Possible for somone of a higher CAP grade to be insubordinate to someone lower?

[Trung Si Ma]

CAPR 35-5 lists insubordination as a reason for membership termination (CAPR 35-3, par 4.b.(10)). 

There is no definition for insubordination in CAPR 35-5, nor is there one in JCS Pub 1-02 (the DoD Dictionary). 

The UCMJ does not speak of being insubordinate to a senior office (Check Article 89  specifies disrespect toward superior commissioned officer.  The only reference within the UCMJ to insubordination is article 91 which specifically is directed to "Any warrant officer or enlisted member who—")

The Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary defines insubordination as "disobedient to authority" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insubordinate)

So is it possible for the LtCol GTL to be insubordinate to the 2ndLt GBD?

[davidsinn]

I would say yes. Just as it would be possible for a light colonel to be insubordinate to his 1Lt commander.

[cnitas]

Interesting question.

As I am certifiable in guardhouse lawyering, I feel that I an uniquely qualified to answer.  

Yes.  It is possible for a LtCol GTL to be insubordinate to a 2Lt GBD.

Unfortunatly for the 2Lt, the LtCol's unit commander gets to make the call if the behavior rose to the level of insubordination.

[swamprat86]

Technically, yes.  The GBD is in a position of higher authority at the time.  However, you need to be very careful with this type of charge.  Was this an issue of an order violation that could have resulted in fraud, loss or injury or is this an issue of ego among volunteers that can be worked out at the command level between the two members?

[BuckeyeDEJ]

It comes down to the same thing as the lieutenant always salutes the colonel, even if the lieutenant has working control over the colonel. The colonel must recognize the lieutenant's responsibility and heed it, and the lieutenant must remember he's got someone outranking him working for him. Mutual respect.

That said, only in CAP (?!) would you have a light colonel working for a butterbar. "Insubordination" inherently means that a subordinate disregards a senior. In the example this thread adopted, the senior-ranking officer is in a position to be directed by a junior officer. The senior officer disregards an order from the junior officer, an order made in the lawful discharge of duties. It may not be insubordination, but it's definitely disregard for orders, regardless of whether it's a mundane function or a tasking that could risk life or property.

It probably also isn't insubordination in the ordinary weekly-meeting context -- in that a first lieutenant may be the squadron's old man and a light colonel decides "this guy's B.S., so I'm doing it my way." Disregard for orders, but not insubordination.

[O-Rex]

Position trumps rank.

Besides, if a higher ranking member is worth their salt and actually acts in accordance with what they wear on their shoulders (and the training and experience it's supposed to symbolize,) they'll work and play well with others. . .

[ol'fido]

Before you get too far into this thread. Has anyone heard of anyone else being 2b'd for insubordination that didn't involve telling someone at wing, region, or national command levels to go pound sand? Has anyone heard of anybody 2b'd for insubordination that didn't also involve several other charges? Any legal people out there? Ned Lee?

[Fifinella]

That said, only in CAP (?!) would you have a light colonel working for a butterbar.

Not true.  Such things happen in the RM too, though infrequently.  When I was director of advanced parachuting (and a Captain), my students occasionally included Majors and above,  including one Major General.  As long as they were students in the program, they reported to me.  As mentioned previously, mutual respect is the key element to dealing with such situations.

[RiverAux]

I can't recall any outright refusal to follow an order such as one given at a mission. 

[hatentx]

In CAP your rank means nothing in this area.  What is on your collar is the level of professional development.  in CAP your posistion is everything.  This is one of those were CAP and the RM look alike but dont act alike.

[AirAux]

I think it would have to be a legally binding order first of all.  One doesn't find many if any legally binding orders in our organization.  An IC can tell a MP that he would like him to search a grid, but the pilot is in command and may decide (at his own discretion) it is dangerous or not the thing to do.  About the only time insubordination would come into play would be if a CC told a squadron member to quit doing something wrong in the first place (such as wearing an improper uniform or harassing cadets) and the member continued his actions.  His non-response could be considered insubordination and if proper procedures were instigated, a 2b could result..

[RiverAux]

An IC can tell a MP that he would like him to search a grid, but the pilot is in command and may decide (at his own discretion) it is dangerous or not the thing to do. 

Safety issues are one thing and I can't think of many situations where a refusal to follow an order due to safety worries would result in an official negative impact on a CAP member.

But in this situation if the MP decided not to search the assigned grid and made up his own grid assignment and flew that he probably would get some severe heat. 

[Eclipse]

I think it would have to be a legally binding order first of all.  One doesn't find many if any legally binding orders in our organization.  An IC can tell a MP that he would like him to search a grid, but the pilot is in command and may decide (at his own discretion) it is dangerous or not the thing to do. 

At which point, at a minimum, he would likely be suspended pending an investigation, and in most cases would have his ES quals suspended if not revoked.  Whether he ever flew again would be a matter for his chain of command to address based on the IG investigation (assuming there is one).

Also, may his God help him if someone loses property, is injured, or dies, and it can be shown that the delay of response caused by his refusal can be attributed to that loss, etc.

There are certain lines which our members cross, primarily in ES ops, but also in relation to the safety of members, especially cadets, where once they have accepted the responsibility for an action or duty, they need to see it to its proper conclusion until relieved.  Failure to do that is at their own peril.

Riveraux has it right in one sentence - authority is based on appointed position.  In the normal chain of command, the only ones in the room with authority are those with the word "commander" on their business card - its a pretty short hop between the rank and file member and the National Commander - at the most 5 clicks if your wing has Groups.

The authority of ES ops is delegated from the above short chain, and despite the circular reporting relationships we tend to build for staffers, the actual chain never changes - you may accept a staff job at wing, but you still report to your unit commander, and circumvent his policies, etc., at your own peril as well.  If you don't like that, transfer to wing HQ, though that won't give you any more authority in most cases unless that transfer includes a bird on your shoulder.

With all that said, where I have seen new members get themselves in trouble is failing to observe proper courtesies for a superior officer during a heated exchange regarding who can make a higher mark on the wall.  In the cited example, the 2d Lt. GBD (who may have ascended too quickly for his own good), may be in the right from a positional standpoint, but still owes the Lt. Col. due courtesies.  (i.e. Sir, you must comply with my directives or be relieved, as I am currently in this position of authority over you. vs. !@#$$#@@! you old !@#$%$ get the !@#$% out of my face.)

I've seen too many clear situations where a problem-child member disobeyed directives and would have been on his way out, but the "offended" party handled things wrong and muddied the situation by openign the door for a counter complaint.

The answer to the OP is "yes". 

[Short Field]

I think it would have to be a legally binding order first of all.  One doesn't find many if any legally binding orders in our organization.  An IC can tell a MP that he would like him to search a grid, but the pilot is in command and may decide (at his own discretion) it is dangerous or not the thing to do. 

At which point, at a minimum, he would likely be suspended pending an investigation, and in most cases would have his ES quals suspended if not revoked. 

Get real.  If the MP decides it is dangerous or not the thing to do, he does not have to fly the gird.  The MP can decline the mission due to safety and request another mission.    However, once the MP takes-off, his only options are to fly the assigned mission or RTB.   He can request another grid, however, that is up to the IC to decide if the request is approved.   Anytime any crewmember feels a mission is unsafe for any reason, they can abort the mission and RTB.   If the MP just happens to think it is dumb to fly that grid, he can decline the mission.  If the IC decides to give him another mission or not is totally up to the IC.   Suspended pending an investigation?  ES quals suspended if not revoked?  Whether he ever flew again?  Not in this state.

[Eclipse]

I knew someone would draw the "safety" card instead of keeping this on track.

For the sake of argument, anytime anyone has a legitimate safety concern they should RTB or raise the issue up the chain.  But we're not talking about a safety issue here, we're talking about insubordination, which for the sake of this discussion would be more likely an MP who disagreed with the search plan and decided he didn't feel like going.

FWIW I have never personally seen a situation where this would be an issue - our operations and ORM are conservative enough that its generally the air & ground crews chomping to get going not the base leaders sending them into the breach.

[heliodoc]

I agree with Short Field

In the wildland fire environment there is a section on how to properly refuse risk and the sections lays out on how to to do it a tactful fashion including the actions that do not stop an operation

I refer you folks to the Interagency Response Pocket Guide

Safety in that environment is just as paramount as in the aviation world

For someone to call it a "safety" card is pretty lame.  The "legally binding" orders in CAP are as effective as a toothless lion.

FWIW in the environment I am in with CAP, I haven't seen that much disrespect in CAP in and around missions that require an over analysis of respect as often that is posted here on this forum

[Sgt. Savage]

Insubordination or disobeying an order.

Disobeying an order is refusing to do what you were lawfully directed to do.

Insubordination reflects the way you told the person in charge that you wouldn't do it.

I've been a party to a recent 2b, an appeal, and a victory (not my 2b). Insubordination was charged based on the failure to relinquish a CAPID per an order of suspension. The charge was not sustained due to the fact that the accused never refused to submit, the accused simply didn't respond. The charge was then disobeying an order, and not a terminable offense.

[NavLT]

The refusing to do something unsafe is the easy case.  That if the 1LT IC tells the MP how to fly the search and the MP does it differently than directed.  All kinds of arguments ensue about the IC vs the MP.  Experience is the ugly one if the IC is a VFR pilot with 400 Hours and the MP in question is a CFII/MEI with 3000 hours........

I have seen arguments like this occur in recent history and the escallation path goes up to Wing to play referee about who is right and wrong.  But the same arguements occur with that if you substitute the IC for the Wing DO in that situation. 

As someone mentioned before only in CAP (with a few clear exceptions) does a CFII report to a VFR only, or a LTCol work for a 1LT.

V/R

[smj58501]

That said, only in CAP (?!) would you have a light colonel working for a butterbar.

Not true.  Such things happen in the RM too, though infrequently.  When I was director of advanced parachuting (and a Captain), my students occasionally included Majors and above,  including one Major General.  As long as they were students in the program, they reported to me.  As mentioned previously, mutual respect is the key element to dealing with such situations.

On occasion PIC's in Army aircraft will be warrant officers, with a commissioned officer on the other stick

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

The refusing to do something unsafe is the easy case.  That if the 1LT IC tells the MP how to fly the search and the MP does it differently than directed.  All kinds of arguments ensue about the IC vs the MP.  Experience is the ugly one if the IC is a VFR pilot with 400 Hours and the MP in question is a CFII/MEI with 3000 hours........

Or one of us ICs who is not actually a pilot