What type of military status is cap?

[RiverAux]

That means that, legally, we could accept taskings that were law enforcement related when acting under the provisions of an MOU, but not when acting as an AF asset, except drug interdictions, which is a narrowly-carved exception to the PCA.

Personally, I've always agreed with the legal opinion noted in one of the national board minutes a few years ago that PCA NEVER applies to CAP since none of us are in the military at any time so it doesn't matter who pays the gas or bought the airplane. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

That means that, legally, we could accept taskings that were law enforcement related when acting under the provisions of an MOU, but not when acting as an AF asset, except drug interdictions, which is a narrowly-carved exception to the PCA.

Personally, I've always agreed with the legal opinion noted in one of the national board minutes a few years ago that PCA NEVER applies to CAP since none of us are in the military at any time so it doesn't matter who pays the gas or bought the airplane. 

I'm not sure what legal opinion says that.  CAP's regulatory structure was written to comply with the PCA, and in the definition of "Military" in the PCA itself there is a specific reference to "Auxiliaries."  If you have a source of that legal opinion, I would like it.  I actually read stuff like that!

[JohnKachenmeister]

CAP, with the current "Aux On/Aux Off" situation is in the same boat as the Guard.

The PCA applies to the Guard when they are performing their FEDERAL mission, but it does not apply when they are performing their STATE mission.

It's pretty much the same way with CAP.

If we're performing an Air Force mission or a mission for the Federal Government, then the PCA applies. If we're doing a non-Air Force mission (corporate, state or local) then the PCA does not apply since we're not in "FEDERAL" status.

I think you are correct in your legal analysis, but our regulations still prohibit us from accepting taskings to fly missions for local law enforcement.

[Short Field]

The UCMJ applies to "Civilians accompanying an armed force in the field."  That's the law, not an opinion.  If the GTE employees were accompanying the armed force, they are covered.  If not, they fall under Iraqi civil jurisdiction.

Again - the GTE employees were not covered by the UCMJ and were not in Iraq.  They did wear BDUs without rank or insignia.  Fact.

[JohnKachenmeister]

The UCMJ applies to "Civilians accompanying an armed force in the field."  That's the law, not an opinion.  If the GTE employees were accompanying the armed force, they are covered.  If not, they fall under Iraqi civil jurisdiction.

Again - the GTE employees were not covered by the UCMJ and were not in Iraq.  They did wear BDUs without rank or insignia.  Fact.

I guess if they were not accompanying the armed force, they would have the same status in BDU's as duck hunters.  If they were not in Iraq, then they must not have been accompanying an armed force in the field.

[PHall]

The UCMJ applies to "Civilians accompanying an armed force in the field."  That's the law, not an opinion.  If the GTE employees were accompanying the armed force, they are covered.  If not, they fall under Iraqi civil jurisdiction.

Again - the GTE employees were not covered by the UCMJ and were not in Iraq.  They did wear BDUs without rank or insignia.  Fact.

Fact before the new SOFA went into effect. Under the SOFA, they now come under Iraqi Law. (Thank you Blackwater...)

[Ned]

We are a civilian SAR organization.  You can bark all you want that we wont be able to find that in Print, but all I have to do is look at the CAWG 2009 activities calendar to tell you we are now a civilian SAR organization.

C'mon now Robert.  You know that isn't true.

Most folks in CAP spend the majority of their time participating in and supporting the cadet program, not SAR.

Really.  Just look at the numbers.

Sure, some of you guys do a fair amount of SAR, but it is clearly misleading to call us a civilian SAR organization when that only represents a minority of our time and effort.


Just saying . . . .

Ned Lee
CP Entusiast

[RRLE]

The PCA is a law that only affects the military

I think you have misread 18 USC 1385 Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Since CAP is 'part' of the USAF, it cannot be used as a posse comitatus. And that ban does not make or imply that CAP is miitary, quasi-military or para-military. The ban applies to the civilian employees of the USAF just as much as it does to the civilian volunteeers (CAP).

[Always Ready]

The UCMJ applies to "Civilians accompanying an armed force in the field."  That's the law, not an opinion.  If the GTE employees were accompanying the armed force, they are covered.  If not, they fall under Iraqi civil jurisdiction.

Again - the GTE employees were not covered by the UCMJ and were not in Iraq.  They did wear BDUs without rank or insignia.  Fact.

I remember while living at Ramstein AB, Germany seeing civilians (whether they were contractor, GS, or whatever I don't know) coming back and going to CENTCOM AOR wearing DCUs and latter ACUs. IIRC they wore name tapes, US Army tapes, and for grade insignia they wore a triangle metal pin. I'll see if I can't dig up a picture of one of them.

Edit: I found in the Army Uniform Manual (AR 670-1) the information regarding civilian wear of uniforms.

30–10. Wear of uniforms by U.S. civilians
  a. Authorized U.S. civilian personnel attached to, or authorized to accompany forces of the United States, including DA civilians, are authorized to wear utility uniforms only when required in the performance of their duties, and when authorized by the MACOM commander. The procedures for purchasing uniforms, footwear, and insignia are contained in AR 700–84, chapter 3. Only the insignia described below is authorized for wear on these uniforms.
  b. Insignia for civilians.
  (1) Description. The woodland subdued insignia is a black equilateral triangle, 11⁄4 inches long per side, with theletters "U.S." in olive-drab color, 1⁄4 inch wide and 1⁄2 inch high. The triangle is printed on an olive-green colored cloth background, 3 inches long and 2–1⁄2 inches wide. If applicable, the insignia also indicates the designated assignment in black letters, 1⁄4 inch high. The desert subdued insignia is the same size, with khaki or tan letters on a black cloth triangle. The triangle is printed on a khaki or tan cloth background.
   (2) The authorized designations are as follows.
   (a) Scientific consultant.
   (b) Operations analyst.
   (c) War correspondent.
   (d) Technical observer.
   (e) Ordnance technician.
   (f) Chauffeur.
   (g) Messenger.
   (h) Logistics specialist.
   (i) Safety.
   (j) Ammunition surveillance.
   (3) Insignia for civilians performing duties not listed above, or when specific designations are not required, will
conform to previously described insignia, except the insignia will not denote duty assignment (see fig 30–2).

And a pic of the insignia:


This is what they are testing to be the civilian utility uniform in combat zones:


Here's the article on it:
http://www.army.mil/-news/2008/07/03/10586-amc-civilians-to-test-new-uniforms-in-combat-zones/index.html

Now can we drop the uniform subject?

[RiverAux]

Since CAP is 'part' of the USAF, it cannot be used as a posse comitatus.

CAP is NOT part of the Air Force.  CAP-USAF is part of the AF. We are just partially funded by the Air Force. 

I'm not sure what legal opinion says that. 

I believe it was some DoD legal office. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Since CAP is 'part' of the USAF, it cannot be used as a posse comitatus.

CAP is NOT part of the Air Force.  CAP-USAF is part of the AF. We are just partially funded by the Air Force. 

I'm not sure what legal opinion says that. 

I believe it was some DoD legal office. 

RRLE and River:

I did not misread the PCA, I was, however, sloppy in summarizing its provisions in a single sentence.  And, as I have said, CAP is not "Military."  But CAP, while not "Military," is also not clearly and purely "Civilian."

USAF civilian workers do not have to wear uniforms (unless, of course, they are Guard technicians, who ARE required to wear uniforms) and are not given titles of military rank.  We are.  We are unique and we resist attempts to compare us to anything else.

To say we are in the military is inaccurate, but so is saying we are purely civilians.  Assertive statements that "We are civilians, period," as some have made here as just as inaccurate as saying that we are we are members of the armed forces.

And can we get a little more precise on this legal opinion that CAP is not bound at any time by the PCA?  I have never heard such a statement, and as much of a law geek as I am, I think I would have picked up on it somewhere.

[Rotorhead]

We are a civilian SAR organization.  You can bark all you want that we wont be able to find that in Print, but all I have to do is look at the CAWG 2009 activities calendar to tell you we are now a civilian SAR organization.

C'mon now Robert.  You know that isn't true.

Most folks in CAP spend the majority of their time participating in and supporting the cadet program, not SAR.

Really.  Just look at the numbers.

Sure, some of you guys do a fair amount of SAR, but it is clearly misleading to call us a civilian SAR organization when that only represents a minority of our time and effort.


Just saying . . . .

Ned Lee
CP Entusiast

You're not accouting for senior squadrons.

SAR is our primary activity. We do virtually nothing (save some O-flights) with cadets.

[Major Carrales]

We are a civilian SAR organization.  You can bark all you want that we wont be able to find that in Print, but all I have to do is look at the CAWG 2009 activities calendar to tell you we are now a civilian SAR organization.

C'mon now Robert.  You know that isn't true.

Most folks in CAP spend the majority of their time participating in and supporting the cadet program, not SAR.

Really.  Just look at the numbers.

Sure, some of you guys do a fair amount of SAR, but it is clearly misleading to call us a civilian SAR organization when that only represents a minority of our time and effort.


Just saying . . . .

Ned Lee
CP Entusiast

You're not accouting for senior squadrons.

SAR is our primary activity. We do virtually nothing (save some O-flights) with cadets.

What about Senior squadrons that don't do ES...you know the type?  Lots of time for flying until someone calls for an ELT mission or needs volunteers for more than a few hours or the day. 

Suddenly no one can help the "Little Red Hen" (save for when its time to eat the "corn bread")  Then the local composite squadron down the road gets to go out on the search with cadets making up a good part of the UDF/Ground team.

Sorry, when you join CAP you join all of it.  You have to be prepared to do what has to be done.  We have three missions, not just one.

Insure that the above example never happens in CAP, and I will grant you your premise.

[RiverAux]

Most folks in CAP spend the majority of their time participating in and supporting the cadet program, not SAR.

I believe this is wildly inaccurate though impossible to determine specifically.  

[JayT]

Most folks in CAP spend the majority of their time participating in and supporting the cadet program, not SAR.

I believe this is wildly inaccurate though impossible to determine specifically.

Well, when it comes down to it, Search and Rescue is just part of one of our three missions.

[RiverAux]

Actually, it is just a sub-part of one of our 5 missions. 

[Major Carrales]

Most folks in CAP spend the majority of their time participating in and supporting the cadet program, not SAR.

I believe this is wildly inaccurate though impossible to determine specifically.  

Why can't you guys just accept that both are part of the program?  I have always believed that the strength of the program comes from its diversity.  We have a Cadet Program which attracts the attentions and dollars of certain people who would never give Inland SAR a cent or even second look.   We have an ES program that attracts the attention and funding of another set of folks that desire what we have to offer; basically "minutemen" in support of the community.  These folks, while valuing cadets, go with the more pragmatic.  All the folsk mentioned above are legislators, State/local government and our benefactors.

Once you guys understand that, you will see just how ridiculous this "rivalry" between CP and ES is.

[Always Ready]

Actually, it is just a sub-part of one of our 5 missions. 

5 missions? Did I miss the memo? I thought it was just AE, CP, & ES. What are the other ones?

(I really need to start keeping up with all these "changes" )

[Rotorhead]

Once you guys understand that, you will see just how ridiculous this "rivalry" between CP and ES is.

I don't see a rivalry at all. No one is suggesting that cadet programs are not valuable (they are) or a waste (they aren't). I've been a member of a composite squardon, so I know the value of CP.

On the other hand, I don't see anyone on this thread advocating for Aerospace Education, which is one of the Big Three, and thus, as important as either ES or CP.

People tend to emphasize the reasons they joined when they talk about CAP's purpose.

[RiverAux]

Actually, it is just a sub-part of one of our 5 missions. 

5 missions? Did I miss the memo? I thought it was just AE, CP, & ES. What are the other ones?

(I really need to start keeping up with all these "changes" )

You'll find these in various CAP regulations as well as federal law, but we chose to forget about severa of them:
The purposes of CAP:

(1) To provide an organization to—
(A) encourage and aid citizens of the United States in contributing their efforts, services, and resources in developing aviation and in maintaining air supremacy; and
(B) encourage and develop by example the voluntary contribution of private citizens to the public welfare.
(2) To provide aviation education and training especially to its senior and cadet members.
(3) To encourage and foster civil aviation in local communities.
(4) To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies.
(5) To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its noncombat programs and missions.