Uniform Changes and the USAF...Did you know?

[Major Carrales]

There are several CAPTALK regulars, up until recently myself included, that tended to look at CAP uniform changes and the Air Force reaction to them as somehow related to how CAP is viewed by the USAF.  While a distinction is and will always be made, there is not a uniform "barometer" that heralds change in CAP/USAF relations.

MYTH: USAF reactions or policy en re CAP uniforms is a harbinger of policy and signals major changes between the USAF and its Auxiliary, the Civil Air Patrol.


In a recent conversation with former CAP National Commander General Richard L. Anderson, it was agreed that CAP Officers and Cadets should stop looking at minor uniform changes as some sort of barometer for CAP/USAF relations.

Any corelation between a CAP uniform change, rejection of a CAP proposal (no matter how popular at CAP talk or general in CAP) or other such action made by the USAF and some change in USAF policy is a coincidence at best and disinegnuous at worst.

In that there will always be a distinction between CAP and USAF uniforms, the USAF will always have say over the wear of that uniform and the USAF will always use that authority to insure that the CAP version looks more like a CAP uniform than is looks like a USAF one.

Supporting Matters: Most of the rejections of CAP UNIFORM proposals by the USAF, or objections raised by them, are of the type that already go against trends that the USAF has maintained since the 1990s.  CAP always lags behind in adopting USAF uniforms, sometimes over many years, slow adoption of the digital camo uniforms and the like are simply in the process.  One can point to the precedent set in the transition out of OD green "pickle suits" in the past.

Also, much ado is made about uniforms...which...after all, are ancillary to mission related items.  Why would the USAF tie uniform policy (which has already been shown to simply be a holding of the line of known USAF policies on CAP uniforms) to operational matters.

[RiverAux]

Why would the USAF tie uniform policy (which has already been shown to simply be a holding of the line of known USAF policies on CAP uniforms) to operational matters.

They already have -- witness the civilian clothes that CAP members in the VSAF test program are supposed to wear.  Now, it is entirely possible that the idea for that "uniform" actually came from some misguided CAP member who thought it would be a good thing to sweeten the pot to get the AF to agree to the program, but the fact remains that for this operational mission CAP members are prohibited from wearing our traditional uniform by the AF.   I think that sooner, rather than later, this particular requirement will be dropped as it doesn't make any sense, but its there now. 

A similar situation, though not involving uniforms, is the AF essentially forcing CAP to remove "USAF Aux" from the tails of our planes for the bogus reason that it woud violate possee comitatus.  I don't think even they believe that since NG helicopters with "US Army" written on them do the same things our guys do in the CD program.  I do think that this action did symbolize how they view our relationship. 

But, I do think that the uniforms that the AF authorizes us to wear do reflect our relationship with that organization as a general rule -- in that they apparently want as much distance as possible.  Now, this doesn't mean that their decisions involving every single little CAP proposal are viewed in that light and you are correct in your overall impression of these decisions. 

[Eclipse]

Why would the USAF tie uniform policy (which has already been shown to simply be a holding of the line of known USAF policies on CAP uniforms) to operational matters.

They already have -- witness the civilian clothes that CAP members in the VSAF test program are supposed to wear.  Now, it is entirely possible that the idea for that "uniform" actually came from some misguided CAP member who thought it would be a good thing to sweeten the pot to get the AF to agree to the program, but the fact remains that for this operational mission CAP members are prohibited from wearing our traditional uniform by the AF.   I think that sooner, rather than later, this particular requirement will be dropped as it doesn't make any sense, but its there now. 

VSAF is not, by any means, an "operational" role.  Its administrative assistance to big brother blue and has nothing to do with CAP's core missions other than the spongy "assist the USAF".

If we, as the CAP, have to sweeten the pot beyond "We will fill paid billets that you can't fill, with free, professional labor and save you hundreds of thousands of dollars a year..." then we really do have a problem with our credibility and relationship.

[Major Carrales]

A similar situation, though not involving uniforms, is the AF essentially forcing CAP to remove "USAF Aux" from the tails of our planes for the bogus reason that it woud violate possee comitatus...I do think that this action did symbolize how they view our relationship. 

Cite for me please the documentation where this is explicity stated that I might read this and draw the same conclusion.

Is this, in fact, truth or merely a specuation on your part?

As for the last part, I have already stated that General Anderson has said that all speculation based on uniform policy is suspect and lacking in basis.

[JohnKachenmeister]

OK, I'm with you on this one, Sparky.

1.  The goofy polo shirt.  This abortion was the product of the Secretary of the Air Force.  He did not like the golf shirt combination, which served the same purpose of a soft, non military, no intimdating rank uniform, and insisted on the Home Depot Associate Shirt.  I'm pretty sure this helped kill the VSAF program, but the decision was way above our pay grade.

2.  No USAF Aux.  (We have visited this before)  It was NOT violation of the Posse Comitatus Act the caused the USAF to order all "USAF" off our planes.  There IS a specific AFI restricting use of aircraft marked with USAF on law enforcement missions to those missions specifically authorized by the Secretary of the AF.  The Army does not have a corresponding regulation.   With CAP seeking more locally-funded missions, it was just a matter of time before a mission to search for a missing child would be delayed because the request came from a Law Enforcement source and required SECAF approval.

[RiverAux]

VSAF is not, by any means, an "operational" role.  Its administrative assistance to big brother blue and has nothing to do with CAP's core missions other than the spongy "assist the USAF".

Providing noncombat assistance to the AF is explicitly one of our purposes.  The spongy clauses in our founding document is the one relating to emergency response, which no where mentions search and rescue.  

Cite for me please the documentation where this is explicity stated that I might read this and draw the same conclusion

The removal of USAF Aux from our planes for posse comitatus reasons is stated in one of the AFIs.  Well, actually they said we can't use any plane with that on them for CD purposes.  So, I guess the choice they gave us was either stop doing CD or remove AF Aux and we took off the AF Aux.  In my book that is just the same sort of obvious force the feds used for years to get states to have 55 mph speed limits -- do it or lose your federal highway dollars.

It is my opinion that the idiotic AF lawyers that have caused us no end of harm in recent years were not the cause of this change (because even they would recognize that this would not be legally required and makes no sense), but rather someone else in the AF grabbed it as an excuse to get "USAF" off our planes.  It is my opinion that they just didn't like a civilian organization, even their own auxiliary, having that marking and they came up with the cover excuse of posse comitatus to get rid of it rather than just coming right out and saying it.  

I don't miss a chance to bad mouth the AF lawyers that advise CAP-USAF and if I could really blame them for that I would.  

There IS a specific AFI restricting use of aircraft marked with USAF on law enforcement missions to those missions specifically authorized by the Secretary of the AF.

It relates only to CAP and is only in the CAP AFI.  If there is an AFI saying the same thing about other AF aircraft, I'll retract my opinion. 

[PHall]

Major Carrales, I suggest you read to following three documents. You may find them interesting because they show the Air Force's attitude toward their Auxiliary.

AFPD 10-27

AFI 10-2701

CAP-USAFI 10-2701

[stratoflyer]

I'm not really sure how all this is even an issue.

Look. I'm just a line guy. Do my best, hope for the best, deal with what I got. Not gonna worry too much about the why's and how's of technical rules and "theories". There was a time when I did, I admit. Now, not so much. I realized that there is just too much to work on to think about how my uniform reflects the AF's opinion about myself and my organization.

The way I see it, so long as the name CAP exists, the term USAF AUX will be left to debate for some folks.

BTW? Is the SECAF a former cadet? Any of the top brass former CAP? When's the last time there was one? And what were things like with that guy? Just morbid curiosity.

[Major Carrales]

Major Carrales, I suggest you read to following three documents. You may find them interesting because they show the Air Force's attitude toward their Auxiliary.

AFPD 10-27

AFI 10-2701

CAP-USAFI 10-2701

OK, what am I supposed to be seeing in these documents (now with links for all to see) that shows that USAF policy on Uniforms for CAP reflects their policy on the CAO-USAF relationship? 

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/CAP_USAFI_10_2701.pdf

http://wwwpublic.wpafb.af.mil/cap/forms/afi10-2701.pdf

The Civil Air Patrol (CAP) is a Federally chartered non-profit corporation that may be utilized as a civilian
volunteer auxiliary of the Air Force. The Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) can employ the services
of CAP in lieu of or to supplement Air Force resources to fulfill the non-combat programs and missions
of the Air Force. Such services may include Air Force-assigned missions (AFAMs) in support of homeland
security operations, consequence management, support to civilian law enforcement, and other civil
support. Certain CAP cadet and aerospace educational programs may also be approved and assigned as
Air Force non-combat missions. When performing Air Force-assigned programs and missions, CAP
assets function as an auxiliary of the Air Force. CAP is not authorized to perform AFAMs outside of the
territories of the United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico without specific authorization.
Refer to Appendix 1 for the history and organization of the Civil Air Patrol.
1.1. Capabilities. CAP conducts three primary programs: emergency services and civil support, aerospace
education, and a cadet program. CAP may conduct emergency service and civil support activities as
a corporation or when approved and assigned by the SECAF (or the designee), as an auxiliary of the Air
Force. As a general rule, Aerospace Education and Cadet Program activities are not AFAMs.

This says a bit on it, but does not indicate that the distinceive CAP matierals are the result of punitive actions.

1.3. Status of CAP Personnel. CAP is not a military service and its members are not subject to the
UCMJ. CAP members voluntarily perform Air Force-assigned missions. CAP membership does not confer
upon an individual any of the rights, privileges, prerogatives or benefits of military personnel, active,
reserve, or retired. While CAP is not a military service, it uses an Air Force-style grade structure and its
members may wear Air Force-style uniforms when authorized. Air Force protocol requirements do not
apply to CAP members.
1.3.1. CAP Grade. CAP uses military style grade for its membership at the discretion and approval
of the Air Force. CAP officer or noncommissioned officer grade does not confer commissioned or
noncommissioned officer status. CAP personnel have no authority over members of the armed forces.
CAP members who are active, reserve, and retired members of the armed forces will be treated
according to their CAP status when acting in a CAP capacity. The Air Force has authority over the
CAP grade structure.
1.3.2. Uniform Wear and Personal Appearance. CAP members are authorized to wear CAP or Air
Force-style uniforms in accordance with CAP regulations (civilian clothing may be worn when specific
missions dictate). The Air Force controls the configuration of the Air Force-style uniform worn
by CAP members.
1.3.3. Grooming Standards. CAP members that choose to wear the Air Force-style uniform must
maintain weight, appearance, and grooming standards comparable to the Air Force. Variations in
these standards are subject to Air Force approval. CAP ensures that all members wearing Air
Force-style uniforms adhere to these standards. CAP senior members who do not meet these standards
are restricted from wearing the Air Force-style uniform but are not barred from membership or active
participation in CAP. In these circumstances the senior members may only wear authorized CAP uniforms,
or civilian attire as appropriate.
1.3.4. CAP Distinctive Uniforms and Insignia. The emblems, insignia, and badges of the CAP Air
Force-style uniform will clearly identify an individual as a CAP member at a distance and in low-light
conditions. The Air Force must approve changes to the CAP Air Force-style uniform. CAP distinctive
uniforms must be sufficiently different from U.S. Armed Forces uniforms so that confusion will not
occur..

http://wwwpublic.wpafb.af.mil/cap/forms/afpd10-27.pdf

3. Employment Considerations. CAP is one of the assets that the Air Force may use in order to fulfill
its non-combat programs and missions. However, as a civilian auxiliary of the Air Force, CAP participation
in Air Force missions is strictly voluntary. When an Air Force mission that may be appropriate for
CAP participation arises, the SECAF, or an appropriate delegate, will determine whether CAP assets will
be employed in accordance with AFI 10-2701, Organization and Function of the Civil Air Patrol. All missions
assigned to CAP by the Air Force will be reviewed for compliance with applicable law and regulation
by the appropriate Air Force authority.
4. Air Force Auxiliary Mission Approval Authority. The Air Force authorizes and approves all CAP
auxiliary missions. Depending on the nature of the mission, the appropriate Air Component Commander,
designated official of the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center (CONUS) or the appropriate Joint Rescue
Center (OCONUS), the AF National Security Emergency Preparedness Agency (AFNSEP), USAF/
XO, and/or CAP-USAF may, as delegates of the SECAF, approve such missions. These agencies will
coordinate mission approval, when necessary, with the appropriate Combatant Commander, HQ USAF,
and/or USAF/XO. AFI 10-2701 lists the approval authorities for specific mission categories

7. Cooperative Agreement between the CAP and the Air Force. The Air Force will use a Cooperative
Agreement (CA), including a Statement of Work (SOW), to define the overall working relationships
between the CAP and the Air Force, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 9441 et seq, and to facilitate the transfer of
Federal resources to CAP. The CA shall be consistent with Department of Defense Grant and Agreement
Regulations (DoDGARs), will address programmatic requirements, and will outline the responsibilities of
each organization. All CAP programs and missions supported by Federal funds shall be addressed in the
SOW.

No where does it allude anything like "metal" rank, "US" vs "CAP" cut outs or shoulder mark color as showing like or dislike of policy concerning CAP's operational mission.  Nothing in these documents is unreasonable, there should be clear distinctions between USAF and CAP personnel.

[MajFitzpatrick]

The AFI and the AFPD are Air Force regulations that state the power the SECAF and his appointees have to administer Civil Air Patrol, and how they interact with our boards. Any Uniform policy can be directly limited by the United States Air Force. Plain cut and dry.

In my own personal opinion, it is this very attitude that pisses the Air Force off. Why they hell are you complaining about your uniform, most of CAP members don't even wear the uniform correctly. Even with PD Programs to teach Senior members about the military and ways to interact with them, Seniors will bust out the, "We are just volunteers." If you want to be treated more like AF personnel, if you want to be seen as a respectable group, the vast majority of the program itself must take a more professional attitude. My old man has been in CAP since the 50s, and yet his attitude is that there is too much paperwork, they are too strict on uniforms, they are this they are that. This is not an organization to go have fun on the AF's dime. On the contrary, this program is to foster, and continue Air and Space Supremacy of the United States of America. When we start to contribute, work, and make large strides in that direction that is when we will get respect. Not having a CAP LtCol make it known how amazing he is because he is a SAR/DR pilot and comm genius to some external agencies or even worse the Air Force. We are dealing with a beast that, if not prior service, many don't understand. Air Force Inspectors, Command staff, and other deligating authorities will eat their own alive if they aren't deemed to being up to snuff and professional. And yet CAP thinks we should have some almighty birth right. If that's the truth, the next time I got four stripes on my shoulder and I see a CAP member out of regs, not giving the proper courtesies, etc; then should I deal with it like I would as a SSgt in the Air Force if I saw one of my troops doing that? How can I, its a group of volunteers. We can call it quits at anytime in CAP, we can say, we don't want to play by the rules so we are out. There is no ability to control any type of discipline on a wide scale level. Not to say that we don't have very professional CAP members. But the reason the AF can keep the AF on that level is because they can actually reprimand and punish those who don't follow the AFIs. By law they can punish them.

If we as a CAP culture can tighten up and be more professional, then you will see us be treated more like an auxiliary and not a stepchild.

Capt(CAP) William Fitzpatrick
SWR-NM-033
DCS

[DogCollar]

I'm not really sure how all this is even an issue.

Look. I'm just a line guy. Do my best, hope for the best, deal with what I got. Not gonna worry too much about the why's and how's of technical rules and "theories". There was a time when I did, I admit. Now, not so much. I realized that there is just too much to work on to think about how my uniform reflects the AF's opinion about myself and my organization.

Wow.  That's about the best sign of mental health in CAP I've seen since I joined.  :clap:

[Smithsonia]

Good for Dogcollar and every one that thinks the navel or perhaps naval (as we talk about lots of uniforms here) gazing reflects more poorly upon CAP than the variations or goofiness of uniforms.

Doing the mission, no matter our age or uniform is the important thing. On this topic and in this forum we exhaust each other and evaporate our credibility like a puddle in summer. If it was up to some our members we'd need full time dressers and batmen.

Talk all you want about uniforms. Just be aware that it makes us look like the guy on the football team with the cleanest jersey at the end of the game... that means he didn't play much.

[Major Carrales]

The AFI and the AFPD are Air Force regulations that state the power the SECAF and his appointees have to administer Civil Air Patrol, and how they interact with our boards. Any Uniform policy can be directly limited by the United States Air Force. Plain cut and dry.

In my own personal opinion, it is this very attitude that pisses the Air Force off. Why they hell are you complaining about your uniform, most of CAP members don't even wear the uniform correctly. Even with PD Programs to teach Senior members about the military and ways to interact with them, Seniors will bust out the, "We are just volunteers." If you want to be treated more like AF personnel, if you want to be seen as a respectable group, the vast majority of the program itself must take a more professional attitude. My old man has been in CAP since the 50s, and yet his attitude is that there is too much paperwork, they are too strict on uniforms, they are this they are that. This is not an organization to go have fun on the AF's dime. On the contrary, this program is to foster, and continue Air and Space Supremacy of the United States of America. When we start to contribute, work, and make large strides in that direction that is when we will get respect. Not having a CAP LtCol make it known how amazing he is because he is a SAR/DR pilot and comm genius to some external agencies or even worse the Air Force. We are dealing with a beast that, if not prior service, many don't understand. Air Force Inspectors, Command staff, and other deligating authorities will eat their own alive if they aren't deemed to being up to snuff and professional. And yet CAP thinks we should have some almighty birth right. If that's the truth, the next time I got four stripes on my shoulder and I see a CAP member out of regs, not giving the proper courtesies, etc; then should I deal with it like I would as a SSgt in the Air Force if I saw one of my troops doing that? How can I, its a group of volunteers. We can call it quits at anytime in CAP, we can say, we don't want to play by the rules so we are out. There is no ability to control any type of discipline on a wide scale level. Not to say that we don't have very professional CAP members. But the reason the AF can keep the AF on that level is because they can actually reprimand and punish those who don't follow the AFIs. By law they can punish them.

If we as a CAP culture can tighten up and be more professional, then you will see us be treated more like an auxiliary and not a stepchild.

Capt(CAP) William Fitzpatrick
SWR-NM-033
DCS

The purpose of this thread was to dispell the myth that changes in Uniform Policy do not reflect anything more or less than Uniform issues.  To prevent the constant speculation that when the USAF denies the wear of a device or uniform item it does nto mean they are "closing CAP down." 

I am quite proud of my CAP uniform and am well aware of the honor it give in simply being able to wear it.

[Smithsonia]

I second Sparky too. If it were important to the Air Force they'd assign us uniforms and a bellicose Sgt. with a southern twang to enforce it. We can take care of the uniform issues in person, one on one. In this forum, tearing down one another in a disrespectful manner is a greater sin.

By the way in WW2 everybody had to buy their own uniform, footgear, sidearm, etc. The military got first choice and CAP took what was left over. Hence the variations. The same is true today. On my Ground Team
my field coat isn't SOP but I am not spending $250 for something to look regulation that I wear twice a year and gets dirty too boot. That said my field vest which covers my field coat is regulation.

[MajFitzpatrick]

And officers both in WW2 and now in the Air Force have to buy their own uniforms. The military back in WW2 had great variations in uniforms, it wasn't just Civil Air Patrol. It wasn't until the later years of WW2 that more standardization reached the military. This is due to the massive swelling of the ranks in world war 2, which we hadn't seen the likes of since WW1, and after WW1 the size of the military considerably shrunk. Equipment and uniforms were scarce in those days, so much so that we see pictures of infantry troops learning infantry tactics with broom handles instead of rifles.

[Major Carrales]

And officers both in WW2 and now in the Air Force have to buy their own uniforms. The military back in WW2 had great variations in uniforms, it wasn't just Civil Air Patrol. It wasn't until the later years of WW2 that more standardization reached the military. This is due to the massive swelling of the ranks in world war 2, which we hadn't seen the likes of since WW1, and after WW1 the size of the military considerably shrunk. Equipment and uniforms were scarce in those days, so much so that we see pictures of infantry troops learning infantry tactics with broom handles instead of rifles.

This is true, I have read articles about the interim between the World Wars.  It was made clear that the service coat was to be green...this was, according to the article, anything from what was a sort of "lime green," almost Khaki with a green tinge, to a dark green, almost dark chocolate color.

Various "cuts" of the tunic were popular.  Things like embroiders rank insignia and ribbons also were allowed.

This was all for officers.  Different tailoring ans availability of fabrics...and yes personalization...were common.

After the wars in the 1950s and 1960s, the standardization of uniforms made it all a bit more truly "uniform."  

[RiverAux]

I think its quite clear that the primary interest the AF has in CAP is equipment accountability.  That seems to be the thing they care about the most and is the only thing they regularly use "force" to make sure is done the way they want. 

[Major Carrales]

I think its quite clear that the primary interest the AF has in CAP is equipment accountability.  That seems to be the thing they care about the most and is the only thing they regularly use "force" to make sure is done the way they want. 

As it should be.

[RiverAux]

I think its quite clear that the primary interest the AF has in CAP is equipment accountability.  That seems to be the thing they care about the most and is the only thing they regularly use "force" to make sure is done the way they want. 

As it should be.

You're saying that the AF's primary interest in CAP SHOULD be that we're keeping track of equipment?  While important, it should not be what they focus most of their oversight on.  Not saying it should be uniforms either by the way.

[MajFitzpatrick]

I think along with equipment accountability(which the AF likes to do with anything they own) training, and utilization should be also looked at. Even if this means sending some of their reservist to help us train, and truly update a lot of stuff. Not just at the National level, but in many levels, to the lowest part of our chain of command. But yes the Air Force and their equipment is crazy. At balad we couldn't find a printer, that was misplaced long before our squadron got their. So big blue started limiting our access to computers and printers and wouldn't give us certain things till we found the printer. And that was in a combat zone....

[Major Carrales]

I think its quite clear that the primary interest the AF has in CAP is equipment accountability.  That seems to be the thing they care about the most and is the only thing they regularly use "force" to make sure is done the way they want. 

As it should be.

You're saying that the AF's primary interest in CAP SHOULD be that we're keeping track of equipment?  While important, it should not be what they focus most of their oversight on.  Not saying it should be uniforms either by the way.

Oh, River...always so quick to put words in people's mouth.  I am saying, my most speculative friend, that the USAF has a well defined right to monitor the resources it provides for CAP.

Their overall focus, I should say, it to oversee how CAP operates on the whole; from Emergency Service to Cadet Programs.  They have a vested interest, as our Mother Service, to insure that these things are so.  That also, before you say I wrote things I didn't right, includes Aerospace Education.

[Smithsonia]

By the way the regular Air Force Officers do buy their own uniforms but have a uniform allowance.
I have a WW2 from Lowry Air Force Base in front of the ops shack in spring it appears. It looks like its pretty candid. In it we have:
A2 Flight Jacket 2
Class A Dress Jacket 4
Summer Flight Jacket 1
Tanker Jacket 2
Westy Jacket (this is the Mae West cover rig) 2
Winter Flying Jacket (Shearling sheepskin) 1
B-12 Mouton Collar jacket 2
B-10 Jacket 4
Short Sleeves w tie and without tie 5
Long sleeves with tie and without tie 3
coveralls 6
2 or 3 colors of flight suits 10
and a couple of white uniforms (orderlies I imagine) 2
can all be seen in one small group gathered in front of a hangar for a break
between duty shifts. It was a regular group on a duty day
and is rather a telling candid look at the Army Air Corps at work. Of course inspection
and parades are different. I'm thinking we're not doing so bad on the uniformity.

SO that's about 40 people with 14 different uniform combinations of standard dress with variations on a standard day...

[RiverAux]

At balad we couldn't find a printer, that was misplaced long before our squadron got their. So big blue started limiting our access to computers and printers and wouldn't give us certain things till we found the printer. And that was in a combat zone....

Glad to hear its not just us...

Oh, River...always so quick to put words in people's mouth.  I am saying, my most speculative friend, that the USAF has a well defined right to monitor the resources it provides for CAP.

Well, you said it was "as it should be" when I made the statement that the AF's primary interest in CAP is equipment accountability.  Hardly putting words in your mouth.

[MajFitzpatrick]

So very true, its crazy how many uniform combinations there were. There was even a White Mess dress in the Air Force (way before my time).

My friends in the Navy say they are going insane because of all the uniforms, and uniform changes.

Myself on the Air Force side, well personally I think all the uniform changes and the effort that goes into research for it is ridiculous. We don't have nearly as many combinations as we used to, which I am glad for. As look as I look military, thats all I really care about.

As for the CAP stuff, I don't mind how the uniforms are right now at all. I actually think we have all the combinations ever needed to cover both the USAF style and the Corporate Side for those that don't fall into the standards for the USAF Style. I personally think if you are within the regs, you should be wearing an AF style uniform. But I think that should be headed up on the individual unit basis.

I am going to post another post in the CAP Culture thread, that I think is on these lines, my last one in that thread was very very harsh. But I think sometimes its needed.

[Major Carrales]

At balad we couldn't find a printer, that was misplaced long before our squadron got their. So big blue started limiting our access to computers and printers and wouldn't give us certain things till we found the printer. And that was in a combat zone....

Glad to hear its not just us...

Oh, River...always so quick to put words in people's mouth.  I am saying, my most speculative friend, that the USAF has a well defined right to monitor the resources it provides for CAP.

Well, you said it was "as it should be" when I made the statement that the AF's primary interest in CAP is equipment accountability.  Hardly putting words in your mouth.

So, with that type of logic, you must be saying that the USAF should not care about the assets the CAP holds?  See, you didn't exactally say that did you.  By the same tolken I did not say what you said I did.

[MajFitzpatrick]

wow, this has just gotten into semantics now, hasn't it?

[PHall]

Mike, isn't about time to put this thread out of it's misery?

[stratoflyer]

^Seriously.

Thanks Capt. for the comment!