward to making the trip.

Chaplaindon

Sorry RiverAux,

It just isn't the same.

The wording is distinctly different --and thus NOT redundant-- §9442 (b)1 states, "The Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of the Civil Air Patrol to fulfill the noncombat programs and missions of the Department of the Air Force."

§9446 states DISTINCTLY, "The Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of Civil Air Patrol chaplains in support of the Air Force active duty and reserve component forces to the extent and under conditions that the Secretary deems appropriate."

They may appear similar but they are different. One noteworthy deletion/omission is the phrase "... noncombat programs and missions ..." CAPR 265-1 (1)b adds CAP NHQ wording mentioning "... domestic, non-combat ministry ..."

The CAP chaplaincy is different. Chaplains are different. Their uniforms are different, etc.

That, having been said, doesn't NECESSARILY excuse the two chaplains in the article from the rules uniform wear (CAPM 39-1). On the other hand, as Col. White has suggested, let's refrain from leaping to conclusions based on two photos and a short narrative.

Besides, now that it's over what can/should you do about it anyway ... CAPF 2b a couple of well-meaning clergymen who volunteered their time (without remuneration) to minister to our service members? I think not.
Rev. Don Brown, Ch., Lt Col, CAP (Ret.)
Former Deputy Director for CISM at CAP/HQ
Gill Robb Wilson Award # 1660
ACS-Chaplain, VFC, IPFC, DSO, NSO, USCG Auxiliary
AUXOP

lordmonar

I am not really blaming the Chaplains for anything.  I thing the are doing good work.  Since I don't know the specifics of how those uniforms came about I will not make any judgment about their though process.

BUT NHQ is a different matter.

NHQ should have nixed those pictures because they did not confom to CAP uniform regulations and they should send a nasty gram down the chain to deal with these two guys and a genaral message out to all unit commanders stressing complaince with CAP regulations.

It is simple as that.

If this simple action was done frequently and consistantly we would not have nearly as many problems with uniform standardisation.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

DNall

Quote from: ddelaney103 on March 09, 2007, 04:40:55 PM
Non concur.  Strenuously.

Military chaplains wear all the gear, sans arms, when serving in battlespace/gamespace, depending on whether it's real world or just an exercise.

For example, for our ORI "sky pilots" wore full harness and MOPP gear to do their jobs.  Same thing in-country.

CAP Chaplains don't serve in combat, period.  Likewise, CAP Chaplains should not be in the gamespace as players.  If they're supporting the exercise participants outside of gamespace, BDU's should be fine.

When these pictures get detached from the story, and they will, they will wander around the net leaving a trail of questions and mistaken ideas.  there's just no reason for it.
Non-combat missions, as defined by AF, does involve everything short of direct action. That explictly include conus combat support, and direct participant role in the gamespace. As an example I'd cite the airspace penetrator simluations, and ground radar intercept drills we've been doing for some years now.

It's not the most responsible work by a PAO, I'd grant that, but it's not that big a deal if they wanted them in the "gamespace" simulating the role of a chaplain they'll be meeting up with in-country, or perhaps more likely is advising & counseling on how to interact with other cultures & religions.

Pumbaa

Interesting that the link was cut from the main page, but I still get it on the RSS feed.  it is still on the site.

BTW I thought it looked sharp... Now I would be willingto dish out some $$ for that :)

lordmonar

Quote from: DNall on March 09, 2007, 09:46:17 PMIt's not the most responsible work by a PAO, I'd grant that, but it's not that big a deal if they wanted them in the "gamespace" simulating the role of a chaplain they'll be meeting up with in-country, or perhaps more likely is advising & counseling on how to interact with other cultures & religions.

they could have done that just as well if not better in their CAP uniforms.  Dissimmular training is more effective in that type of scenrio.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

A.Member

#42
Quote from: 2nd LT Fairchild on March 09, 2007, 09:52:10 PM
Interesting that the link was cut from the main page, but I still get it on the RSS feed.  it is still on the site.

BTW I thought it looked sharp... Now I would be willingto dish out some $$ for that :)
At a very minimum, the URL (article) should be placed back on the main page without the pictures.  It's not freakin' hard to do. 
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Chaplaindon

Friends as a 25-year+ paramedic, I recall a saying used to describe patient assessment, "If it looks like a horse, and walks like a horse, it's probably a horse ... BUT ... don't forget about a zebra."

As we have ever-so-little hard evidence from which to draw a cogent conclusion, I suggest that we all just enjoy how good the ACU and "U.S. AIR FORCE AUX" namestrip look. Enjoy the moment -- and PERHAPS a NHQ PAO slip up.

That having been said, I am suspecting a Zebra in this case.

For my "money" this looks situation too planned and prepared. Perfectly prepared ACUs and so forth. To my mind this didn't JUST happen.

I suspect --with caution (looking for zebras as well as wild horses)-- that this was a low-profile "special customer" mission/operation/project and the uniforms were prospectively approved (pehaps as high as the BoG). Pictures just weren't to have been posted by the chaplain or NHQ/PAO.

As such it would not be unlike the special CD missions flown by "customer's specific request" by flight crews in civies.

Anything's possible.

Whatever it is, I'm enjoying the moment ... where do I order my ACU???
Rev. Don Brown, Ch., Lt Col, CAP (Ret.)
Former Deputy Director for CISM at CAP/HQ
Gill Robb Wilson Award # 1660
ACS-Chaplain, VFC, IPFC, DSO, NSO, USCG Auxiliary
AUXOP

Nick

Just a little toss-in about the whole objection to battle rattle ... I was recently at a combat sustainment training exercise where we were joined by services, medical and chaplain personnel.  The services folks were in the kitchen wearing their aprons, cooking. The medical folks were in the field and the aid station toting all their medical gear. The chaplains were attached to the field units, chaplaining. Guess what they were wearing? Yup ... Kevlar helmets, LBVs, MILES gear, everything short of a weapon (granted the Kevlars were because of riding in 2 1/2-5 tons). And since they didn't have chaplain assistants with them, we were the ones providing their security to ensure they didn't get "killed" through the MILES.

So, take that situation and apply it here -- if you have a CAP chaplain serving in an augmentation capacity with a military service, and they're issued all the equipment same as everything else, why not use it?
Nicholas McLarty, Lt Col, CAP
Texas Wing Staff Guy
National Cadet Team Guy Emeritus

RiverAux

QuoteSorry RiverAux,

It just isn't the same.

The wording is distinctly different --and thus NOT redundant-- §9442 (b)1 states, "The Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of the Civil Air Patrol to fulfill the noncombat programs and missions of the Department of the Air Force."

§9446 states DISTINCTLY, "The Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of Civil Air Patrol chaplains in support of the Air Force active duty and reserve component forces to the extent and under conditions that the Secretary deems appropriate."

They may appear similar but they are different. One noteworthy deletion/omission is the phrase "... noncombat programs and missions ..." CAPR 265-1 (1)b adds CAP NHQ wording mentioning "... domestic, non-combat ministry ..."
How exactly is having the Chaplains help the NG any different at all than a CAP member stuffing envelopes for a recruiter or any of the other possible augmentation roles that we've discussed as possibilities for CAP members?  They are ALL non-combat support of the AF.  Chaplains could already do that under the existing language.

The only difference is that the AF has made specific allowances in their own internal regulations that make it clear how CAP chaplains can participate in the program whereas they haven't for other potential CAP augmentation missions.  The law is redundant, but the AF regs are much clearer for chaplains since they have received special treatment. 

Chaplaindon

RiverAux ...

Here I must "agree to disagree" with you on this matter. I shall do so, however, agreeably.
Rev. Don Brown, Ch., Lt Col, CAP (Ret.)
Former Deputy Director for CISM at CAP/HQ
Gill Robb Wilson Award # 1660
ACS-Chaplain, VFC, IPFC, DSO, NSO, USCG Auxiliary
AUXOP

lordmonar

Quote from: mclarty on March 09, 2007, 11:13:37 PM
Just a little toss-in about the whole objection to battle rattle ... I was recently at a combat sustainment training exercise where we were joined by services, medical and chaplain personnel.  The services folks were in the kitchen wearing their aprons, cooking. The medical folks were in the field and the aid station toting all their medical gear. The chaplains were attached to the field units, chaplaining. Guess what they were wearing? Yup ... Kevlar helmets, LBVs, MILES gear, everything short of a weapon (granted the Kevlars were because of riding in 2 1/2-5 tons). And since they didn't have chaplain assistants with them, we were the ones providing their security to ensure they didn't get "killed" through the MILES.

So, take that situation and apply it here -- if you have a CAP chaplain serving in an augmentation capacity with a military service, and they're issued all the equipment same as everything else, why not use it?

I'm not even complaining about the battle rattle.  If we get asked to support the military battle rattle may be necessar for safety and standardisation reasons.  Army has rule some rules about riding in armored vehilces and soft top humvees that would make battle rattle a necessity.

But you can wear battle rattle in your CAP BDUs just as easy as ACUs with USAF-AUX on them.

+Plus it's cool to play army ever now and then! :)
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

LtCol White

Why do we keep arguing this point back and forth? Clearly, the work is good. We all agree.

Obviously NHQ is aware and sanctions it otherwise the pics and article wouldn't be on the website. If they had a prob with the ACU's and the combat equip, they would not have printed the pics and run it as a text article only.

Who knows what work went into setting it up and what uniform requirements were made and agreed upon. Only those involved which means it makes no sense for us to argue it back and forth.

Geez
LtCol David P. White CAP   
HQ LAWG

Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska

Diplomacy - The ability to tell someone to "Go to hell" and have them look forward to making the trip.

RiverAux

QuoteObviously NHQ is aware and sanctions it otherwise the pics and article wouldn't be on the website. If they had a prob with the ACU's and the combat equip, they would not have printed the pics and run it as a text article only

Well, they actually have made a somewhat sloppy attempt to take the story down so evidently they aren't on board with something -- most likely the photos. 

I don't think there is any problem with the equipment.  There aren't any CAP regulations prohibiting that sort of stuff from being worn. 

Chappie

#50
Quote from: RiverAux on March 09, 2007, 11:19:47 PM
How exactly is having the Chaplains help the NG any different at all than a CAP member stuffing envelopes for a recruiter or any of the other possible augmentation roles that we've discussed as possibilities for CAP members?  They are ALL non-combat support of the AF.  Chaplains could already do that under the existing language.

The only difference is that the AF has made specific allowances in their own internal regulations that make it clear how CAP chaplains can participate in the program whereas they haven't for other potential CAP augmentation missions.  The law is redundant, but the AF regs are much clearer for chaplains since they have received special treatment. 

River Aux...the difference is simple....CAP Chaplains fulfill the same responsibilities as the base/wing chaplain.  On many occasions when active/reserve chaplains have been deployed, CAP Chaplains have been called upon to fulfill the "homeside" duties.  Conducting worship services for the military personnel/families, counseling, flightline/hospital visitation, officiating weddings/funerals, and other ministerial/chaplain duties is vastly different and requires specialized than a CAP member stuffing envelopes.  

The uniform issue aside....there are several CAP Chaplains who train with and minister to National Guard units as well as USAF ANG/active and reserve units.    In the CAWG, there is an outstanding model of CAP/USAF Chaplain Service working together at Travis AFB.  The PCR HC serves a National Guard unit...he trains with a regular basis.   As pointed out in a previous post, the specialty insignia that the CAP Chaplain is exactly the same as that of the USAF Chaplain.  I don't believe another specialty in CAP has that same distinction.  The reason for that has also been posted:  CAP Chaplains must meet the same academic and ecclesiastical endorsement requirements as those who serve either as an active or reserve USAF Chaplain.

Tags - MIKE
Disclaimer:  Not to be confused with the other user that goes by "Chappy"   :)

fyrfitrmedic

 Perhaps the attempt to take it down was as a result of nitpicking, conspiracy theories, or whatever else is brewing out in CAPland?  ;D
MAJ Tony Rowley CAP
Lansdowne PA USA
"The passion of rescue reveals the highest dynamic of the human soul." -- Kurt Hahn

RiverAux

QuoteRiver Aux...the difference is simple....CAP Chaplains fulfill the same responsibilities as the base/wing chaplain.  On many occasions when active/reserve chaplains have been deployed, CAP Chaplains have been called upon to fulfill the "homeside" duties.  Conducting worship services for the military personnel/families, counseling, flightline/hospital visitation, officiating weddings/funerals, and other ministerial/chaplain duties is vastly different and requires specialized than a CAP member stuffing envelopes. 

So, under this theory if the AF were to request a CAP PAO to assist in the base PA office, it would literally take an act of Congress since this is not providing non-combat support to the AF as authorized by federal law? 

JohnKachenmeister

If the chaplains are not in any authorized CAP uniform, and one of them were to be hurt, does CAP pay, or does the Army?
Another former CAP officer

CadetProgramGuy

Take a look at this......

http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/2007/03/cap_news_online.html

Civil Air Patrol Officers attached to Airmy Units to aid in Deployment Preperation.....

Look at the Uniform Pics...

Yes those are ACU's and Yes it says US AIR FORCE AUX.

This look kicks ass!!

Thanks to CAPBlog and Midway Six.

MIKE

Mike Johnston

lordmonar

Quote from: RiverAux on March 10, 2007, 01:32:06 AM
QuoteRiver Aux...the difference is simple....CAP Chaplains fulfill the same responsibilities as the base/wing chaplain.  On many occasions when active/reserve chaplains have been deployed, CAP Chaplains have been called upon to fulfill the "homeside" duties.  Conducting worship services for the military personnel/families, counseling, flightline/hospital visitation, officiating weddings/funerals, and other ministerial/chaplain duties is vastly different and requires specialized than a CAP member stuffing envelopes. 

So, under this theory if the AF were to request a CAP PAO to assist in the base PA office, it would literally take an act of Congress since this is not providing non-combat support to the AF as authorized by federal law? 

The difference being....CAP could be tasked to do PAO (or any other non-combat duty) work for the USAF...but individual Chaplains could be tasked to work for the USAF.

In theory Chaplains could be called onto active duty if needed where no one else in CAP could.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

RiverAux

Oh, c'mon that is a distinction without any difference at all. 

lordmonar

Quote from: RiverAux on March 10, 2007, 03:21:09 AM
Oh, c'mon that is a distinction without any difference at all. 

No it's a big difference....CAP can be tasked with any non combat duties that the SECAF chooses...but he cannot task individuals.....except chaplains.

It is sort of like the federalizing of the NG.  The president can call up entire units but not individuals with out the Gov's approval.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

RiverAux

Well, it is very interesting to me that we have had pages and pages and pages of discussion of CAP augmentation to the AF and this particular legal theory was never presented. 

When it comes right down to it, the AF would have the final say in exactly which individuals augmented at AF units in any case.  Lets use public affairs for example.  If the AF puts in an official request to CAP for PAO support and the Wing sends over 3 PAOs.  The AF folks would meet with them, examine their work, and would send home whoever they didn't like or whoever they didn't think could do the job that needed to be done. 

The same process would undoubtedly occur in any other CAP augmention program that we've discussed (legal, medical, other professional, or other misc. jobs).  So, the AF would have final say over which CAP members worked at their units in any case. 


DNall

Little more complicated then that, but sure...

He's right that it kind of says that chaplains can be called to duty where no other CAP member can. However, there is no legal basis for that. The individual chaplain may put their endorsement by their denomenation at risk if they don't respond, but they are neither commissioned nor contracted to any service obligation that would allow the govt to force them to duty if they don't want to go.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 10, 2007, 01:38:12 AM
If the chaplains are not in any authorized CAP uniform, and one of them were to be hurt, does CAP pay, or does the Army?
Good point, answer is neither. They are working for AF when supporting the Army, and as such are required under AF rules to be in correct authorized uniform or forefiet coverage.

RiverAux

In both clauses (the general CAP support to AF and the Chaplain clause), it says that "The Secretary of the Air Force MAY use...." so its not like the AF can demand anything of any particular Chaplain any more than they can of any other CAP member. 



FARRIER

Quote from: RiverAux on March 10, 2007, 05:36:34 PM
In both clauses (the general CAP support to AF and the Chaplain clause), it says that "The Secretary of the Air Force MAY use...." so its not like the AF can demand anything of any particular Chaplain any more than they can of any other CAP member. 




Give it a break!
Photographer/Photojournalist
IT Professional
Licensed Aircraft Dispatcher

http://www.commercialtechimagery.com/stem-and-aerospace

Major Lord

Man, when even the Chaplains piss on the rules, we are going to hell in a handbasket,! (so to speak... ) I guess we really don't care what the Air Force might say about our constant cross-dressing (pun intended)

Capt. Lord
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

Pumbaa

Sounds like when Clinton wanted to have the word 'It' defined.

Talk about beating a dead horse.. This is dragging the dead horse to water and then beating it because you couldn't lead it to drink!

And you wonder why missons are getting fewer and attrition is higher?

Majoring on the minors, talk about a lack of constructive.

sigh....

RiverAux

Quote from: FARRIER on March 10, 2007, 05:39:47 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on March 10, 2007, 05:36:34 PM
In both clauses (the general CAP support to AF and the Chaplain clause), it says that "The Secretary of the Air Force MAY use...." so its not like the AF can demand anything of any particular Chaplain any more than they can of any other CAP member. 




Give it a break!


Thanks for the advice. 

A.Member

Quote from: 2nd LT Fairchild on March 10, 2007, 06:23:04 PM
Sounds like when Clinton wanted to have the word 'It' defined.

Talk about beating a dead horse.. This is dragging the dead horse to water and then beating it because you couldn't lead it to drink!

And you wonder why missons are getting fewer and attrition is higher?

Majoring on the minors, talk about a lack of constructive.

sigh....
Actually, it was the word "is".  >:D

Just thought I'd hop in with some irrelevant point as well!  ;D
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

afgeo4

Quote from: DNall on March 10, 2007, 05:19:16 PM
Little more complicated then that, but sure...

He's right that it kind of says that chaplains can be called to duty where no other CAP member can. However, there is no legal basis for that. The individual chaplain may put their endorsement by their denomenation at risk if they don't respond, but they are neither commissioned nor contracted to any service obligation that would allow the govt to force them to duty if they don't want to go.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 10, 2007, 01:38:12 AM
If the chaplains are not in any authorized CAP uniform, and one of them were to be hurt, does CAP pay, or does the Army?
Good point, answer is neither. They are working for AF when supporting the Army, and as such are required under AF rules to be in correct authorized uniform or forefiet coverage.

Define "correct authorized uniform" in this instance. In fact, please define "correct" and "authorized" separately as I could argue that the uniform was correct for the occasion and authorized by US Army, CAP-USAF and perhaps even NHQ.
GEORGE LURYE

RiverAux

QuoteDefine "correct authorized uniform" in this instance. In fact, please define "correct" and "authorized" separately as I could argue that the uniform was correct for the occasion and authorized by US Army, CAP-USAF and perhaps even NHQ.

Last I heard no one on this board has any first hand knowledge of what, if anything, was authorized by anybody.  Maybe they got some special exception from NHQ...maybe they cowboy'ed up the uniform on their own.  All we do know is that they were not wearing a uniform authorized by CAP regulations.

afgeo4

Quote from: CaptLord on March 10, 2007, 06:21:40 PM
Man, when even the Chaplains piss on the rules, we are going to hell in a handbasket,! (so to speak... ) I guess we really don't care what the Air Force might say about our constant cross-dressing (pun intended)

Capt. Lord

Cross dressing?  Would TACP airmen be cross dressing when wearing ACUs on missions too?

Remember, there are TWO reasons why the military wears uniforms. First is so that everyone looks the same. Second is the utility of the uniform and what it brings to the battle as a combat tool as in its durability, camouflage, ease of care, safety, etc. When fighting or training to fight with the Army the best thing to do is to wear the Army uniform. When doing it with the Navy, it makes sense to dress like a sailor. That's how all the branches operate. It's logical and makes sense to all parties involved.
GEORGE LURYE

afgeo4

Quote from: RiverAux on March 22, 2007, 03:01:14 AM
QuoteDefine "correct authorized uniform" in this instance. In fact, please define "correct" and "authorized" separately as I could argue that the uniform was correct for the occasion and authorized by US Army, CAP-USAF and perhaps even NHQ.

Last I heard no one on this board has any first hand knowledge of what, if anything, was authorized by anybody.  Maybe they got some special exception from NHQ...maybe they cowboy'ed up the uniform on their own.  All we do know is that they were not wearing a uniform authorized by CAP regulations.
I submit that neither the chaplains nor the CAP-USAF personnel who authorized the mission in the first place, nor the Army personnel are stupid and with that stipulation I'd have to assume that they received permission to wear such a uniform during such an activity. I would further stipulate that these men made sure they had permission for this uniform before submitting the article with photos to NHQ. Perhaps not everyone is stipulating this?

They're Majors and Colonels and I'm a Captain. They're probably almost twice my age. They're fully trained to be military chaplains and I'm... definitely not. I think I'd have to give them the benefit of doubt on this one.
GEORGE LURYE

RiverAux

QuoteI would further stipulate that these men made sure they had permission for this uniform before submitting the article with photos to NHQ. Perhaps not everyone is stipulating this?

The evidence wouldn't support this. The fact that NHQ took it off their web site almost immediately after the issue was brought up here says to me that something wasn't right.  I don't know who did what wrong, but if everything was kosher, the article would still be there.  I know this way of looking at things doesn't prove anything, but it certainly makes me think somebody messed up. 

Unfortunately, NHQ public affairs has not been very attentive lately, but have acted quickly when CAP-TALK has brought up problems with items they post.