"US" and "CAP" on AF/TPU service Coat

[NAYBOR]

DNall, I COMPLETELY, 100% agree that CAP should be a "federal level SDF".  The SDFs, and their uniforms, are treated better than we in CAP are.  Heck, every SDF uniform I've research has metal grade.  OK, most wear blazing red nametags, but some do not.

For example, the California State Military Reserve, Air Component, wears almost the same exact uniform as the AF.

Example:



and:



You'll notice that in the first picture, the Lt. Col. just has a name tage with his first name, and then "California Military Reserve" under it [I believe], on an Air Force Blue nametag.  Could you tell this officer from and AF officer at a distance?

In the second picture, the two CSMR guys are in BDUs.  The one on the right is in the Air Component of the CSMR, and has subdued tapes like the regular AF/AFR/ANG.  His branch tape says "CALIFORNIA".  Could you tell him apart from regular AF/AFR/ANG?

The NY Guard air component does the same thing with its BDUs (I've seen them myself when I lived in NY).  Unsure about the service dress for the NYG.

CAP needs to drop its corporate status, go under the National Guard Bureau (NGB), and get the job done.  It can keep it's original missions, but IMHO, gain so much more being a full military auxilliary.

I agree, we don't need gray on everything.  I orginally thought it was OK, but with all the research I've been doing on SDFs and other military auxiliaries and cadet programs, no more.  I've read that SDFs and service auxilliaries are considered the third tier in the "Total Force" concept of homeland defense.  SDFs are technically under the NGB.  CAP should be too.  [I of course leave out the CGAux--They're directly under the CGAux anyways, and are considered fully a part of the CG team.]

Ok, I'l  quit rambling.  Sorry for those I upset with my original pictures.  Just throwing out ideas.  I didn't know I'd get such strong reactions.  I respect it though.  I must say that I didn't think it looked THAt bad.  Trying to keep the "US" on the service coat if we can go to metal grade.  I just think it looks better all around.

[DNall]

Far as uniforms, a lot of that has to do with some distinct things: For one, they mostly hold state commissions; they also for the most part are required to have been real military officers (not NCOs) in order to promote to field grades so the leadership is ALL retired military field grade officers.

I do think SDFs should be cited repeatedly as precedent when negotiating with the Air Force on what our spectrum of uniforms should look like & why. However, I don't belive CAP should go under the NGB, which is a heavily Army dominated command & a mostly powerless fractured body. There's a laudry list of reasons I think it's a bad idea.

State's already have SDFs, they don't need us overlapping, and most of our people wouldn't be accepted at anything like their current levels. What'd happen in the transition is they'd strip our stuff & demote everyone, 3/4ths of our people would leave & the cadet program would get dropped... basically they'd end up with our toys & we'd end up out. There's also the issue that people still in the military can't serve in SDFs. I'm not saying that's a show stopper as long as an extra duty status can be afforded for service members to do some things within certain limits in thier normal military status.

I don't mention SDFs cause I'm envious of their uniforms. I mention them because I think Auxiliary is the word used at the federal level & SDF is the word used at the state level, and the law & organization should be altered as necessary to change the nature of the organiation to what I think it was all along intended to be on an informal level, but that's been lost on people so it seems to need formalizing & I think a lot of good would come of it.

[Eagle400]

I think that the relationship between CAP and the Air Force should be the same as the relationship between the Coast Guard Auxiliary and the Coast Guard. 

That means the Air Force having complete jurisdiction over CAP, CAP using Air Force manuals/regulations/instructions, CAP utilizing Air Force training, having uniforms that more closely resemble those of the Air Force, and having a command structure more similar to that of the Air Force.   

CAP doesn't need to be put under the National Guard Bureau, and shouldn't.  As DNall said, CAP would just get in the way if it were to be given a status similar to SDF's.  The Coast Guard Auxiliary does not have the status of an SDF, yet they are a great force multiplier for the Coast Guard and have a record that is just as good (if not better) than CAP's when it comes to completing their missions.

A greater relationship with the Air Force (in addition to full Air Force oversight) is what will help CAP form closer bonds with state agencies, and solve many other issues CAP currently has.

The law would have to be changed for this to happen, but with enough support and lobbying to Congress, it's possible.        

[JC004]

I think that the relationship between CAP and the Air Force should be the same as the relationship between the Coast Guard Auxiliary and the Coast Guard.

Not entirely possible.  The Coast Guard has a very different role/status than the Air Force does.  A much more...civil role. 

That means the Air Force having complete jurisdiction over CAP, CAP using Air Force manuals/regulations/instructions, CAP utilizing Air Force training, having uniforms that more closely resemble those of the Air Force, and having a command structure more similar to that of the Air Force.

Surely it means more than CAP being commanded by an AF colonel riding it out to retirement or something?  I don't know what manuals/regulations/instructions CAP would use from the Air Force beyond what we have now...look through the AF pubs site...it isn't that exciting, and I don't know that there is anything there which would seriously improve CAP if we suddenly fell into.  Uniforms, instructions, surface to air missiles...whatever we do to mock the Air Force is nice and everything, but what really needs to be considered is utilization/augmentation, not more uniform changes.  Part of it all would be training, an important element to consider - as well as enforcement of standards/regulations.  The Air Force might consider allowing some uniform changes and letting us play more if we could show proper enforcement of existing regulations and such first.

[DNall]

I think that the relationship between CAP and the Air Force should be the same as the relationship between the Coast Guard Auxiliary and the Coast Guard.

Not entirely possible.  The Coast Guard has a very different role/status than the Air Force does.  A much more...civil role. 

That's not entirely correct. The AF has just as big a civil role, as does the Army, but they are PRIMARILY focused outward & give very little attention to the domestic missions CAP exists to take that off their plate as much as possible, at least the routine stuff so they don't have to be bothered unless it a real & big emergency.

The regs thing is stupid. CG issues Aux specific regs under a special series of official CG regs. Big deal. So you put AAFI XX-XXXX on CAP regs & nothing has changed. The place where that does matter is that CAP "recommends" changes & AF issues them under their authority. It also means things like the uniform mannual would be the actual AF uniform regulation & a CAP specific supplement to it. Therefore, when the AFI is changed, it automatically changes the CAP rules. For example, if they switch to ABUs then unless they specifically say otherwise, then we change too & it's automatic w/o anyone needing to lift a finger. Stuff like that's nice, but as was noted, it takes a big legislative change to fix things.

[mikeylikey]

  The Air Force might consider allowing some uniform changes and letting us play more if we could show proper enforcement of existing regulations and such first.

Agreed!  However, the current uniforms are punishment, and those members who caused it are either gone or that mentality they had are no longer around.  IT is time to stop treating us as children.  It makes me think, that those militia types that call themselves a SDF, can get away with wearing a FEDERAL Military uniform, and only have a distinguishing emblem or device that is not that differentiating.

NOTE, some SDF are very legitimate (i.e. NY, MD etc..) but there are some that are far from being professional.  I am not attacking the more professional legitimate ones. 

I could note tell the difference between a California Military Reserve Officer and a Active Duty Air Force Officer in the above pictures.  So why is the AF telling CAP we have to make you way different than us, but we allow an SDF member to look almost like us?

[JC004]

I think that the relationship between CAP and the Air Force should be the same as the relationship between the Coast Guard Auxiliary and the Coast Guard.

Not entirely possible.  The Coast Guard has a very different role/status than the Air Force does.  A much more...civil role. 

That's not entirely correct. The AF has just as big a civil role, as does the Army, but they are PRIMARILY focused outward & give very little attention to the domestic missions CAP exists to take that off their plate as much as possible, at least the routine stuff so they don't have to be bothered unless it a real & big emergency.
...

The AF handles inland SAR, which they sucker off on us (also, by a secret law, they're all at 2 AM).  The Army does DR and all that jazz.  AF does some counterdrug stuff (I saw pictures on the AF web site and they didn't even paint over the words on the aircraft!).  I dunno what else the AF does here that we can be heavily involved with at the moment, although I'd like to see some ideas.

[DNall]

Mil support for civil authorities is what all of the mil does, each in their own way. The AF does a whole lot. SaR is part of that, as is a large disaster air mission (assessment, rescue, support, etc), there's a counterdrug mission as well. All of that is 1AF, and we sshould be playing a much bigger role. I also spoke a while back about pulling some other ideas together to back up 8AF in their cyber mission, and I think that's going to happen down the road, but they don't really have their legs under them yet.

The point is... well anyone that's been in the real military & then comes to CAP expecting the environment or people to be similiar, it's very frustrating. In CAP people are lackidasical, just tooting along like nothing matters & any small thing that gets done is at a snails pace. It's not lack of pay or lack of time. We spend just as long in meetings as the guard does in drill, and SDFs get brought up cause they do the exact same thing for no pay & have ot buy all their own stuff with basically no benefits. For better or worse they do a better job of meeting that standard than CAP does, and CAP suffers for it badly.

  The Air Force might consider allowing some uniform changes and letting us play more if we could show proper enforcement of existing regulations and such first.

Agreed!  However, the current uniforms are punishment, and those members who caused it are either gone or that mentality they had are no longer around.  IT is time to stop treating us as children.  It makes me think, that those militia types that call themselves a SDF, can get away with wearing a FEDERAL Military uniform, and only have a distinguishing emblem or device that is not that differentiating.

Current uniforms are not a punishment. The maroon boards that we had before you guys probably came in were a punishment for some specific things, changfing to gray has been a reward that our behavior as an organization toward the AF has not warranted.

As far as those attitudes & behavior not existing any longer, that's incorrect. What about when they want to change something like the command patch so they just do it & order it on corporates, and then ask AF after the fact to approve it on the AF-style when stock is running out & it'll be a financial disaster for members not to approve. What about taking AFAux off the planes so we can do missions that potentially violate PCA w/o having to ask AF for permission first? What about creating a whole new AF-looking corporate service dress using real AF grade slides & other items w/o formal permission & then having to make a bunch of changes cause it bothered some generals that saw it... does any of that look like behavior to be rewarded. What about a truck load of investigations, some BS & some legit & big time serious, what about ignoring our own regs as leadership sees fit, either in holding their own accountable or in changing regs on a whim... what about financial problems, and the appearance of inpropriety, things that would get you court martialed in the military get swept under the rug & AF has no authority to do anything. And, what about the people we choose to bring up in the org versus those we hold down or push out. No, I'd say we're still firmly in a bad place that needs a lot of improvement before AF needs to reward us.

I have an idea of where I want us to be organizationally on all those points, on uniforms, and what I'd like to add in terms of professional development, structure, & mgmt. And I certainly would like to spell that out to AF, and ask for all assistance in making it happen, including with any legislative actio necessary, and then spell out to AF what we'd like to see as rewards for hitting or benchmarks & becoming of better service to them & the coutnry. That's the pie int eh sky dream CAP though. I don't believe it's possible for any Nat CC to force such an agenda. I thin AF would have ot focibly take over CAP w/ Congressional permission, and set things on that course, at least initially under AF leadership. Then after a few years I think you could put a CAP officer back at the top answering to the AF.

[NAYBOR]

OK, not under the NGB, but the AF itself, and lose the darn "corporate status" of CAP.  How hard can this be for Congress to do?  How many US Codes would need to be changed?

[JC004]

OK, not under the NGB, but the AF itself, and lose the darn "corporate status" of CAP.  How hard can this be for Congress to do?  How many US Codes would need to be changed?

How hard...for Congress...How hard...for Congress.     The opposite of progress is...   

I think, with something like this, Congress would ask for half a dozen reports from various organizations before they'd consider a change...SECAF, various Congressional committees, a couple other departments in government that nobody ever knew about, etc. 

[DNall]

^ Absolutely true. AF would be in favor but worreid about resources & personnel to oversee such a move. They'll lobby for use of retired personnel & additional appropriations, but all in favor of the take over. Congress will be concerend about AF coming on hard times & wanting to gut CAP cause it isn't that important to the big picture. Lots of people in CAP will get calle dout to lobby the crap out of Congress... by the way you aren't allowed to lobby congress on behalf of CAP issues. AF got really mad about that last time & added a line about helping to advocate for our needs as part of their process. We have govt relationsions officers to act as liaisons at the state level, but congres belongs to AF in policy & budget matters.

[mikeylikey]

^^ I don't get it?  We are not allowed to lobby our congressman and women? Isn't that illegal for them to say we can't speak to our representatives about CAP?  I speak to mine all the time, and give them newsletters and and invites to functions.  Hell, I eat lunch with my Senator once or twice a month (granted he is my cousin) in DC, and CAP comes up all the time. 

So many people have made it perfectly clear that CAP is solely a CORPORATION.  If so, we can lobby who ever we want to get more money for the CORPORATION.  This is one area where if true.......I am totally in disagreement with the Air Force.

Come on AF!  The less money you have to give us....and the more money we raise on our own......means the more Officers you can cut and the more planes you can buy that you don't need.  Seriously.....if the AF had the money but did not have to give it to CAP.....do you think they would keep all those officers that they are cutting loose in a few months? 

I read the list......not one pilot was up for mandatory separation.  Makes you wonder who is running this retention board at HQ AF.  Must be the pilot types!

Wow....HUGE digression on my part.  Someone fill me in on the Lobby Congress issue please!

[DNall]

You CAN talk to you congressman, it's not illegal, but there are consequences. The corp, NOT you, can lobby who it wants, but again there are consquences when that interferes with AF priorities. It's exactly the same in the military. The priorities are decided above your paygrade, and you aren't allowed to interfere with them for any reason.

If CAP national decides that we need FLIR on all our planes, funded flight training for adults, and money to support caddet programs at teh unit level... makes a real strong case & Congress buys it, so they allocate the money & because of it the AF gets that much less in their aquasition budget & don't get as many planes because of it. How you think AF is going to feel about that? Our full annual appropriation is AF sitting down with everything they have to do & assigning it a priority order and dollar amount. You think if we mess up their priorities & make them look stupid in front of congress that we'll have the same dollar figure or funding priority? I mean we're at war & the AF is cutting people hand over fist. You really think they can't make a case tat CAP needs to share the burden in hard times?

And far as cutting officers, I understand it's mostly non-rated (cause little has been invested in them), and certainly would not include pilots (who they just spent 3mil/ea making).

[JohnKachenmeister]

While I dislike the corporate identity in CAP, and the increasing move to be more of a civiian corporatin than a military asset, I would not be so quick to shed entirely the corporate existance.

For example:

The corporation can buy, sell, and lease property much easier than the government can.

The corporation can protect its assets, sue (and be sued) and copyright its trademarks easier than the government can.

A corporation can provide assistance to non-governmental organizations with less fuss than a government agency has to go through.  (All the current fuss we have is self-inflicted.  A corporation can also shoot itself in the foot easier than a government agency can.)

[MIKE]

... and copyright its trademarks easier than the government can.

And this is a good thing?

[JohnKachenmeister]

... and copyright its trademarks easier than the government can.

And this is a good thing?

Not the way it is currently used, to provide a monopoly to Vanguard.  But we can more easily guard against commercial exploiation and inappropriate use of CAP insignia.

"ZigZag:  The Official marijuana cigarette paper of the Civil Air Patrol."

[jimmydeanno]

"ZigZag:  The Official marijuana cigarette paper of the Civil Air Patrol."

I don't know why you'd say this doesn't present a good image...

[JohnKachenmeister]

In 1942, that was a good image.  In 2007, it is tantamount to killing people. 

Things change.  Cigarettes are now recognized as the deadly hazard that they are.  Both my World War II generation parents died of cancer.

I also have an Air Corps training film that speaks about spending Friday night in a "Gay night spot."  I don't think a training film would use those words today.

[mikeylikey]

I also have an Air Corps training film that speaks about spending Friday night in a "Gay night spot."  I don't think a training film would use those words today.

San Francisco??

[gallagheria]

Far as uniforms, a lot of that has to do with some distinct things: For one, they mostly hold state commissions; they also for the most part are required to have been real military officers (not NCOs) in order to promote to field grades so the leadership is ALL retired military field grade officers.

I do think SDFs should be cited repeatedly as precedent when negotiating with the Air Force on what our spectrum of uniforms should look like & why. However, I don't belive CAP should go under the NGB, which is a heavily Army dominated command & a mostly powerless fractured body. There's a laudry list of reasons I think it's a bad idea.

State's already have SDFs, they don't need us overlapping, and most of our people wouldn't be accepted at anything like their current levels. What'd happen in the transition is they'd strip our stuff & demote everyone, 3/4ths of our people would leave & the cadet program would get dropped... basically they'd end up with our toys & we'd end up out. There's also the issue that people still in the military can't serve in SDFs. I'm not saying that's a show stopper as long as an extra duty status can be afforded for service members to do some things within certain limits in thier normal military status.

I don't mention SDFs cause I'm envious of their uniforms. I mention them because I think Auxiliary is the word used at the federal level & SDF is the word used at the state level, and the law & organization should be altered as necessary to change the nature of the organiation to what I think it was all along intended to be on an informal level, but that's been lost on people so it seems to need formalizing & I think a lot of good would come of it.

Most of that is true, but some clarification is necessary. SDF's are prohibited from wearing any U.S. insignia under both NGR 10-4 and AR 670-1. As for the term "SDF" or "State Defense Force,"  those actually are federal terms found under 10 USC 311, which created the SDF's, and NGR 10-4, which regulates them. Some states use other terms such as "guard," "state guard" or "military reserve," and some use the "state defense force" term. 

As for prior service, it is not necessary. Some states have ratio quotas of prior-service to non, but that varies state by state. Commission requirements are similar to the Armed Forces--you have to have a college degree and then it varies state by state, but most require some form of OCS and then other training if you are not prior service. The primary difference I have seen between commissioning requirements between SDF's and the Armed Forces is medical and age restrictions. SDF's are by far more lenient with medical and age restrictions for the most part do not exist.

Also, as you mentioned prohibiting members of the Armed Forces from being in SDF's, and that is true. It only makes sense. You cannot be in the Navy and Army at the same time, so same here. If a Guard unit is deployed, how will an SDF fill in its ranks if the SDF members are deploying as the Guard members?

But as far as the uniform requirements of the CAP, I see no reason why the Air Force is so restrictive. Even non-military members of the Public Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) wear Navy uniforms. So being military itself has nothing to do with wearing the uniform. DA civilians can wear the Army uniform and only have to wear a specific patch--not some weirdo-colored scheme to make sure they look different than military members.

I see no reason to make the uniform any different than changing merely the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" nametape from "U.S. Air Force." Otherwise, it gets to the point where the CAP should just use an entirely different uniform. Some of the changes have no reason or justification at all.