USCGAux Benefits compared to CAP Benefits

Started by SARMedTech, April 22, 2008, 04:04:03 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RRLE

QuoteA "trim, military appearance" can be in the eye of the beholder where as specific weight requirements are something that can be enforced if you want to make a point of it.

You are forgetting the line in the AuxMan that (paraphrased) states that if the AuxMan is slilent on an issue then the CG manuals rule. And the CG manuals define 'trim, military appearance' in the very specific language you seem to require. In fact, the CG is supposed to enforce the age-dependent height/weight standards on Auxie Augies - so far in most places they haven't. Nor does the CG enforce the grooming standards on the Auxie Augies at most stations.  However, unkept and unmilitary a lot of Auxie Augies are - they are still more valuable to the CG then to send them packing.

Even if we stuck with "trim, military appearance" you could have some border line cases - but the gravity challenged beer bellies that are prevalent in Auxie pubs certainly are over the line and out of any gray area. But someone has to do those missions, so the real rule is 'look the other way'.

calguy

In Southern California, (San Diego, Long Beach, Orange County) CAP handles almost all E.P.I.R.B.s for the Coast Guard.  I bet our guys locate 100 or so a year down here.  I know they even put CAP members  on their boats and helicopters to search for EPIRBs out to sea that they were unable to locate.  They also share and use our repeater network when their primary repeaters have gone down.  I have even heard stories of CAP turning off ELTs and EPIRBs on their aircraft and boats.
Seems like CAP gets more bang for the buck!

mikeylikey

Why does the CG AUX even wear anything remotly similar to rank insignia?  Since they don't do the whole military thing......whats the purpose??
What's up monkeys?

RiverAux

The only time Auxies have to meet a specific physical fitness standard is if it is attached to a CG job that an Auxie wants to do and that has nothing at all to do with height/weight requirements.  The vast majority of augmentation positions have no such requirement.

QuoteWhy does the CG AUX even wear anything remotly similar to rank insignia?  Since they don't do the whole military thing......whats the purpose??
Just because CAP salutes and uses military rank titles doesn't make CAP essentially any different than the CG Aux in terms of "who is more military".  Auxies wear uniforms because the Commandant of the CG wants them to. 

RiverAux

Incidentally, if you take a look at the CG's weight/physical fitness standards manual it very clearly states in multiple locations that it applies to
QuoteThis Manual clarifies weight and physical fitness policy for all Coast Guard military
personnel, officer and enlisted, active and reserve, and Public Health Service (PHS) officers detailed to the Coast Guard.

As stated before, Auxies may have to meet a physical fitness standard to do a particular job for the CG (and that requirement will be found in the PQS for that job) but there are absolutely no occassions that I'm aware of that require that they meet a weight requirement. 

SARMedTech

#45
Quote from: RiverAux on April 23, 2008, 11:55:21 PM
The issue is that you can't really enforce a non-specific standard even if you wanted to.  A "trim, military appearance" can be in the eye of the beholder where as specific weight requirements are something that can be enforced if you want to make a point of it. 

You took the words right out of my mouth.  There is a difference between looking presentable no matter how you weigh and not being allowed to wear a uniform if you are over a specific numerical weight. To me (and I have had some experience with Auxies over the last few years) this says that "ok, you may be overweight, but you can still carry out the mission we are assigning to you and therefore we think that you are worthy of wearing our uniform."  The CAP policies as they exist, IMHO, are just plain discriminatory. Due to an auto accident in 2004, I have had varying activity levels/abilities since then and subsequently have alternately lost and gained weight. It was made clear to me that I should maintain a set of AF-style uniforms and a set of corporates. As a result, I have a set of woodlands and a set of blues but have chosen just to stick with the corporate "blues" equivalent.
"Corpsman Up!"

"...The distinct possibility of dying slow, cold and alone...but you also get the chance to save lives, and there is no greater calling in the world than that."

RRLE

QuoteWhy does the CG AUX even wear anything remotly similar to rank insignia?  Since they don't do the whole military thing......whats the purpose??

Good question to which there is no good answer.

To compound the insignia/title issue - the Aux for the most part does not use military titles. The ones they use that are similar to military titles do not correspond, for the most part to the insignia. The Aux did change some titles that will bring its office titles more in-line with Real Rank but there are still plenty of misfits. For example:

The top dogs in the Aux are Commodores not Admirals. And they are the only ones permitted to be addressed in writing or verbally with a title before their names (Commodore or COMO). Many of the 'more military' faction in the Aux affect using titles for Flotilla Commander (either Commander Jones or Flotilla Commander Jones) or Division Captian (Captain Smith or Division Captain Smith). Both are clearly wrong by the AuxMan. They are either addressed by their civilian titles Mr/Ms/Mrs/Miss Jones or by first name. It is improper to address anyone below the rank of Commodore with an Aux title before their name. But like saluting improperly, it is done in some places.

Other insignia/title mismatches:

Ensign looking insignia/Flotilla Staff Officer
LT jg looking insignia/Vice Flotilla Commander
LT looking insignia/Flotilla Commander

There have been proposals that run the gamut from dumping the insignia all together thru changing the insignia to something non-military.  There have been an equal number of proposals to change the officer titles. However, the last time a proposal was able to make it to the Commandant (about a decade ago) he didn't do anything. His rationale was that any change would probably anger as many members as it satisfied and the best course of action was to do nothing.





SARMedTech

Quote from: RRLE on April 24, 2008, 03:36:55 AM
QuoteWhy does the CG AUX even wear anything remotly similar to rank insignia?  Since they don't do the whole military thing......whats the purpose??

Good question to which there is no good answer.

To compound the insignia/title issue - the Aux for the most part does not use military titles. The ones they use that are similar to military titles do not correspond, for the most part to the insignia. The Aux did change some titles that will bring its office titles more in-line with Real Rank but there are still plenty of misfits. For example:

The top dogs in the Aux are Commodores not Admirals. And they are the only ones permitted to be addressed in writing or verbally with a title before their names (Commodore or COMO). Many of the 'more military' faction in the Aux affect using titles for Flotilla Commander (either Commander Jones or Flotilla Commander Jones) or Division Captian (Captain Smith or Division Captain Smith). Both are clearly wrong by the AuxMan. They are either addressed by their civilian titles Mr/Ms/Mrs/Miss Jones or by first name. It is improper to address anyone below the rank of Commodore with an Aux title before their name. But like saluting improperly, it is done in some places.

Other insignia/title mismatches:

Ensign looking insignia/Flotilla Staff Officer
LT jg looking insignia/Vice Flotilla Commander
LT looking insignia/Flotilla Commander

There have been proposals that run the gamut from dumping the insignia all together thru changing the insignia to something non-military.  There have been an equal number of proposals to change the officer titles. However, the last time a proposal was able to make it to the Commandant (about a decade ago) he didn't do anything. His rationale was that any change would probably anger as many members as it satisfied and the best course of action was to do nothing.


Well, at least the leadership decided it would be wisest not to do something which would anger and perhaps alienate its membership. Also, while saluting is not "customary" it is not forbidden, therefor it is likewise not a violation of any Aux regulation.

One thing that I like about what I have learned so far about the Aux is that it is far less concerned with matters of rank, bling, titles, etc and is more operationally concerned. Ive searched many official and unofficial Aux forums and find far more discussions about operational matters than I have about uniforms and rank. I have also been told by the members of my "local" flotilla that there is a movement afoot to eliminate anything rank related whatsoever and simply use the Aux insignia (the "shielded A."
"Corpsman Up!"

"...The distinct possibility of dying slow, cold and alone...but you also get the chance to save lives, and there is no greater calling in the world than that."

Slim

So many posts, so little time.

On Saluting
Never did it in my AOR (D9C) unless we were boarding/leaving a cutter, or were outside during Colors.  We didn't salute each other at all, never used rank or titles, etc.  In fact, one of the first meetings I went to when I was joining, I'm walking in from the parking lot and spot a guy in winter dress blue with chickens on his collar.  I snuck inside, told everyone of an impending visitor from on high (remember, I had a CAP mindset where chickens=wing king, or someone really important).  They said "Oh good, Billy's here.  Haven't seen him in a while."  Billy was one of the rear commodores from the district and was from our flotilla.  Note:  another difference.  In the CG Aux, you're almost always assigned to a flotilla, regardless of how high your elected office is.  No transfers to division, region or district.

I did once run into the CO of CG STA St Clair Shores one night, after returning from a maritime security patrol (tall ships on the Detroit River).  My thought was "This guy's an active duty LT, he's new to the station, and I haven't met him yet."  When in doubt, whip it out.  LT Williams looked at me kinda shocked, and said "Don't scare me like that again."  We got a good chuckle out of it, and LT Williams rocked.

Augmenting
It's a tough choice now, looking back, to decide if boat crew or augmenting was what brought me into the CG Aux.  What planted the seed, and got me looking into it was a show I saw on Discovery channel called "Dangerous Seas: Inside the US Coast Guard."  I liked what I saw, and saw a lot of similarities with CAP, so I hopped on the net, did some research, and found the Aux. 

I thoroughly enjoyed my time augmenting, and eventually qualified as a watchstander at two different boat stations, Port Huron and St Clair Shores (busiest boat station in the CG).  I also did some general admin-type work in the OPCEN at Air Station Detroit, and was considering going for an in-port slot on the USCGC Bramble.  Wish I could have done more on her, but two things happened shortly after I started:  security checks (my credit got pretty hosed up during my marriage), and they announced that the ole girl was being decommissioned.

So, yeah, I'm among the legions who left because of that SF-86.  Though it was also having to choose between that and CAP due to time constraints, and CAP won.

But the guys were always great.  They respected the fact that I was there taking the load off of them, working for free, and sometimes doing the jobs they hated (like hosing down the boats 2-3 times a day when they'd get covered by fishflies, or mowing the lawn).  I never set out to take advantage, but someone always seemed to pay for a meal in the galley or messdeck for me, or chip in on something for me.  I always seemed to find a new station ballcap or t-shirt with my name on it.  Little things like that went a long way to show me that I was appreciated.

Weight Standards
It was never a big deal.  As long as your uniforms fit right, they didn't care.  I've been out of it for 5 years now, so that might have changed. 

The one coxswain I always crewed for was a great guy.  Retired firefighter, could drive a boat into a tempest, would take his boat out to the station for picnics/morale days so the guys and their families could go skiing or tubing.  He knew the AOR better than a lot of people did.  Newly assigned AD folks would take a ride with us to learn the trouble spots of the area.  However, he weighed well over 300 pounds (the reason he was retired was due to complicatons of Lyme disease).  He had to custom order uniforms from Lighthouse, and spend a small fortune on them.  But nobody ever cared about that, because they knew that he knew his stuff, and could do the job.

I'm no small guy either, and I never had a problem with improperly fitting uniforms, and never had a gold sider look down his nose at me.


Slim

SARMedTech

Well-said and written. In my short (so far) investigation of the Aux, I have found that the gold siders genuinely seem to have a respect and even fondness for Auxies. And you are definitely right that Coasties don't mind learning from Auxies when the situations calls for it.

As for the uniform business, the FC of the flotilla I am thinking of joining is a VERY big boy who also has his ODUs and Tropicals custom tailored. However, other than being worried that I may at some point end up pumping his chest while on an Op, he seems to me to be an amazing teacher, commander and Auxie in general. That was what prompted my comment earlier that in many ways the Aux seems more concerned with operational ability than with trying to ensure that every single Auxie looks like a 28-year-old rescue swimmer straight out of "A" school.

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

PS- does anyone know of a good Auxie forum. I have found a few that seem pretty "unofficial" that leave much to be desired.
"Corpsman Up!"

"...The distinct possibility of dying slow, cold and alone...but you also get the chance to save lives, and there is no greater calling in the world than that."

RRLE

QuotePS- does anyone know of a good Auxie forum. I have found a few that seem pretty "unofficial" that leave much to be desired.

The last official Auxie forum, the Member Forum, was shut down about 7 years ago. The Grandees were not fond of the Bilge Mice pointing out their foibles, mistakes, errors and general ineptitude in public.

The longest lasting of the unofficial forums is the Auxie forum on military.com. That is also probably the largest in terms of readers, lurkers and posters.

A relatively new Auxie board showed up on uscg.org. Although that site has some of the trappings and style of official USCG sites, I don't know if it really is. That '.org' url is a bit suspicious.

There is an Auxie forum on VAJoe but it gets little activity


RiverAux

Folks who bemoan the un-military aspects of the CG Aux might want to consider that this is the way the CG wants things to be and despite all that stuff the Aux wears a uniform much closer to the CGs than CAP is to the AF despite the supposedly more "military' aspects of CAP. 

Perhaps CAP has headed down the wrong road in this regard....

JoeTomasone

Quote from: RiverAux on April 24, 2008, 03:37:26 PM
Folks who bemoan the un-military aspects of the CG Aux might want to consider that this is the way the CG wants things to be and despite all that stuff the Aux wears a uniform much closer to the CGs than CAP is to the AF despite the supposedly more "military' aspects of CAP. 

Perhaps CAP has headed down the wrong road in this regard....


There's a difference -- the cadet program.   CAP is supposed to be, in part, serving as a basic orientation to military life for those who are (or could become) military-minded.   As I see it, the more we permit both Cadets and Seniors to get away with non-adherence to uniform and customs and courtesies regulations and traditions, the more we fail in this regard.   I've been involved in volunteer organizations for a long time, and I can sum up my experience in this way: 

Those organizations that artificially or intentionally relax their standards tend to find that the best personnel leave or aren't attracted in the first place since the organization is substandard.   Those who maintain and enforce high standards scare away those who are possibly not the best candidates, but retain a core of dedicated and experienced individuals with a high esprit de corps.    I'd rather be in command of a smaller number of outstanding people than a bloated corps of those who range from outstanding to decidedly not.


I've said it before and I'll say it again - if you want a CAP with no military standards, where you don't have to render customs and courtesies and wear your uniform properly, than the Boy Scouts are more than willing to have you.   And I'm not saying this to demean the Scouts; it just may be that they are more your cup of tea.   

I see the CG Aux as something of a CAP for boating enthusiasts as opposed to pilots or SAR folks.   Certainly that's why my father joined up - he's been a boater since long before I was born.


RiverAux

QuoteI see the CG Aux as something of a CAP for boating enthusiasts as opposed to pilots or SAR folks.   Certainly that's why my father joined up - he's been a boater since long before I was born.
I don't think that is accurate at all.    Keep in mind that the vast majority of CAP senior members are not pilots and do not participate in aircrew programs.  The same goes in the CG Aux -- very few own boats and participate in actually on-the-water boating programs. 

JoeTomasone

Quote from: RiverAux on April 24, 2008, 10:55:22 PM
QuoteI see the CG Aux as something of a CAP for boating enthusiasts as opposed to pilots or SAR folks.   Certainly that's why my father joined up - he's been a boater since long before I was born.
I don't think that is accurate at all.    Keep in mind that the vast majority of CAP senior members are not pilots and do not participate in aircrew programs.  The same goes in the CG Aux -- very few own boats and participate in actually on-the-water boating programs. 


Granted, but my point was more that aviation minded people would be better candidates for CAP and boating enthusiasts would possibly fit better in the CG Aux - not that all CAP members are pilots and all CG Aux members are boaters.

I'm not a pilot and I'm in CAP..   I disprove the premise myself.


RRLE

One aspect of CAP life that has the Aux beat 4 ways to Sunday is your openness regarding conducting meetings. There are and were Auxiess who used CAP as an example of how the Aux should run.

Specifically I am writing about the publication of agendas and action items before meetings and the publication of the minutes and reports after the meetings.

The Aux thru the late 1960s/early 1970s also operated in that fashion. Meeting agendas, especially proposals before the National board were published in the National magazine before the big annual meetings. That way if a lowly Bilge Mouse had an opinion on an issue he could address the 'chain' ahead of time. After the meeting the minutes and substantive extracts of reports were published in the national magazine.

Since the early 1970s no agendas have been published and no minutes of the National Board or ExComm of the Aux have been published. Auxies only find out about a policy recommendation after it has been approved by either the National Board (internal matters) or the Commandant (external matters).

The Bilge Mice have borrowed the expression "Mushroom Mangement" to describe that aspect of Aux leadership. For those that don't know, Mushroom Management is "keep them in the dark, feed them feces and expect them to produce".

OTOH, CAP has a very good reputation for operating in the open.

The funny thing is that I would expect it the other way. CAP being a private corporation could keep its records to itself. The Aux which is a volunteer public agency should be expected to operate fully in the open.

One bright light - I noticed that the CG Auxiliary Association Inc (the non-profit corp that helps fund the Aux) published its board meeting minutes in its ePublication. That is the first time in years that has occured. Maybe it is the start of a slow change to public accountability for the Aux.

RiverAux

I wouldn't disagree with you that these things should be more widely publisized, but the fact is that CG Aux national-level meetings have much less impact on the members than CAP meetings do since any significant change in the CG Aux has to be approved by the CG.  The CAP NB, NEC, BoG however can be the final authority on a whole lot of matters. 

RiverAux

From the CG Aux 9WR newsletter....this is about as close to a "land" program as the Aux gets
QuoteMarine Safety Unit (MSU) Chicago is seeking Auxiliary members to assist with vehicle and bicycle patrols of the commercial waterfront in the Greater Chicago area. Special training is not required, although specific harbor safety training is expected to be offered within the next year. For both vehicle and bicycle patrols, Auxiliary members will be serving alongside active-duty Coast Guard personnel as an assistant. MSU already tasks their petty officers with making government-vehicle patrols on evenings and weekends. With the addition of Auxiliary volunteers, they can put two vehicles on the road at the same time to double the patrol area and provide a visible, immediate increase in their presence on the waterfront. The same will apply to bicycle patrols when the weather turns warmer. Since the minimum bicycle patrol is two members, the addition of Auxiliary volunteers will enable MSU to send out two patrols at once.

RRLE

You can forget about the Aux doing bike patrols. There is no written PQS for it and as soon as some Gold Sider realizes that the Aux will not be allowed to do them. It should only take the Aux and the CG about a decade to write the PQS for bike riding - that is less time then it took to re-write the PQS for diving (about 23 years) or paddlecraft (now banned, except by special district rules and you aren't covered by the liablity policy).

SARMedTech

#59
Quote from: RRLE on April 27, 2008, 12:40:25 AM
You can forget about the Aux doing bike patrols. There is no written PQS for it and as soon as some Gold Sider realizes that the Aux will not be allowed to do them. It should only take the Aux and the CG about a decade to write the PQS for bike riding - that is less time then it took to re-write the PQS for diving (about 23 years) or paddlecraft (now banned, except by special district rules and you aren't covered by the liablity policy).

First off, the CGAUX is in the process of re-creating a PQS for paddlecraft operator which should be operational this year if it isnt already. Secondly, there is already a PQS for dock and marina walkers, so I doubt that putting them on a bicycle should be much more difficult. If you have further interest in this qualification, you can see the 2005-2007 Training Strategies memo here: www.auxtdept.org/AuxTrainingStrategy.pdf

It also sounds like they are getting ready to eliminate the AUXOPS qual while beefing up the Trident Program. Its a shame because while there are not many AUXOPS in the flotillas in my area, there are far fewer Trident device wearers. It just takes too long, and requires to great an expense and potential amount of travel to the Auxie. You will also see that this memo puts forth that the Aux is planning (and in many cases has already implemented) eliminating Aux specific courses and having Auxies train using the same training materials, facilities and delivery systems as gold siders, ie...they are giving them the same training as Active Duty Coasties.  Now there is something CAP could learn from.
"Corpsman Up!"

"...The distinct possibility of dying slow, cold and alone...but you also get the chance to save lives, and there is no greater calling in the world than that."