Poll
Question:
Do you think CAP is part of the military and why
Option 1: Yes
votes: 31
Option 2: No
votes: 71
Option 3: Mayby (Yes and No)
votes: 9
It is not anywhere in regs that CAP is part of the military, but I had a long discussion with some of my friends about it and they seem to think it is so I just want to hear some others thoughts on this topic. Personally I do not think that it is.
What?
So in your opinion being the Auxiliary of the Air Force does not make us part of the military?
Interesting...
:o this must be a joke correct? :o
We are a non-combatant service that is part of the military family.
But you knew that...
Quote from: Eclipse on January 15, 2011, 05:30:40 AM
We are a non-combatant service that is part of the military family.
But you knew that...
Much of this is aimed at the original question...not so much to your comment Eclipse.
This has been how it has best been described. CAP is part of the Air Force Family. It plays its assigned role, Congressional Chartered, via its three missions.
Above all...be more proud of what you are, than ashamed of what you are not. I am proud of what we do in CAP...wanting combatant roles is beyond the scope of the mission. Going around telling people you are in some elite force or making CAP out to be more than what it is is a disservice to all the good we do accomplish.
Cheapen not out accomplishments by portraying a false image of what CAP is. Be frank, provide a realistic image of CAP and take pride in it as the USAF Auxiliary. You will find selling us for what we are is better than selling disappointment to some new person who is expecting something unrealistic and apocryphal.
Let's get technical for a minute. Technically speaking, we are the official auxiliary of the United States Air Force. Whether or not we are part of the military depends on your definition of the word "auxiliary."
I searched it, and came up with answers ranging from simply "Helping" or "Auxiliary person, thing, or group," to "additional; supplementary; reserve: i.e. an auxiliary police force," or "an organization allied with, but subsidiary to, a main body of restricted membership."
If you think of an auxiliary as "helpers," then no, we are not part of the military, merely helping them to keep us safe. On the other hand, though I personally think we are not, if you think of an auxiliary as "supplementary" or even (Gasp :o) "reserves," then the argument that we are part of the RM, IMHO, might have some weight to it... Of course, it's not our place to decide. The real decision lies with the USAF/Pentagon leadership.
I agree with Major Carrales. I am extremely proud of what we do in CAP, and whether or not we are bona-fide military has no bearing on that.
Quote from: GTCommando on January 15, 2011, 05:41:46 AM
Let's get technical for a minute. Technically speaking, we are the official auxiliary of the United States Air Force. Whether or not we are part of the military depends on your definition of the word "auxiliary."
If you want to get real technical, we're
one of the USAF auxiliaries. We're not the only auxiliary (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Auxiliary_Radio_System") the USAF utilizes.
Quote from: GTCommando on January 15, 2011, 05:41:46 AM
Let's get technical for a minute. Technically speaking, we are the official auxiliary of the United States Air Force. Whether or not we are part of the military depends on your definition of the word "auxiliary."
I searched it, and came up with answers ranging from simply "Helping" or "Auxiliary person, thing, or group," to "additional; supplementary; reserve: i.e. an auxiliary police force," or "an organization allied with, but subsidiary to, a main body of restricted membership."
If you think of an auxiliary as "helpers," then no, we are not part of the military, merely helping them to keep us safe. On the other hand, though I personally think we are not, if you think of an auxiliary as "supplementary" or even (Gasp :o) "reserves," then the argument that we are part of the RM, IMHO, might have some weight to it... Of course, it's not our place to decide. The real decision lies with the USAF/Pentagon leadership.
I agree with Major Carrales. I am extremely proud of what we do in CAP, and whether or not we are bona-fide military has no bearing on that.
To bad we are only the USAF AUX. when on air force missions...so.... :o
Are or are we not part of the military is not a question we need to decide, that answer lies many pay grades above us. However here are my thoughts.
My Answer: It could be argued that we are depending on the nature of what we are doing. While operating on an Air Force Assigned Mission and while under the Air Force AD&D Insurance and Federal Tort protections, we are deemed to be an instrumentality of the U.S. Govt...read that as Air Force, with a paygrade of GS-7. However, we are not held accountable under the UCMJ.
Personal Opinion: While operating under the umbrella of an Air Force Assigned Mission, we should be held accountable under the UCMJ.
Personal Opinion: CAP is a part of the U.S. Air Force total force concept as the U.S. Air Force Aux. We could be considered the 4th family member within the Air Force Family....Active, Reserve, Guard, Auxiliary. That was expressed by an Asst Secretary of the Air Force and is rumored to be on his challenge coin.
Yes and no.
In a very technical sense, on paper, we are more directly part of the Air Force than the Air National Guard, since unless they are Federalized, the ANG comes under the control of their respective State Governor. It's been said that the United States has 55 air forces - the active and reserve USAF, each state's ANG, D.C. ANG, Puerto Rico ANG (C-130's), and non-flying ANG units in Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands. We are always under the Federal structure, just as the active AF and AFRES are.
However, we are not military in the sense that we are not armed (depth charges on little yellow airplanes and airfield guards with M-1's in WWII notwithstanding). We are not under the UCMJ. We have officer ranks, but we are not actually commissioned officers.
We are more loosely akin to the British Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve (Training Branch), that oversees the Air Training Corps, except that their officers are paid and wear the exact same uniform as their RAF counterparts with VRT lapel/epaulette devices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Air_Force_Volunteer_Reserve_%28Training_Branch%29
The USCG Auxiliary is both more and less "military" than we are - "more" in that they are a LOT more closely integrated with the Coast Guard than we are with the AF, and less in that they do not have ranks and do not render customs and courtesies to each other (though they do to military commissioned and warrant officers).
We would be nearer to something like the U.S. Public Health Service or the NOAA Commissioned Corps - uniformed (they wear a very slightly modified USN uniform), but not under the UCMJ except in very limited circumstances; i.e., USPHS personnel providing medical support to the USCG. Both also have their own system of ribbons and medals, like we do.
If it sounds kind of schizoid...it's because it is.
QuoteWe would be nearer to something like the U.S. Public Health Service or the NOAA Commissioned Corps - uniformed (they wear a very slightly modified USN uniform), but not under the UCMJ except in very limited circumstances; i.e., USPHS personnel providing medical support to the USCG. Both also have their own system of ribbons and medals, like we do.
That is probably the best example or description of what we are then anything I have heard before.
I think GTCommando hit the nose, it depends on the definition of auxiliary.
Since someone else mentioned the USCG Auxiliary, their ID clearly states it is a nonmilitary ID and it carries the Geneva convention wording as to their status.
The USCG Auxiliary Manual (AuxMan) is The Bible for the Aux and is issued under the authority of the Commandant of the USCG. It clearly places the Aux on the civilian side of the USCG. A few years ago I posted an article on an Auxie board that listed more then a dozen statements in the AuxMan that Auxies are civilians and/or not military/law enforcement.
I am surprised there is no such statement(s) in CAP regulations, especially those from the USAF.
If injured on duty, both CAP and Auxies are treated as GS (civilian) employees - not military members.
The term 'military' is not used for def intion purposes in the US Code. There are 5 "Armed Services" and 7 "Uniformed Services", which includes the Armed Services. Being a employee or volunteer of an Armed Service organization does not make you military - just ask any of the civilian employees of the armed services.
The key is how you worded it. Part of the military -- yes certainly, the original federal law made CAP the Air Force's "official" auxiliary. The most recent made the CAP the Air Force's Auxiliary only when performing Air Force Missions. I don't know how many times I've heard the CAP-Air Force Relationship as parent and child.
Also, consider the CAP-USAF side. The commander of CAP-USAF is, from the Air Force's standpoint, the real overall commander because from the DoD side he carries the title "Program Manager."
However, component of the military, no. I thought at one point I read that there seemed to be a movement to allign the CAP under the DAF Under Secretary for Reserve Affairs. If that is indeed true, then you will certainly see some differences in how this organization is viewed by it's parent service
Quote from: flyboy1 on January 15, 2011, 01:32:39 PM
Also, consider the CAP-USAF side. The commander of CAP-USAF is, from the Air Force's standpoint, the real overall commander because from the DoD side he carries the title "Program Manager."
The commander of CAP-USAF commands USAF personnel and manages DOD employees only, not CAP members and not corporate employees at NHQ.
Quote from: flyboy1 on January 15, 2011, 01:32:39 PM
However, component of the military, no. I thought at one point I read that there seemed to be a movement to allign the CAP under the DAF Under Secretary for Reserve Affairs. If that is indeed true, then you will certainly see some differences in how this organization is viewed by it's parent service
I have cited that, though I didn't come up with it.
After WWII and up until 1968, Continental Air Command was an "umbrella" command that oversaw the Air National Guard (when Federalised) and the Air Force Reserve (which was mainly Troop Carrier Squadrons with C-119's then). CAC also oversaw Civil Air Patrol.
This report from 1958 is instructive, and also triggers bittersweet nostalgia for me for a time past (though I came into the world a few years later) when we knew who we were, and the Air Force knew who we were.
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/1958_84D6E11DE1F58.pdf
So does this poster:
(http://www.caphistory.org/images/museum_store/poster.jpg)
There was just the Civil Air Patrol - Auxiliary United States Air Force (as the seal worded it then). No AUXON/AUXOFF, no dithering about "are we military or corporate." We wore the AIR FORCE uniform AS IS, with our bits added.
:(sigh :(
But of course that's water over the dam.
I do wonder, though, if placing us under Air Force Reserve Command would strengthen our position with the Air Force more than it is now.
CAP is not part of the military, but basically could be thought of as a civilian non profit subcontractor that performs certain missions for the Air Force and other federal (state) activities that the primary agency has decided are the most cost effective way of supporting those missions. Overall the USAF has had very good experience with CAP support since WW II.
AF Instruction 10-2701, defines who we are in the eyes of the AF:
".........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.......".
I think the key issue is all our members have to keep a healthy prospective as to this relationship and not think we are military but yet not get totally civilian either as far as performing assigned operational missions. Sort of like a hybrid military, perhaps that's what auxiliary in this context means.
Also under the new DOD directive the MARS (radio) programs also become auxiliaries to their respective services. There are MARS HF/SSB stations throughout the United States that provide operational phone patch support to Air Force operational aircraft.
RM
Your response doesn't even agree with itself. ::)
Quote from: Eclipse on January 15, 2011, 06:50:18 PM
Your response doesn't even agree with itself. ::)
Well as you know even CAP organizationally is confused about this, depending upon who you talk to. As others have stated it all gets down as to your definition of "auxiliary". I really don't think from an operational aspect the AF really cares how our personnel look like or what uniform they wear (or whether CAP members are saluting or marching in circles to some fantasy land para military obsession) as long as the mission(s) we are given are successfully executed. Since the AF is our primary funding source, the correct answer is referring back to the USAF regulation. We are a "civilian" auxiliary that supports the US Air Force in various missions that we are called upon by them to perform. This could include assistance to other federal, state, & local agencies.
So in the end we are civilian unpaid volunteers that help the Air Force.
RM
^^^
First, the AF DOES care how we look and conduct ourselves...all the uniform trials and tribulations of the past 20 years are proof of that. Also, go onto an installation and fail to salute a senior military officer and see what that gets you.
I see no reason why the MARS support for the AF could not be folded into the CAP Communications purview.
But, RM's post reinforces what I have long believed about the schizoid nature of the CAP organisation, especially since the mid-1990s.
However, I strenuously disagree with him that those who do care about uniform issues have a "paramilitary obsession."
No. Why? Because every legal definition of "military" found in US law says otherwise.
On a sidenote, as I proposed in another thread, CAP as an organization is almost always on an AFAM of some sort somewhere in the country so on the national level can be considered to be AF Aux at all times. Only individual members can be said to be or not to be on an AFAM at any given time. But, since the AuxOn/AuxOff concept only matters to the individual member, and not to any relevant aspect of how CAP conducts business, it is sort of a moot point.
Radioman has long been anti military when it comes to CAP wearing USAF uniforms and having any sort of a military mindset or structure. His responces do not surprise me.
Quote from: DrJbdm on January 16, 2011, 12:09:02 AM
Radioman has long been anti military when it comes to CAP wearing USAF uniforms and having any sort of a military mindset or structure. His responces do not surprise me.
I know.
River makes an interesting point though about the AuxOn/Off status.
In a nutshell, under legal and statutory definitions of "military:" NO.
But are we organised and operate under a military-derived structure?: YES.
CAP may be considered by some to be under DOD, whether we really are or not, I don't know. However, we are not in the military, there are quite a few pamphlets and texts in CAP that say so. I do however know we are an Auxiliary to the USAF which is military and therefore we should behave as if we are military, and that is to say we should act like we are in the military by showing proper military bearing and perform our jobs with military precision. Also we should wear our uniforms with military pride and show that we are professionals worthy of being considered military. Also we should not go around telling people that we are military. Be a professional, act like you are in the military, and let people know who we really are and they will see us in a much better light, whether we really are military or not, they may stop seeing any difference between us and the military.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 16, 2011, 12:56:52 AM
CAP may be considered by some to be under DOD, whether we really are or not, I don't know. However, we are not in the military, there are quite a few pamphlets and texts in CAP that say so. I do however know we are an Auxiliary to the USAF which is military and therefore we should behave as if we are military, and that is to say we should act like we are in the military by showing proper military bearing and perform our jobs with military precision. Also we should wear our uniforms with military pride and show that we are professionals worthy of being considered military. Also we should not go around telling people that we are military. Be a professional, act like you are in the military, and let people know who we really are and they will see us in a much better light, whether we really are military or not, they may stop seeing any difference between us and the military.
Im not trying to say that your lieing, but what pamphlets does it say that we are?
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on January 15, 2011, 06:35:35 PM
AF Instruction 10-2701, defines who we are in the eyes of the AF:
".........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.......".
What I get from this is that CAP is a part of the United States Air Force just like anyone else but under volunteer status at all times. Nothing in that text states that the only tasks we can do for the Air Force is SAR/DR. The Air Force can ask CAP to perform any function other than combat as long as it is designated an Air Force Mission. CAP members also have the right to refuse participation in those missions under their rights as volunteers. In a time of true emergency the Air Force could assign CAP members to anything other than combat as long as the paperwork is filled out correctly. That could include combat support functions such as logistics readiness or it could include community outreach programs through aerospace education. All it needs is an Air Force mission assignment and CAP members willing to do it. The hard part is in convincing military commanders to utilize us as an asset in areas that we aren't currently active, maybe remind them of all the good work we did in WW2.
Quote from: JArvey on January 16, 2011, 03:46:57 AM
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on January 16, 2011, 12:56:52 AM
CAP may be considered by some to be under DOD, whether we really are or not, I don't know. However, we are not in the military, there are quite a few pamphlets and texts in CAP that say so. I do however know we are an Auxiliary to the USAF which is military and therefore we should behave as if we are military, and that is to say we should act like we are in the military by showing proper military bearing and perform our jobs with military precision. Also we should wear our uniforms with military pride and show that we are professionals worthy of being considered military. Also we should not go around telling people that we are military. Be a professional, act like you are in the military, and let people know who we really are and they will see us in a much better light, whether we really are military or not, they may stop seeing any difference between us and the military.
Im not trying to say that your lieing, but what pamphlets does it say that we are?
One of the recruiting pamphlets has a question, something like do I have a military obligation, or something to the effect, and it says no, that CAP while it is the USAF Aux, there is no military obligation, or something to the effect, I just can't remember what is says exactly. It is one of the tall one page pamphlets.
Definition: Armed Forces
http://www.audioenglish.net/search/armed_forces.htm?whereto=http%3A//www.audioenglish.net/search/military.htm (http://www.audioenglish.net/search/armed_forces.htm?whereto=http%3A//www.audioenglish.net/search/military.htm)
Definition: Military
http://www.audioenglish.net/search/military.htm?whereto=http%3A//www.audioenglish.net/search/civilian.htm (http://www.audioenglish.net/search/military.htm?whereto=http%3A//www.audioenglish.net/search/civilian.htm)
Definition: Paramilitary
http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/paramilitary.htm (http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/paramilitary.htm)
Definition: Auxillary
http://www.audioenglish.net/search/auxiliary.htm?whereto=http%3A//www.audioenglish.net/search/auxillary.htm (http://www.audioenglish.net/search/auxiliary.htm?whereto=http%3A//www.audioenglish.net/search/auxillary.htm)
Definition: Civilian
http://www.audioenglish.net/search/civilian.htm?whereto=http%3A//www.audioenglish.net/search/auxiliary.htm (http://www.audioenglish.net/search/civilian.htm?whereto=http%3A//www.audioenglish.net/search/auxiliary.htm)
Quote from: FARRIER on January 16, 2011, 05:08:57 AM
Definition: Paramilitary
http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/paramilitary.htm (http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/paramilitary.htm)
This is what I was going to say.
We are always Paramilitary, sometimes acting as a Congressionally-chartered corporation, sometimes as the USAF Auxiliary; but always civilian, never military.
I, personally, am proud of our wartime history, our affiliation with USAF and being a part of their team, and thusly being permitted to wear USAF uniforms, and, yes, practice military customs and courtesies. However, I always remember precisely who we are in relation to the actual military, and consider it a privilege to work alongside our military brethren when needed.
I say it depends on what you mean by "part of".
I think most can agree we ARE NOT the Military.
But doesn't necessarily mean we are not "part of" the military depending on how someone defines "part of".
Does having an asset available to you to do things when you need, make you "part of" the team or something? If doing SAR missions on air force assigned missions, make us a "part of" the air force (eg the air force auxiliary)?
Not sure how or what the OP is trying to ellict.
Quote from: JoeTomasone on January 16, 2011, 05:15:36 AM
I, personally, am proud of our wartime history, our affiliation with USAF and being a part of their team, and thusly being permitted to wear USAF uniforms, and, yes, practice military customs and courtesies. However, I always remember precisely who we are in relation to the actual military, and consider it a privilege to work alongside our military brethren when needed.
I have to say, I am very proud to hear someone other than me say that in the open. I imagine were history to repeat itself things would happen along the same lines as they did the last time an enemy tried coming close to our soil. Personally I think it could happen, I would be scarred like a child if it were to happen, but were it to I would imagine CAP would be used rather closely to the same way it was in WWII. Granted there would be some serious changes happen all at once with no phase in time for Reg changes. Were it to happen I would then think that the idea of CAP being military would change drastically. Until that happens though I do not think that CAP should be considered "in the military", however I would say that we are a "sister of the military?"
For now, be happy with what we are and don't try to make CAP out to be anything more than it is, a powerful asset to our country as it is, an Auxiliary to the USAF, an asset to the lost citizens of our country, and a great tool to mold our youth to be great citizens and examples to those to come.
It's the CAP not MAP. "C" stands for civil:
civ·il /ˈsɪvəl/ Show Spelled
[siv-uhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or consisting of citizens: civil life; civil society.
2. of the commonwealth or state: civil affairs.
3. of citizens in their ordinary capacity, or of the ordinary life and affairs of citizens, as distinguished from military and ecclesiastical life and affairs.
What I want to know is why some of you have such a hatred of CAP having an affiliation with the military? It seems to me and I know I am not alone on this, that some hate CAP having a connection with USAF, hate the uniforms, hate the C&C and D&C. Why?
Thrash
The only reason CAP is the CIVIL Air Patrol is, is was organized under the Office of Civil Defense. That lasted a year when it was moved under the War Department. CAP has operated under military command until the 1980s and 90s when USAF downsized and the CAP Corporation took over.
^BillB, I like your (very) watered down description. However, history aside, CAP is no longer "controlled" by the Air Force. However, the Air Force has considerable influence over our operations. After all, they still control our annual grant. The SECAF also directly appoints four members of the BoG and, jointly appoints 3 others with the CAP/CC.
CAP decides for itself what missions it will perform. The Air Force only allows payment or reimbursement for those missions it deems "worthy". If CAP had it's own real method of fund raising, like the BSA, Air Force influence would be minimal. It is only due to our patriotism and desire to continue our affiliation with the Air Force we continue to serve as their auxiliary. Public law defines our relationship however, our annual grant sustains the relationship. If the money goes away, so do we. This year, we loose 20% of our operating budget and, almost all of our aircraft purchasing money. Next year? Who knows.
To answer the question; NO, CAP is not "part of the military". We do "support" them and, we are privileged to wear the (modified) AF uniform, if able and willing.
Considering the answer is both "yes" and "no', an individual's way of responding is probably more important than their answer.
Anyone who answers in one word doesn't know enough about the evolving situation to have an informed opinion.
Those people who assert too forcefully that CAP is part of the military don't "get it".
Those people who assert too forcefully that CAP isn't part of the military don't "get it".
I try to act and behave as though everything I do reflects on our parent military service. Whether CAP is part of the military or not isn't important to me. What matters is I have an opportunity to serve my country.
I think of CAP as the CIVILIAN Auxiliary. If we were military than we would be subject to the UCMJ. If we were military then we would probably have some issues with 12 year old cadets. We act as PART of the military at some points (during a SAR mission) but we are only an auxiliary. I think of it as the Police Explorer program. As an Explorer are you a police officer? No, but you might dress in the same uniform, carry some of the same gear, ride in a patrol car, etc. The phrase "civilian auxiliary" sums us up well. My 2 cents anyway. 8)
Fact is this is a specious point and moot. We are the Civil Air Patrol...the US Air Force Auxiliary. We have defined missions, a national structure and the support of our Government. The idea of "part of the military" needs to be looked at for what it is this instance...a throw away phrase.
We are what we are truly...nothing more and nothing less than the personnel in our units and the deeds we do in support of our mission. The idea of "part of the military" is so vague a phrase that we might well examine it...is a flower in landscaping at a military installation "part of the military? How 'bout a stripe on the road or stop sign at an intersection on a Naval Air Station? What about blades of grass at an Air force Base? A ham in a freezer at a Post Exchange?
See, the phrase is somewhat ambiguous. Yet, many of my brother and sister CAP members are ready to go to blows over it.
For those who think CAP is military does that mean ROTC and JROTC are real military as well? What does CAP do that would make it military that those two other groups don't?
Quote from: JK657 on January 16, 2011, 09:20:37 PM
For those who think CAP is military does that mean ROTC and JROTC are real military as well? What does CAP do that would make it military that those two other groups don't?
Whether or not some other organization is "military" or not is irrelevant to CAP.
Quote from: commando1 on January 16, 2011, 08:37:58 PM
I think of CAP as the CIVILIAN Auxiliary. If we were military than we would be subject to the UCMJ. If we were military then we would probably have some issues with 12 year old cadets. We act as PART of the military at some points (during a SAR mission) but we are only an auxiliary. I think of it as the Police Explorer program. As an Explorer are you a police officer? No, but you might dress in the same uniform, carry some of the same gear, ride in a patrol car, etc. The phrase "civilian auxiliary" sums us up well. My 2 cents anyway. 8)
I don't think anyone is trying to say we ARE the Military, but like I said depends on what the OP means or how you define "PART OF" the military. Being "part of" can mean many things.
I agree with Major Carrales, it is ambiguous on how you phrase it.
Also just because you are a civilian doesn't mean you cannot be "part of" the military.
In regards to your case about Police Explorers, certainly police explorers or even meter maids, crossing guards, civilian crime scene technicians, etc, are not Police Officers, however are they not "part of" the Police Department they serve?
I have heard more than on AF Officer tell me that the AF considers CAP as having a place in their Total Force Structure.
Quote from: JK657 on January 16, 2011, 09:20:37 PM
For those who think CAP is military does that mean ROTC and JROTC are real military as well? What does CAP do that would make it military that those two other groups don't?
I don't think anyone is trying to argue "CAP IS THE MILITARY" , the question has more to do with "part of the military", however it depends on how you define "part of the military".
I certainly don't think of myself as a military officer. I do think of myself as a civilian volunteer with the Civil Air Patrol and I'm proud to assist in any way I can in Cadet Programs, Emergency Services and Aerospace Education.
CAP is part of the Air Force.
It is the civilian auxiliary of the USAF (please let's not bog down in discussing MARS!)
That doesn't make the organization or its members military personnel as such.
Perhaps one could say that CAP is affiliated with the Air Force.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2011, 09:27:01 PM
Quote from: JK657 on January 16, 2011, 09:20:37 PM
For those who think CAP is military does that mean ROTC and JROTC are real military as well? What does CAP do that would make it military that those two other groups don't?
Whether or not some other organization is "military" or not is irrelevant to CAP.
Well said, Eclipse, the constant specious comparisons to other organizations is a common fallacy that many CAPTALKERS fall into. What happens in the Armed Forces (unless directly related to CAP), JROTC/ROTC, Coast Guard Auxiliary, the Boy Scout or the Knights of Columbus (the list could go on) is more to be "contrasted" than "compared" when it comes to CAP.
Those organizations are fundamentally different in purpose, intent, history and organization. When we try to make those structures fit into CAP or vice versa, there is the potential for incompatibility and, in CAPTALK at least, undo argument.
I think the premise behind this thread has been a bit divisive with little substance.
We can learn from any organization and how it does things. Just because they are different from CAP does not mean that they don't have anything to teach us or that we could teach them.
However, you are correct that their legal status has no bearing on CAP's.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 17, 2011, 02:25:25 AM
We can learn from any organization and how it does things. Just because they are different from CAP does not mean that they don't have anything to teach us or that we could teach them.
...
Can you get that message to those who are way behind on things like marketing and technology?
Quote from: RiverAux on January 17, 2011, 02:25:25 AM
We can learn from any organization and how it does things. Just because they are different from CAP does not mean that they don't have anything to teach us or that we could teach them.
However, you are correct that their legal status has no bearing on CAP's.
As with all things, we can learn...but we are held by or regulations, traditions and the realities of the organization. I cannot, however, support efforts that would restructure the whole of the National CAP because people want it to somehow morph into a clone of some other organization.
I find no fault with your second point.
Sparky, everything can change. Regulations change every time the NEC and NB meet. Traditions change with the passing of time. And, realities change with the winds. Even public law changes from time to time.
IMHO, what matters is that we, as an organization and collective membership, need to be successful. Our association with the Air Force fills part of that need. However, there is much more to the equation than that. And, the continued threads on uniforms, missions and, governance mirror our continued fight for betterment. I see no problem with this. In fact, I think it shows how dedicated we are to CAP and, our Air Force relationship.
Quote from: FW on January 17, 2011, 03:39:02 AM
Sparky, everything can change. Regulations change every time the NEC and NB meet. Traditions change with the passing of time. And, realities change with the winds. Even public law changes from time to time.
IMHO, what matters is that we, as an organization and collective membership, need to be successful. Our association with the Air Force fills part of that need. However, there is much more to the equation than that. And, the continued threads on uniforms, missions and, governance mirror our continued fight for betterment. I see no problem with this. In fact, I think it shows how dedicated we are to CAP and, our Air Force relationship.
Again, I don't mind natural change as per the passing of time to meet the needs of 1) the changing mission, 2) organization needs to accomplish the missions and 3) the membership, who insure the organization operates to accomplish the missions.
Change for change sake, wasteful "pet project" or "organization envy" are not proactive motivators of change for CAP. If that were the case, then the Army should change to be more like the Air Force because 1) there needs to be CHANGE in the Army, 2) the new Secretary of the Army likes the "cut of the USAF JIB" and 3) it works quite well for the Air Force, why not change the Army to reflect that success? See, how ridiculous such thinking can be?
Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2011, 06:32:14 PM
Considering the answer is both "yes" and "no', an individual's way of responding is probably more important than their answer.
Anyone who answers in one word doesn't know enough about the evolving situation to have an informed opinion.
Those people who assert too forcefully that CAP is part of the military don't "get it".
Those people who assert too forcefully that CAP isn't part of the military don't "get it".
Better than anything I could come up with.
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 17, 2011, 03:46:32 AM
Change for change sake, wasteful "pet project" or "organization envy" are not proactive motivators of change for CAP. If that were the case, then the Army should change to be more like the Air Force because 1) there needs to be CHANGE in the Army, 2) the new Secretary of the Army likes the "cut of the USAF JIB" and 3) it works quite well for the Air Force, why not change the Army to reflect that success? See, how ridiculous such thinking can be?
Of course, change without purpose or vision is basically chaos. However, there is a developing opinion among the senior leadership of CAP we need to change the way we administer ourselves. Our "relationship" with the Air Force is strong and binding however, there is growing confusion on how we do business, who is in charge and, how we govern. It may be a reason the OP started the thread.
In my opinion, I think we will see more significant change in the near future. Think of it as natural evolution due to our continued confusion of who we are and how we operate.
Quote from: FW on January 17, 2011, 12:21:20 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 17, 2011, 03:46:32 AM
Change for change sake, wasteful "pet project" or "organization envy" are not proactive motivators of change for CAP. If that were the case, then the Army should change to be more like the Air Force because 1) there needs to be CHANGE in the Army, 2) the new Secretary of the Army likes the "cut of the USAF JIB" and 3) it works quite well for the Air Force, why not change the Army to reflect that success? See, how ridiculous such thinking can be?
Of course, change without purpose or vision is basically chaos. However, there is a developing opinion among the senior leadership of CAP we need to change the way we administer ourselves. Our "relationship" with the Air Force is strong and binding however, there is growing confusion on how we do business, who is in charge and, how we govern. It may be a reason the OP started the thread.
In my opinion, I think we will see more significant change in the near future. Think of it as natural evolution due to our continued confusion of who we are and how we operate.
Agreed.
Part of the confusion in our organization has been in the search for missions or as is referred to as our "customers."
Performance of some of those missions fundimentally changed how we function and perceive ourselves as an organization. For example, you saw little changes that effected a degree of rumors like the third evolution of the command patch. I didn't realize it until I read it in some Air Force guidance, that it was the Air Force that directed the removal of "Air Force Auxiliary" from the tails of the airplanes and the command crest because those aircraft and uniforms would be used in the performance of counter drug missions.
So our organization may evolve as missions change and that evolution may be further complicated with changes in defense spending or budgets.
But even the Air Force has changed dramatically over the past two decades. Whole commands were inacttivated and others were restructured as missions and assets changed. Who would have thought three decades ago that there would be things like a ccyber warfare command?
IMHO, CAP is a CIVILIAN auxialiary that is "ASSOCIATED" with a military service.
Uniforms, regulations, D & C, C & C, etc. do not by themselves make one "MILITARY".
CAP IS NOT ARMED. Any member of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or Coast Guard when push comes to shove can have someone shove a rifle in their hands and tell them to "GO FIGHT!".That is what what makes the difference between military and civilians. The UCMJ, US Code, Geneva Convention, regs and manuals are imperfect instruments. That's why they have JAG lawyers to interpret and argue them. But anyone who joins the "ARMED" services should not be surprised if they are told to go to war and fight. That includes medics, chaplains, bandsmen and anyone of the 90% of the military whose jobs do not include direct combat. You've heard the saying, "Every Marine a rifleman." Well, include soldiers, sailors, airman, and coasties.
CAP is not military.
My answer...No.
Quote from: ol'fido on January 17, 2011, 03:59:28 PM
That includes medics, chaplains, bandsmen and anyone of the 90% of the military whose jobs do not include direct combat.
Non-concur.
Bandsmen, yes. At need they can be ordered to put down the trumpet and pick up an M-16.
Chaplains are not combat personnel under the Geneva Conventions. (Protocol I, 8 June 1977, Art 43.2) Captured chaplains are not considered Prisoners of War (Third Convention, 12 August 1949, Chapter IV Art 33) and must be returned to their home nation unless retained to minister to prisoners of war. The United States does not require Army, Navy (who minister also to Marine and Coast Guard personnel) or Air Force chaplains to bear arms.
However, Chaplain's Assistants can be required to bear arms.
Combat medics, like Navy Corpsmen, can and do bear weapons.
Physicians can be issued weapons for defensive purposes only.
Quote from: CyBorg on January 17, 2011, 07:21:23 PM
Combat medics, like Navy Corpsmen, can and do bear weapons.
Do PJs fall under that classification?
Quote from: HGjunkie on January 17, 2011, 07:27:43 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on January 17, 2011, 07:21:23 PM
Combat medics, like Navy Corpsmen, can and do bear weapons.
Do PJs fall under that classification?
I would say so.
They do carry guns.....usually lots of them! hen I was in the Marines our Corpsman carried weapons also. We often said our Corpsman was the best Marine in the Platoon! He rocked!
Quote from: ol'fido on January 17, 2011, 03:59:28 PM
IMHO, CAP is a CIVILIAN auxialiary that is "ASSOCIATED" with a military service.
Uniforms, regulations, D & C, C & C, etc. do not by themselves make one "MILITARY".
CAP IS NOT ARMED. Any member of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or Coast Guard when push comes to shove can have someone shove a rifle in their hands and tell them to "GO FIGHT!".That is what what makes the difference between military and civilians. The UCMJ, US Code, Geneva Convention, regs and manuals are imperfect instruments. That's why they have JAG lawyers to interpret and argue them. But anyone who joins the "ARMED" services should not be surprised if they are told to go to war and fight. That includes medics, chaplains, bandsmen and anyone of the 90% of the military whose jobs do not include direct combat. You've heard the saying, "Every Marine a rifleman." Well, include soldiers, sailors, airman, and coasties.
CAP is not military.
Point taken. But you have your facts wrong. Every member of the Reserve or National Guard is a CIVILIAN unless they are on active duty. Also, there are eight uniformed services in our Country, three more than the five traditional "armed" services and those 'unarmed" uniformed services include the U.S. Public Health Serivce, the National Oceanic and Astmospheric Administration and the U.S. Merchant Marine.
Finally, there was a time when CAP carried guns, bombs and depth charges.
Quote from: flyboy1 on January 17, 2011, 09:29:12 PM
Quote from: ol'fido on January 17, 2011, 03:59:28 PM
IMHO, CAP is a CIVILIAN auxialiary that is "ASSOCIATED" with a military service.
Uniforms, regulations, D & C, C & C, etc. do not by themselves make one "MILITARY".
CAP IS NOT ARMED. Any member of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or Coast Guard when push comes to shove can have someone shove a rifle in their hands and tell them to "GO FIGHT!".That is what what makes the difference between military and civilians. The UCMJ, US Code, Geneva Convention, regs and manuals are imperfect instruments. That's why they have JAG lawyers to interpret and argue them. But anyone who joins the "ARMED" services should not be surprised if they are told to go to war and fight. That includes medics, chaplains, bandsmen and anyone of the 90% of the military whose jobs do not include direct combat. You've heard the saying, "Every Marine a rifleman." Well, include soldiers, sailors, airman, and coasties.
CAP is not military.
Point taken. But you have your facts wrong. Every member of the Reserve or National Guard is a CIVILIAN unless they are on active duty. Also, there are eight uniformed services in our Country, three more than the five traditional "armed" services and those 'unarmed" uniformed services include the U.S. Public Health Serivce, the National Oceanic and Astmospheric Administration and the U.S. Merchant Marine.
Finally, there was a time when CAP carried guns, bombs and depth charges.
There are only seven services. The Merchant Marine is not one of them but may be called to active duty as a Naval Auxiliary during a time of war.
Quote from: davidsinn on January 17, 2011, 09:42:49 PM
Quote from: flyboy1 on January 17, 2011, 09:29:12 PM
Quote from: ol'fido on January 17, 2011, 03:59:28 PM
IMHO, CAP is a CIVILIAN auxialiary that is "ASSOCIATED" with a military service.
Uniforms, regulations, D & C, C & C, etc. do not by themselves make one "MILITARY".
CAP IS NOT ARMED. Any member of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or Coast Guard when push comes to shove can have someone shove a rifle in their hands and tell them to "GO FIGHT!".That is what what makes the difference between military and civilians. The UCMJ, US Code, Geneva Convention, regs and manuals are imperfect instruments. That's why they have JAG lawyers to interpret and argue them. But anyone who joins the "ARMED" services should not be surprised if they are told to go to war and fight. That includes medics, chaplains, bandsmen and anyone of the 90% of the military whose jobs do not include direct combat. You've heard the saying, "Every Marine a rifleman." Well, include soldiers, sailors, airman, and coasties.
CAP is not military.
Point taken. But you have your facts wrong. Every member of the Reserve or National Guard is a CIVILIAN unless they are on active duty. Also, there are eight uniformed services in our Country, three more than the five traditional "armed" services and those 'unarmed" uniformed services include the U.S. Public Health Serivce, the National Oceanic and Astmospheric Administration and the U.S. Merchant Marine.
Finally, there was a time when CAP carried guns, bombs and depth charges.
There are only seven services. The Merchant Marine is not one of them but may be called to active duty as a Naval Auxiliary during a time of war.
It is still a
uniformed service of our Country with it's own academy...and by the way, I wouldn't go telling the Merchant Marien veteran sitting in a VA hospital that he isn't a veteran. I have known Merchant Marine officers with Navy Reserve commissions and one recently that was commissioned as an ensign. He was actually discharged by the Coast Guard as a Merchant Marine Marine officer.
Quote from: flyboy1 on January 17, 2011, 09:29:12 PM
Quote from: ol'fido on January 17, 2011, 03:59:28 PM
IMHO, CAP is a CIVILIAN auxialiary that is "ASSOCIATED" with a military service.
Uniforms, regulations, D & C, C & C, etc. do not by themselves make one "MILITARY".
CAP IS NOT ARMED. Any member of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or Coast Guard when push comes to shove can have someone shove a rifle in their hands and tell them to "GO FIGHT!".That is what what makes the difference between military and civilians. The UCMJ, US Code, Geneva Convention, regs and manuals are imperfect instruments. That's why they have JAG lawyers to interpret and argue them. But anyone who joins the "ARMED" services should not be surprised if they are told to go to war and fight. That includes medics, chaplains, bandsmen and anyone of the 90% of the military whose jobs do not include direct combat. You've heard the saying, "Every Marine a rifleman." Well, include soldiers, sailors, airman, and coasties.
CAP is not military.
Point taken. But you have your facts wrong. Every member of the Reserve or National Guard is a CIVILIAN unless they are on active duty. Also, there are eight uniformed services in our Country, three more than the five traditional "armed" services and those 'unarmed" uniformed services include the U.S. Public Health Serivce, the National Oceanic and Astmospheric Administration and the U.S. Merchant Marine.
Finally, there was a time when CAP carried guns, bombs and depth charges.
Huh? PHS, NOAA, MM(?) may be uniformed,but they are NOT MILITARY nor do they function as such. NG and Reserves may be civilians when they are not active but we are civilians all the time. And CAP was a different animal in WWII.
You might be uniformed but if you are not ARMED, you are not military.
Quote from: CyBorg on January 17, 2011, 07:21:23 PM
Quote from: ol'fido on January 17, 2011, 03:59:28 PM
That includes medics, chaplains, bandsmen and anyone of the 90% of the military whose jobs do not include direct combat.
Non-concur.
Bandsmen, yes. At need they can be ordered to put down the trumpet and pick up an M-16.
Chaplains are not combat personnel under the Geneva Conventions. (Protocol I, 8 June 1977, Art 43.2) Captured chaplains are not considered Prisoners of War (Third Convention, 12 August 1949, Chapter IV Art 33) and must be returned to their home nation unless retained to minister to prisoners of war. The United States does not require Army, Navy (who minister also to Marine and Coast Guard personnel) or Air Force chaplains to bear arms.
However, Chaplain's Assistants can be required to bear arms.
Combat medics, like Navy Corpsmen, can and do bear weapons.
Physicians can be issued weapons for defensive purposes only.
I will grant you Chaplains.
NOAA and PHS have no military role and will never be called upon to serve in any military capacity. Although they wear uniforms, the Merchant Marines are not a uniformed service.
Merchant Marines are only granted veteran status if they were activated and served in war time. If not activated, they are not considered veterans and have no VA benefits.
The term "uniformed" has a specific definition in this discussion. Just because you wear a uniform doesnt make something a "uniformed" service. Even when they are activated they fall under the Naval Auxiliary. The Merchant Marines as an organization do not become a "service".
And I would agree, going back to talking about CAP dropping bombs is history. Like what was said above, that CAP doesnt exist anymore.
Lastly, uniformed service doesnt = armed forces/military.
Quote from: Flying Pig on January 17, 2011, 10:38:44 PM
NOAA and PHS have no military role and will never be called upon to serve in any military capacity. Although they wear uniforms, the Merchant Marines are not a uniformed service.
Merchant Marines are only granted veteran status if they were activated and served in war time. If not activated, they are not considered veterans and have no VA benefits.
The term "uniformed" has a specific definition in this discussion. Just because you wear a uniform doesnt make something a "uniformed" service. Even when they are activated they fall under the Naval Auxiliary. The Merchant Marines as an organization do not become a "service".
And I would agree, going back to talking about CAP dropping bombs is history. Like what was said above, that CAP doesnt exist anymore.
Lastly, uniformed service doesnt = armed forces/military.
I beg to differ, about the MM, MM Sailors do achieve veteran status after being in the open international waters, and even get a separate addition if they move into foreign waters for a period of 30 or more days.
Quote from: davidsinn on January 17, 2011, 09:42:49 PM
Quote from: flyboy1 on January 17, 2011, 09:29:12 PM
Quote from: ol'fido on January 17, 2011, 03:59:28 PM
IMHO, CAP is a CIVILIAN auxialiary that is "ASSOCIATED" with a military service.
Uniforms, regulations, D & C, C & C, etc. do not by themselves make one "MILITARY".
CAP IS NOT ARMED. Any member of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or Coast Guard when push comes to shove can have someone shove a rifle in their hands and tell them to "GO FIGHT!".That is what what makes the difference between military and civilians. The UCMJ, US Code, Geneva Convention, regs and manuals are imperfect instruments. That's why they have JAG lawyers to interpret and argue them. But anyone who joins the "ARMED" services should not be surprised if they are told to go to war and fight. That includes medics, chaplains, bandsmen and anyone of the 90% of the military whose jobs do not include direct combat. You've heard the saying, "Every Marine a rifleman." Well, include soldiers, sailors, airman, and coasties.
CAP is not military.
Point taken. But you have your facts wrong. Every member of the Reserve or National Guard is a CIVILIAN unless they are on active duty. Also, there are eight uniformed services in our Country, three more than the five traditional "armed" services and those 'unarmed" uniformed services include the U.S. Public Health Serivce, the National Oceanic and Astmospheric Administration and the U.S. Merchant Marine.
Finally, there was a time when CAP carried guns, bombs and depth charges.
There are only seven services. The Merchant Marine is not one of them but may be called to active duty as a Naval Auxiliary during a time of war.
In war the U.S. Merchant Marine Sailors support the Navy and the other branches of the Military. My Father was a Merchant Marine Officer through the duration of WWII. Merchant Marines engaged in armed combat with enemy forces and were killed in bigger numbers as a percentage of their total force than any of the other Military branches. My Father served as gun crew aboard the ships he was on. If you wonder why an Officer would serve on a gun crew it was because there were fewer Merchant Marines on the cargo ships that were the targets of choice for enemy sub marines. Merchant Marines had to know how to do every job aboard ship. You're only right in the sense that after the war The U.S. Merchant Marines were considered better paid than other service members. They received no Veteran's Benefits.
10 USC 101 Definitions (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C1.txt)
Quote(4) The term "armed forces" means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.
(5) The term "uniformed services" means -
(A) the armed forces;
(B) the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and
(C) the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service.
As a side note: The USPHS does carry out military duties at times. Particular officers can be and often are assigned to military units as medical support personnel. Those officers are also sometimes assigned to provide medical service to law enforcement in our prisons. I know of a particular USPHS officer who has carried a gun while working at BoP in the past as well as being currently assigned to 2 Army units, the US Naval Academy, and an Air Force unit. He is also a Major in CAP.
Quote from: nesagsar on January 18, 2011, 04:52:37 AM
As a side note: The USPHS does carry out military duties at times. Particular officers can be and often are assigned to military units as medical support personnel.
They also provide medical services for the Coast Guard. In that capacity, they wear CG uniform with their USPHS insignia.
But two things are correct:
The CAP that hung bombs under those little yellow airplanes and had airfield guards is very unlikely to come back.
There are seven uniformed services, five of which are armed:
U.S. Army
U.S. Navy
U.S. Marine Corps
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Coast Guard
Two are usually not (I won't say "never"):
NOAA Commissioned Corps
U.S. Public Health Service
As to the USMM...I'll let someone else go to Kings Point, New York and tell the Commandant that he's not military:
http://www.usmma.edu/admin/leadership/commandant.shtml
There are two officially-recognised auxiliaries to military forces that I know of:
Civil Air Patrol (USAF)
U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary
We, and the USCGAux, are civilian noncombatant volunteers who assist our respective military services and operate in a paramilitary manner.
Quote from: CyBorg on January 18, 2011, 07:19:10 AM
We, and the USCGAux, are civilian noncombatant volunteers who assist our respective military services and operate in a paramilitary manner.
This is almost to the letter, minus the addition of the Coast Guard, what a couple of my senior members, having sat down with me, when I was a cadet, defined us as. Even though there isn't anything officially in writing that defines us as paramilitary, that's the way we, to this day, operate.
That definition has kept me level headed for years. Drifting, its the Seniors that can't keep that dual identity straight in their heads that gets us in trouble.
Respectfully,
Quote from: nesagsar on January 18, 2011, 04:52:37 AM
As a side note: The USPHS does carry out military duties at times. Particular officers can be and often are assigned to military units as medical support personnel. Those officers are also sometimes assigned to provide medical service to law enforcement in our prisons. I know of a particular USPHS officer who has carried a gun while working at BoP in the past as well as being currently assigned to 2 Army units, the US Naval Academy, and an Air Force unit. He is also a Major in CAP.
Yes, and it is usually USPHS officers who have the role of veterinarians on military bases, inspect the food quality of the dining hall and sometimes treat military patients in hospitals. That's the way it was at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. Also, as an A/D AF member, stationed in Mass., I was sent to the USPHS hospital for further treatment back in the 1980s.
As far as NOAA, in WW II, it was these individuals, under a sub-agency called U.S. National Geodetic Survey, who were the map makers in WW II....several of their officers were killed and two of their ships hit or destroyed in kamikaze attacks near Bataan.
One other side note about NOAA, I was amazed to see a NOAA P-3 Orion with an anti-sub boom in back on the flightline at Elmendorf back in the late 1970s....curious.
Quote from: flyboy1 on January 18, 2011, 12:44:33 PM
Quote from: nesagsar on January 18, 2011, 04:52:37 AM
As a side note: The USPHS does carry out military duties at times. Particular officers can be and often are assigned to military units as medical support personnel. Those officers are also sometimes assigned to provide medical service to law enforcement in our prisons. I know of a particular USPHS officer who has carried a gun while working at BoP in the past as well as being currently assigned to 2 Army units, the US Naval Academy, and an Air Force unit. He is also a Major in CAP.
Yes, and it is usually USPHS officers who have the role of veterinarians on military bases, inspect the food quality of the dining hall and sometimes treat military patients in hospitals. That's the way it was at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. Also, as an A/D AF member, stationed in Mass., I was sent to the USPHS hospital for further treatment back in the 1980s.
As far as NOAA, in WW II, it was these individuals, under a sub-agency called U.S. National Geodetic Survey, who were the map makers in WW II....several of their officers were killed and two of their ships hit or destroyed in kamikaze attacks near Bataan.
One other side note about NOAA, I was amazed to see a NOAA P-3 Orion with an anti-sub boom in back on the flightline at Elmendorf back in the late 1970s....curious.
Vets on mil bases - most of the bases I've been on (primarily Navy), the vets have been from the Army.
The NOAA P-3 - [edit] That was delivered as a WP-3D, as built. There are two - N42RF and N43RF.
This pic ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NOAA_WP-3D_Orions.jpg ) shows a different tail section that's fatter than the MAD boom, but just as long.
NOAA (formerly the US Geodetic Survey) were given uniformed service status in WWII to hopefully protect them in case they were taken as POW's. I don't know if any were.
They look almost identical to the Navy.
I'm not sure if we're required to salute them, but I would anyway. After all, I'm not going to wait until I'm close enough to see an officer with more gold braid than I have captain's bars nameplate says "NOAA Corps" or not.
(http://www.noaacorps.noaa.gov/art/images/captainbailey.jpg)
This RADM is the Director of the NOAA Corps. I'd certainly salute him.
Honestly, I would say that CAP is more akin to a volunteer, aviation version of the NOAA Corps than any of the other uniformed services.
Wow! Four pages!
To the original poster.......in order to answer your question fully we need to know in what sense you use the word "military".
QuoteNOAA (formerly the US Geodetic Survey) were given uniformed service status in WWII to hopefully protect them in case they were taken as POW's. I don't know if any were.
NOAA weatherman also volunteered for service on board USCG cutters as part of the North Atlantic Weather Patrol. They were enrolled in the USCG Temporary Reserve and made Chief Aerographers Mates.
Quote from: CyBorg on January 18, 2011, 09:42:31 PM
NOAA (formerly the US Geodetic Survey) were given uniformed service status in WWII to hopefully protect them in case they were taken as POW's. I don't know if any were.
They look almost identical to the Navy.
I'm not sure if we're required to salute them, but I would anyway.
Not required, but I'd consider it prudent as well.
Incidentally, the following quote also differentiates CAP from the military:
Quote from: CAPP 151
When outdoors and in uniform, cadets salute military officers, CAP
senior members, and cadet officers higher in rank than themselves.
Senior members salute military officers and other CAP officers higher
in rank than themselves.
Do you fall under the UCMJ? No.
Don't know what UCMJ stands for - I rest my case.
We're civilian volunteers serving under an Air Force "umbrella"...sometimes...
We're affiliated with the Air Force.
I like that.
Are we "military"? HECK no.
Does that make us "less" of a volunteer force? No way.
^ ^ ^ Bravo!
QuoteDo PJs fall under that classification?
NO.
PJ's are not considered medical personnel in the same (ie Geneva Convention) sense as physicans, nurses, med tech's etc.
mk
Quote from: Fubar on January 15, 2011, 06:20:54 AM
Quote from: GTCommando on January 15, 2011, 05:41:46 AM
Let's get technical for a minute. Technically speaking, we are the official auxiliary of the United States Air Force. Whether or not we are part of the military depends on your definition of the word "auxiliary."
If you want to get real technical, we're one of the USAF auxiliaries. We're not the only auxiliary (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Auxiliary_Radio_System") the USAF utilizes.
?????????
What are the other ones?
MARS
Military Affiliated Radio Service.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 20, 2011, 12:03:49 AM
MARS
Military Affiliated Radio Service.
Actually, their name puts them a little bit closer to the military than an affiliate. They changed it to Military Auxiliary Radio Service in 2009 (or at least that's what all-knowing Wikipedia).
Air Force Magazine only lists ONE auxiliary, CAP, in their annual Air Force Almanac issue.
The Air Force (and the Air Corps) used to have at least three auxiliaries:
Civil Air Patrol.
Womens Air Service Pilots.
Ground Observer Corps.
I have never seen MARS listed as an Aux of the USAF.
Quote from: sarmed1 on January 19, 2011, 02:57:43 AM
QuoteDo PJs fall under that classification?
NO.
PJ's are not considered medical personnel in the same (ie Geneva Convention) sense as physicans, nurses, med tech's etc.
mk
Why not? One of the Primary function of a PJ is to conduct medical Evacuation operations. The only thing the Geneva Convention provides for is that Medical personnel can't technically be classified as "Prisoners of War" they can be detained and they have to to be granted access to fellow detainees for the purposes of providing medical treatment. I don't see why they still couldn't fit that bill.
Quote from: SARDOC on January 21, 2011, 10:36:14 PM
Quote from: sarmed1 on January 19, 2011, 02:57:43 AM
QuoteDo PJs fall under that classification?
NO.
PJ's are not considered medical personnel in the same (ie Geneva Convention) sense as physicans, nurses, med tech's etc.
mk
Why not? One of the Primary function of a PJ is to conduct medical Evacuation operations. The only thing the Geneva Convention provides for is that Medical personnel can't technically be classified as "Prisoners of War" they can be detained and they have to to be granted access to fellow detainees for the purposes of providing medical treatment. I don't see why they still couldn't fit that bill.
I don't think that they should be lumped differently, I don't think anyone should be in different categories especially while in Iraq or Afghanistan. They won't treat any of our soldiers differently because they are medics or are chaplains.
Quote from: SARDOC on January 21, 2011, 10:36:14 PM
Quote from: sarmed1 on January 19, 2011, 02:57:43 AM
QuoteDo PJs fall under that classification?
NO.
PJ's are not considered medical personnel in the same (ie Geneva Convention) sense as physicans, nurses, med tech's etc.
mk
Why not? One of the Primary function of a PJ is to conduct medical Evacuation operations. The only thing the Geneva Convention provides for is that Medical personnel can't technically be classified as "Prisoners of War" they can be detained and they have to to be granted access to fellow detainees for the purposes of providing medical treatment. I don't see why they still couldn't fit that bill.
Since the Taliban isn't a signatory to the Geneva Convention I'm not sure that it matters in our current conflicts.
Quote from: SARDOC on January 21, 2011, 10:36:14 PM
Quote from: sarmed1 on January 19, 2011, 02:57:43 AM
QuoteDo PJs fall under that classification?
NO.
PJ's are not considered medical personnel in the same (ie Geneva Convention) sense as physicans, nurses, med tech's etc.
mk
Why not? One of the Primary function of a PJ is to conduct medical Evacuation operations. The only thing the Geneva Convention provides for is that Medical personnel can't technically be classified as "Prisoners of War" they can be detained and they have to to be granted access to fellow detainees for the purposes of providing medical treatment. I don't see why they still couldn't fit that bill.
PJ's have duties inconsistent with the non-combatant status of a medic. They are permitted, and encouraged to conduct combat operations if indicated during the rescue of flyers.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 21, 2011, 11:37:53 PM
Quote from: SARDOC on January 21, 2011, 10:36:14 PM
Quote from: sarmed1 on January 19, 2011, 02:57:43 AM
QuoteDo PJs fall under that classification?
NO.
PJ's are not considered medical personnel in the same (ie Geneva Convention) sense as physicans, nurses, med tech's etc.
mk
Why not? One of the Primary function of a PJ is to conduct medical Evacuation operations. The only thing the Geneva Convention provides for is that Medical personnel can't technically be classified as "Prisoners of War" they can be detained and they have to to be granted access to fellow detainees for the purposes of providing medical treatment. I don't see why they still couldn't fit that bill.
PJ's have duties inconsistent with the non-combatant status of a medic. They are permitted, and encouraged to conduct combat operations if indicated during the rescue of flyers.
I was under the impression that Navy corpsmen were armed as well as the Marines they accompany which would be similar to a PJ. Is this not true?
Army medics carried M16s when I was in from '88 to '92. While they may still have protections under the Geneva Conventions, I doubt there have been very few instances since before the Vietnam War where they have been observed by our enemies. Medics are seen as good targets by terrorists and guerillas. The ground truth is probably that medics have been forced to become combatants by the nature of the wars we have fought the last 60 years.
I have heard anecdotal stories about German and American medics working side by side during battles to treat their respective wounded in WW II. I do not know of any instance where that has been the case since. Has anyone else heard of something similiar more recently?
Quote from: ol'fido on January 22, 2011, 12:45:55 AM
Army medics carried M16s when I was in from '88 to '92. While they may still have protections under the Geneva Conventions, I doubt there have been very few instances since before the Vietnam War where they have been observed by our enemies. Medics are seen as good targets by terrorists and guerillas. The ground truth is probably that medics have been forced to become combatants by the nature of the wars we have fought the last 60 years.
I have heard anecdotal stories about German and American medics working side by side during battles to treat their respective wounded in WW II. I do not know of any instance where that has been the case since. Has anyone else heard of something similiar more recently?
I have seen my medic patch up an Iraqi once, but that is it. And yes, medics do carry weapons, at least an M-9, ours carried an M-4.
Quote from: ol'fido on January 22, 2011, 12:45:55 AM
I have heard anecdotal stories about German and American medics working side by side during battles to treat their respective wounded in WW II. I do not know of any instance where that has been the case since. Has anyone else heard of something similiar more recently?
I'm not sure about German and American medics, but during the invasion of Crete by German paratroopers (who were actually part of the Luftwaffe rather than the Heer), the island was being defended by British troops (mostly New Zealanders actually). I have seen photos of a joint "M*A*S*H*-type aid station where German and New Zealand doctors worked side by side treating casualties from both sides, irrespective of nationality.
RAF doctors treated Luftwaffe aircrews shot down over Britain, and Luftwaffe doctors treated RAF pilots shot down over France during the Battle of Britain.
As to PJ's...they are qualified combat medics but they also won't think twice about blasting an enemy to kingdom come who tries to interfere with their rescue ops. Most of them are qualified with a very wide variety of small arms.
The same goes for Navy Hospitalmen assigned to Marine combat units. In fact, the Marines' traditional love/hate relationship with the Navy does not extend to Navy Corpsmen...they can be very possessive of "their" Corpsmen. In fact, I think that some Corpsmen are authorised to wear Marine uniforms with Navy insignia.
All of the (Army) medical personnel were armed when I was in the sandbox last year.
Quote from: CyBorg on January 22, 2011, 02:15:31 AMThe same goes for Navy Hospitalmen assigned to Marine combat units. In fact, the Marines' traditional love/hate relationship with the Navy does not extend to Navy Corpsmen...they can be very possessive of "their" Corpsmen. In fact, I think that some Corpsmen are authorised to wear Marine uniforms with Navy insignia.
Corpsmen deployed with Marine units have a Fleet Marine force (FMF) designator, and they wear USMC uniforms with USN insignia.
(http://members.cox.net/dragnd/usmc_hm.gif)
The Geneva Convention permits medical personnel to be armed for their personal defense, and hospitals to maintain a defense/security force to defend them against an otherwise unlawful attack. PJ's, while medically trained, also rescue uninjured aircrewmen, and will engage in combat to protect the airman. That makes them traditional combatants, and if captured, subject to the treatment as prisoners of war.
And as others have already noted, good luck with that.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 21, 2011, 01:57:03 PM
Air Force Magazine only lists ONE auxiliary, CAP, in their annual Air Force Almanac issue.
The Air Force (and the Air Corps) used to have at least three auxiliaries:
Civil Air Patrol.
Womens Air Service Pilots.
Ground Observer Corps.
I have never seen MARS listed as an Aux of the USAF.
Interesting. That may simply be due to the fact that MARS only recently changed to auxiliary status. The change came at a time when the Dept of The Navy was attempting to shut down Navy/Marine Corps MARS. DoD stepped in and said "no" while simultaneously changing the program a bit. I'm not familiar with the AF relationship with it's MARS program but I suspect the bureaucracy is slow to change and recognize the changed "auxiliary" status.
Or...
MARS may be an auxiliary of DoD or some service other than the USAF.
We are the only Auxiliary that the Air Force has left.
WASPS went away even before World War II ended.
GOC went away in the late 1950's when radar became a more reliable method of detection of enemy aircraft, and the threat of missile attack made ground observation irrelavant.
There remains a need for light fixed wing aeroscout operations by the Air Force for SAR and by other agencies for DR and federal law enforcement.
Ucchmmmm... HECK NO.
1. It is not governed by the UCMJ
2. Not named as such as Title 10 of the US Code.
3. It is a paid membership
4. There is no real training or standard requirements other than the lack of a felony.
Under Title 10 of the US Code, the following branches of service constitute the US Armed Forces:
1. US Army
2. US Marines
3. US Coast Guard
4. US Navy
5. US Air Force
6. US Nautical Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA)
7. US Public Health Service(USPHS)
Notice that the last two branches do not bear arms, but they do wear a Navy style uniform. No other branch or organization is listed, thus if they are not listed here, they are not part of the military.
Quote from: Flying Pig on January 17, 2011, 08:36:08 PM
They do carry guns.....usually lots of them! hen I was in the Marines our Corpsman carried weapons also. We often said our Corpsman was the best Marine in the Platoon! He rocked!
I carried an M4 Carbine and an M9 9mm during my time over there.
Quote from: PaulR on January 28, 2011, 08:37:59 AM
Under Title 10 of the US Code, the following branches of service constitute the US Armed Forces:
1. US Army
2. US Marines
3. US Coast Guard
4. US Navy
5. US Air Force
6. US Nautical Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA)
7. US Public Health Service(USPHS)
Notice that the last two branches do not bear arms, but they do wear a Navy style uniform. No other branch or organization is listed, thus if they are not listed here, they are not part of the military.
Per 10 USC 101(4) only the first 5 are the
Armed Forces.
Per 10 USC 101(5) the
Uniformed Services are the Armed Forces (first 5) plus the
commissioned corps of the last two.
The differences are significant.
Quote from: RRLE on January 28, 2011, 02:18:29 PMThe differences are significant.
Especially if you're getting shot at.
Thanks RRLE I agree with you. I picked the broader of the two for a reason... the CAP is not even listed as a uniformed service. It is an awesome volunteer organization with a huge and important role. A far cry from an Uniformed Service, much less an Armed Service.
The "being shot at thing" is a bit unfair... I know a few PHS members who earned campaign medals while in the Public Health Service.
Not that history is always pertinent in contemporary discussions - but I think, in this case it is.
This argument/debate/discussion - predates CAP by 10 years or so. In the mid- to late- thirties there were a number of Aero Clubs (all civilian based) and State Defense Forces (Auxiliary for the National Guard or rather military in nature) being formed all over the country. More than half the states had one or both. Each claimed duties and callings similar to CAP today. Each was folded into CAP during WW2. Each was a building block of what we now know as CAP.
The Civilian Work Corps of the New Deal had the same controversy. The Civil Defense Authority of WW2 through the early 60s did too. How much military? How much Civilian?
WW2 ended the arguments for a time. All of these services had military organizational structures (As Wildland Fire does today) Organization for all these groups has been military in nature. All these civilian organizations have had more and then less military influence acting upon them. All of these organizations reflect greater societies concerns or antipathy for the military - and move according to the changing times. For instance: More military in WW2. Less military post Vietnam, etc.
In other words: This discussion is good. This argument is necessary. This debate will go on without end. This conversation is an integral part of a vital process. This conversation has no "right" answer. This debate is actually part of a "process" and not an eternal "goal".
Quote from: PaulR on January 28, 2011, 03:14:53 PM
The "being shot at thing" is a bit unfair... I know a few PHS members who earned campaign medals while in the Public Health Service.
Since you are a Coastie and the USPHS keeps you well and patches you up, I'm not surprised. As I understand it, when attached to the USCG, USPHS officers wear USCG uniform with USPHS insignia and are subject to the UCMJ, just as the CG is. Were those campaign medals earned while your USPHS colleagues were attached to CG vessels or stations?
Even the term "auxiliary" has different meanings depending on who you are and who you ask:
The RAF has the Royal Auxiliary Air Force (RAuxAF), whose members are definitely military.
http://www.hmforces.co.uk/Join_The_Forces/articles/49-royal-air-force-reserves-rafr-and-rauxaf-eligibility
However, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary is not military, even though they support the Royal Navy:
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/royal-fleet-auxiliary/basic-facts/index.htm
The Royal Canadian Air Force called its reserve squadrons (who flew Sabres, T-33's, B-25's and DH Vampires) "auxiliary squadrons" until the 1970s, when they became part of the CF Primary Reserve.
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo7/no3/views-vues-01-eng.asp
My point? The term "auxiliary" can be used in either military or civilian contexts.
The Mexican military considers CAP border flights as US Military
Quote from: wingnut55 on January 29, 2011, 03:56:31 AM
The Mexican military considers CAP border flights as US Military
Not sure I would believe anything the Mexican govt. says...
Quote from: HGjunkie on January 29, 2011, 04:02:20 AMNot sure I would believe anything the Mexican govt. says...
I'm not even sure the Mexican Government believes the Mexican Government.
so the CAP guys flying Green Flag are only pretending to be flying simulated combat missions, in a simulated war.
Quote from: wingnut55 on January 29, 2011, 05:08:21 AM
so the CAP guys flying Green Flag are only pretending to be flying simulated combat missions, in a simulated war.
It is quite possible, and common, to participate in a military training exercise and not be a part of the military (at least in my understanding of the word 'part').
It is highly unlikely that contractors who portray civilians on the battlefield during Army mission readiness exercises consider themselves part of the military, regardless of the fact that they are even being paid by the military to participate.
Quote from: wingnut55 on January 29, 2011, 05:08:21 AM
so the CAP guys flying Green Flag are only pretending to be flying simulated combat missions, in a simulated war.
Pretending? No. But that no more makes the CAP guys military than the participation in Operation Robin Sage makes hundreds of civilian volunteers military.
All very true, we are really military contractors, NHQ gets the money (For operation costs) and we Volunteer our time dressed up in Air Force "style" uniforms (golf shirt excluded).
Bob: you must have missed the fact that the AF now has a uniform that includes a golf shirt.
Quote from: bosshawk on February 01, 2011, 07:57:01 PM
Bob: you must have missed the fact that the AF now has a uniform that includes a golf shirt.
Interesting, I have been suggesting for a long time the same sort of adoption in the Army for years now. An all black BDU pant and the short sleeve PT shirt in the summer and the long sleeve shirt for the winter along with a windbreaker jacket, blousing black boots optional. Sometimes the BDU is impractical for cleaning toilets and filing paperwork. Laduh keep the BDU for field work, but make something more comfortable for the rest of the time spent in garrison. I have seen the Army "roadies" that set up for USO concerts and the sort wearing exactly this uniform, and it looked like such a comfortable idea that I couldn't imagine a better uniform to spend every single garrison day of the year wearing.
I prefer the BBDU trousers with the polo and reflective CAP cap.
Military Officers are commissioned by Congress. We wear the uniform and grade of military officers, we were authorized by congress in 1941. So the question is "are we commissioned officers" in the USAF Auxiliary, Civil Air Patrol? .
I think that this question has been asked at least 50 times in this thread and the steadfast answer is: No, No, Hell No. We are not "commissioned" in any sense of the word.
CAP Officers are not "Commissioned" by Congress, our Grade is given to us by some guys in Alabama. You are confusing having a Congressionally chartered Corporation with individual "Commissioning" as Officers. The definition of "Commission" : "The act of granting certain powers or the authority to carry out a particular task or duty." There is no authority granted by virtue of being awarded Officer Status in CAP.
This is a separate question from " are we a part of the military". This question is ambiguous. For all general consideration, the answer is no, certainly in the way it has been constructed to imply that our commission and organization are on par with similarly attired people in the real military. On the other hand, CAP's and USAF's position on CAP is that we are "Part of the Air Force" as it applies to the Posse Comitatus Act, so the answer is very clearly "kinda-sorta." If the goal is to equate us with the nice ladies at AFEES and further, to say that these nice little old ladies should take up arms against a Haji invasion is just as preposterous as suggesting that CAP would, could or should do so. Nice try though. When we go to war with Canada, break out your CAP card to try and wrangle better POW status.
Major Lord
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on January 29, 2011, 09:25:06 AM
It is highly unlikely that contractors who portray civilians on the battlefield during Army mission readiness exercises consider themselves part of the military, regardless of the fact that they are even being paid by the military to participate.
I actually know several people that are contracted to pose as opposition forces for military training exercises, and while most are prior service,
none consider themselves to still be military - most very happily proclaim their civilian status.
You should hear what our National Vice Commander, Brigadier General Carr has to say about whether CAP is part of the military. He said something to the effect of yes and no, we are but aren't. We perform tasks with and for the USAF and we answer to multiple commands in the USAF, we even now get tasks for Strategic Air Command, yet we are civilians. The most interesting thing is that he said to those who would call us "wanna-bees'" yes, we are wanna-bees', we wanna-be part of something bigger than ourselves, we wanna-be something better than we are now. being a wanna-be makes you want to be better, and if you aren't a wanna-be, then you won't go anywhere in life, you will stay stagnant.
Hearing a speech from him Saturday the 12th, he made me re-think what it really means to be a part of CAP today.
The second sentence in the third paragraph of then National CC's letter in the "trolling for salutes" thread seems to settle the issue:
QuoteYes, we are the Air Force's Auxiliary but as civilian volunteers we are not members of the military.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on February 15, 2011, 01:01:03 PM
You should hear what our National Vice Commander, Brigadier General Carr has to say about whether CAP is part of the military. He said something to the effect of yes and no, we are but aren't. We perform tasks with and for the USAF and we answer to multiple commands in the USAF, we even now get tasks for Strategic Air Command, yet we are civilians. The most interesting thing is that he said to those who would call us "wanna-bees'" yes, we are wanna-bees', we wanna-be part of something bigger than ourselves, we wanna-be something better than we are now. being a wanna-be makes you want to be better, and if you aren't a wanna-be, then you won't go anywhere in life, you will stay stagnant.
Hearing a speech from him Saturday the 12th, he made me re-think what it really means to be a part of CAP today.
Are you sure he said "Strategic Air Command"? Because as of 1 June of 1992, SAC went away. It would be a little odd to get something from SAC now...maybe time travel....
^^^I thought that too.
Maybe STRATCOM was intended?
Quote from: CyBorg on February 15, 2011, 10:50:43 PM
^^^I thought that too.
Maybe STRATCOM was intended?
Sorry, yes, you are right, not SAC, I now can't remember what it was, I had the name in my head when I clicked to respond, but not that I am typing I can't remember to save my life. ::) It had something to do with the name something combat something, or something like that, I think my wife's preggo brain is rubbing off on me :o.
Can you be a member of the national guard and CAP at the same time?
Quote from: ECHO35 on February 15, 2011, 11:24:11 PM
Can you be a member of the national guard and CAP at the same time?
I was for over 20 years. Not an issue.
Quote from: Ned on February 15, 2011, 11:29:15 PM
Quote from: ECHO35 on February 15, 2011, 11:24:11 PM
Can you be a member of the national guard and CAP at the same time?
I was for over 20 years. Not an issue.
OK thanks
do you get payed for your time ?
Is there any benefit to being an officer vs enlisted?
How do you become an officer?
Quote from: ECHO35 on February 15, 2011, 11:34:34 PM
do you get payed for your time ?
Is there any benefit to being an officer vs enlisted?
How do you become an officer?
Paul,
I was certainly paid the normal military rates for my Guard time; and of course was not paid for my CAP time. I'm just a volunteer CAP officer, like most of the participants here. As a Guard guy, my Army and CAP stuff rarely overlapped. IOW, when I was on AD or at summer camp, CAP was about the furthest thing from my mind. When I was doing CAP duty, there wasn't much "Army" about it.
Sometimes I was able to sign for some stuff from my Guard unit to help out with CAP - things like tentage or mess equipment to help a CAP activity, but that was fairly rare. Occasionally some BDUs or field gear that was being DXed or surveyed made their way into CAP hands (with full knowledge of my Army commander, of course.)
As you know, in the Army, the choice between commissioned and enlisted service is a personal choice and often related to "what you want to do" in the service. CAP is similar, except that we have relatively few CAP NCOs, and those NCO's role is currently somewhat undefined. The pay is certainly the same, however, for CAP officers and NCOs. 8)
I was commissioned through ROTC while I was in grad school. The ROTC folks were kind enough to waive the first two years of ROTC based on my CAP cadet experience.
Feel free to PM me for any additional info on Guard and CAP experiences.
Ned Lee
Retired Infantry Officer
Ned,
Thanks I am considering joining just not sure if I have the time. I would really like to get back into flying and the CAP seemed like a good way to do that with the added benefit of still serving in some way. It would be nice to just fly and not have to jump out of the dam thing.
Quote from: ECHO35 on February 16, 2011, 12:34:53 AM
Ned,
Thanks I am considering joining just not sure if I have the time. I would really like to get back into flying and the CAP seemed like a good way to do that with the added benefit of still serving in some way. It would be nice to just fly and not have to jump out of the dam thing.
Whether you join or not, remember that as a National Guardsman, your contributions to the CAP make you eligible for the Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal. So, there's a benefit to your service either way.
My Dad is stationed on Spangdahlem Air Force Base and if you ask me I would say yes the military recognizes it and the fact that My Sq. is on the base and the military gives us a place to run meetings is another good pointer to the answer to be yes.
Quote from: Cadet Basic Airman Cutler on February 25, 2011, 04:33:50 PM
My Dad is stationed on Spangdahlem Air Force Base and if you ask me I would say yes the military recognizes it and the fact that My Sq. is on the base and the military gives us a place to run meetings is another good pointer to the answer to be yes.
The military also gives Burger King a place on posts/bases. I doubt anyone would try to make a coherent arguement that Burger King employees are members of the military, even though they are universally recognized by their uniforms as well.
Sorry.
Quote from: Cadet Basic Airman Cutler on February 25, 2011, 04:33:50 PM
My Dad is stationed on Spangdahlem Air Force Base and if you ask me I would say yes the military recognizes it and the fact that My Sq. is on the base and the military gives us a place to run meetings is another good pointer to the answer to be yes.
Ahhhh, youth....remember how simple life was then ;D Welcome aboard Cadet Cutler
We are an auxilary. We have connections to the military. I think it would have to mean where are a part of the military. Why else would the military supply us with the stuff that it does all the time. The whole reason we exsist is because being like the military. We wear the uniforms, we do the drill, we talk the talk, and walk the walk, and above all, we have always helped the USAF when it needs us to, or wants us to. We don't go through BMT, not all of us do push-ups or sit-ups, and none of us, has a part of CAP, have an AFSC. We provide a valuable service, we sometimes act has recruitment tools for the military (not just the USAF) and we reflect our learned values back in the classroom/work place.
Anybody been sitting in line for an ID check at the front gate of a military institution and had the Domino's pizza guy buzz right by and get waved through the gate? Pre 9/11 of course.
Quote from: RRLE on February 15, 2011, 01:19:38 PM
The second sentence in the third paragraph of then National CC's letter in the "trolling for salutes" thread seems to settle the issue:
QuoteYes, we are the Air Force's Auxiliary but as civilian volunteers we are not members of the military.
Who is the National CC? I am not really familiar with ALL the CAP terms, I thought than CC stood for Cadet Commander?
Quote from: JArvey on March 08, 2011, 03:07:21 AM
Quote from: RRLE on February 15, 2011, 01:19:38 PM
The second sentence in the third paragraph of then National CC's letter in the "trolling for salutes" thread seems to settle the issue:
QuoteYes, we are the Air Force's Auxiliary but as civilian volunteers we are not members of the military.
Who is the National CC? I am not really familiar with ALL the CAP terms, I thought than CC stood for Cadet Commander?
CC is the AF's office designator for commander. C/CC would be a cadet commander.
Quote from: FreightDog on February 15, 2011, 02:14:25 AM
Military Officers are commissioned by Congress. We wear the uniform and grade of military officers, we were authorized by congress in 1941. So the question is "are we commissioned officers" in the USAF Auxiliary, Civil Air Patrol? .
A CAP "commission" is about as real as a being titled as a "Kentucky Colonel". It is cool, but holds no weight in the military or in the eyes of Congress.
I would say that we are "appointed" rather than "commissioned."
That was the word I was looking for. Thank you. I sat on that post for about 20 mins, while waiting on a more appropropirate word.
Quote from: CyBorg on March 26, 2011, 08:13:54 AM
I would say that we are "appointed" rather than "commissioned."
ap·point·ed–adjective
1.
by, through, or as a result of an appointment (often in contrast with elected ): an appointed official.
2.
predetermined; arranged; set: They met at the appointed time in the appointed place.
3.
provided with what is necessary; equipped; furnished: a beautifully appointed office.
com·mis·sion
–noun
1.
the act of committing or giving in charge.
2.
an authoritative order, charge, or direction.
3.
authority granted for a particular action or function.
4.
a document granting such authority.
5.
a document conferring authority issued by the president of the U.S. to officers in the army, Navy, and other military services, and by state governments to justices of the peace and others.
6.
the power thus granted.
7.
the position or rank of an officer in any of the armed forces.
8.
a group of persons authoritatively charged with particular functions: a parks commission.
9.
the condition of being placed under special authoritative responsibility or charge.
10.
a task or matter committed to one's charge; official assignment: The architect received a commission to design an office building.
11.
the act of committing or perpetrating a crime, error, etc.: The commission of a misdemeanor is punishable by law.
12.
something that is committed.
13.
authority to act as agent for another or others in commercial transactions.
14.
a sum or percentage allowed to agents, sales representatives, etc., for their services: to work on a 20 percent commission.
CAP is a civilian auxiliary of a military organization.
- CAP members are not subject to the UCMJ, even when engaged in an Air Force commissioned mission.
- CAP members do not receive VA benefits (from their service with CAP).
- CAP pilots must have a FFA license. Military pilots do not need a license from the FAA.
- Members of the US armed forces are not required to render military courtesies to CAP members.
- Senior members are not commissioned as officers of the United States.
Quote from: Flymetothemoon on April 02, 2011, 10:18:31 PM
CAP is a civilian auxiliary of a military organization.
- CAP members are not subject to the UCMJ, even when engaged in an Air Force commissioned mission.
- CAP members do not receive VA benefits (from their service with CAP).
- CAP pilots must have a FFA license. Military pilots do not need a license from the FAA.
- Members of the US armed forces are not required to render military courtesies to CAP members.
- Senior members are not commissioned as officers of the United States.
So is a civilian Employee of the Air Force Part of the military or not part of the military? Yes they are not a military member but they are part of the military I would say.
(they work for the USAF....ie funding for their salary comes out of the USAF budget, they are performing a job for the USAF, they likely report to a USAF member, they might even supervise USAF personnel, they work at a USAF facility and I bet they say "Good morinig, 355th fighter wing operations Mr Smith how can I help you?" when they answer the phone.)
Your examples place CAP member as not a military member, but that doesnt immediately disqualifiy them as part of the military.
mk
If you look at the "big chain" (USAF chain of command), then CAP is technically on the list as part of the USAF, but we are to the side a bit.