CAP Talk

Unhappy circumstance that so many CAP Senior (Officers) appear to be uncomfortable in Air Force skin.  In my first life in Civil  Air Patrol most Senior Members were graduates of WWII and/or Korea.  They were delighted to wear the USAF uniform.  They spent money to purchase the great looking silver tan service coat uniform.  My Lt Col Group CO wore his service cap with an authentic 50 mission crush.  Our Corprate structure was civilian, sure  enough.  But, we all knew that we were part of the Air Force; and it was very good.

Now we have a significant number of  members who don't want to have anything to do with the military and appear to dislike our Air Force uniform.  Originally, in CAP, we described ourselves as being a "quasi-military" organization.  Since 9/11 the American population has, happily, grown to respect and recognize the value of and sacrafices made by the military.  The "flower children" are long gone.  There is no significant protest movement.  The vast majority of the poplulation values and respects the uniform.  Certainly, in CAP, we should.

For those of us who are too overweight to wear the USAF uniform or who (quite rightfully) have a personal preference for facial hair, a sharp looking, destinctive military style uniform with appropriate head gear (not a baseball cap) would be really appreciated.  We need to give an improved military appearance to a (properly) military organization.   

 :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Wecome to CAPTALK Commodore!

I hope you become an active contributor and look forward to your insights being shared with the rest of us!

Having never had the opportunity to serve otherwise I was very nervous about wearing the Air Force blues uniform when I first joined CAP. I didn't feel as though I earned it.
My attitude has changed since but it took some time.
I've lost 50 Lbs, shaved my facial hair and now wear my Blues and BDU's with pride.

I don't think it's always a matter of not WANTING to be military, otherwise we as adults would have joined the boy scouts/cub scouts as den or pack leaders. I think some of us just don't know how to do it right and would prefer not to do it at all.... especially if our wearing of the uniform reflects negatively on our active duty service men and women.
As a cadet you have no choice. Wear your uniform and wear it well. When you come become a senior member it's old hat. I was getting butterflies in my stomach every time I started looking at uniform options.

For the record I was not a big fan of my aviator and slacks combo. I felt like i was wearing a NWA airline pilot holloween costume.

Gender, in full agreement...however, we had a military-type distinctive uniform, the CSU, and for reasons unexplained it's been taken away from us.

I think a lot of the people who wear the nonmilitary uniforms do it for several reasons, other than weight/grooming:

It's cheap.

You don't have to observe customs and courtesies in a polo shirt.

It's cheap.

You can find the components (white shirt, grey pants) at Salvation Army, St. Vince's or Goodwill.

It's cheap.

I haven't yet heard of anyone gigged for uniform violation in the grey/white.

It's cheap.

Be careful...there's an overzealous poster who cannot stop reminding us that we are the CIVIL Air Patrol and should not be in "military" uniform.

Unfortunately, in her ICL taking away the CSU, General Courter told us in no uncertain terms that a "corporate" uniform cannot be "military styled."

That means we're stuck with variations on the current, colourless themes.

Quote from: CyBorg on November 09, 2011, 07:19:05 PMUnfortunately, in her ICL taking away the CSU, General Courter told us in no uncertain terms that a "corporate" uniform cannot be "military styled."

Where did you get that?  The whites are certainly military-styled.

... and since when has an ICL not conflicted, reversed, or otherwise disagreed with another ICL?

That in 180 days, should be drafted to regulation, and have not been, so ...

Quote from: Eclipse on November 09, 2011, 07:40:15 PM

Quote from: CyBorg on November 09, 2011, 07:19:05 PMUnfortunately, in her ICL taking away the CSU, General Courter told us in no uncertain terms that a "corporate" uniform cannot be "military styled."

Where did you get that?  The whites are certainly military-styled.

Hmm.

If nonstandard grey trousers, a nonstandard white shirt and a nonstandard blazer are "military-styled"...then maybe I need to rethink what "uniform" means.

I should have said General Courter's PowerPoint explaining the ICL:

"Corporate style uniforms do not exist to allow those who may not wear the USAF-style to have a military-looking alternative."

Corporate uniform may not be military in style

"Why" any of our uniforms "exist" is conjecture at best, and assumptions and assertions regarding them
are generally inconsistent and in many case contradict themselves.

The style of the aviator whites is most certainly "military style", unless you've seen your average
business manager wearing ribbons and badges while processing TPS reports.

QuoteI should have said General Courter's PowerPoint explaining the ICL:

"Corporate style uniforms do not exist to allow those who may not wear the USAF-style to have a military-looking alternative."

Corporate uniform may not be military in style

New General, new National Commander, maybe means we can re-evaluate this? I don't see what is wrong with someone like me who could wear the USAF uniform because I'm in weight and grooming  standards except for a trimmed goatee instead of the little Air Force mustache. Why I couldn't have a gray military looking alternative uniform jacket/service cap to wear ontop of the white aviator shirt and gray slacks. I would vote for this and I don't think I would be alone.

(http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/198783_205401756153514_100000510722888_783254_6098534_n.jpg)

Here I am at work doing a General Grant imprerssion for Presidents Day (February) this year. I work at a retirement home and we often have costume days for when we celebrate holidays and Halloween, etc.

Quote from: BradM on November 09, 2011, 10:58:30 PM

QuoteI should have said General Courter's PowerPoint explaining the ICL:

"Corporate style uniforms do not exist to allow those who may not wear the USAF-style to have a military-looking alternative."

Corporate uniform may not be military in style

New General, new National Commander, maybe means we can re-evaluate this? I don't see what is wrong with someone like me who could wear the USAF uniform because I'm in weight and grooming  standards except for a trimmed goatee instead of the little Air Force mustache. Why I couldn't have a gray military looking alternative uniform jacket/service cap to wear ontop of the white aviator shirt and gray slacks. I would vote for this and I don't think I would be alone.

Gen. Carr thinks the exact same as Gen. Courter did, that's why he was elected. The NB avoided change (any change at all  ::) ) like the black plague.

Whatever Gen. Courter said, will stand with Gen. Carr.

Maybe this would work....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/vancouveropera/4406873213/# (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vancouveropera/4406873213/#)

double post..

Quote from: ol'fido on November 10, 2011, 12:05:14 AM
Maybe this would work....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/vancouveropera/4406873213/# (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vancouveropera/4406873213/#)

Or this, so the corporate uniform can have it's hat and belt too
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vancouveropera/4406896695/#in/photostream/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vancouveropera/4406896695/#in/photostream/)

I was thinking of a gray service cap like the Air Force cap but in a gray that matches the jacket. Teh CAP emblem on the cap.

A jacket like the Germans are using in the darker gray. No piping. With silver CAP coat of arms buttons. Matching slacks. CAP insignia and ribbons, badges on it. Name tag.

(http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6608/txoodocs41ba0e3063ps6.jpg)

(http://et2705.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/tapferkeit-bundeswehr.jpg)

Quote from: NCRblues on November 09, 2011, 11:31:03 PM
[Gen. Carr thinks the exact same as Gen. Courter did, that's why he was elected. The NB avoided change (any change at all  ::) ) like the black plague.

Whatever Gen. Courter said, will stand with Gen. Carr.

Concur. >:(

That means if you can't/won't wear the AF type, get your slacks, white shirt and blazer on and shut-up. :-X

or draft a proposal and send it up the chain.

Unless you're actively doing something to fix what you perceive as a problem, then you are only perpetuating it.


Whats the worse that happens?  They say no?  Then what have you lost?

Quote from: CyBorg on November 10, 2011, 12:23:04 AM

Quote from: NCRblues on November 09, 2011, 11:31:03 PM
[Gen. Carr thinks the exact same as Gen. Courter did, that's why he was elected. The NB avoided change (any change at all  ::) ) like the black plague.

Whatever Gen. Courter said, will stand with Gen. Carr.

Concur. >:(

That means if you can't/won't wear the AF type, get your slacks, white shirt and blazer on and shut-up. :-X

I just wear the long sleeve white aviator shirt, gray slacks, shiney military shoes, black leather belt, Air Force tie with tie clasp, and not wear a blazer or jacket on the more formal occasions. The white shirt has my rank epaulettes, ribbons, name tag, badges on it. So no hat or jacket for me if I have my goatee.

Quote from: tsrup on November 10, 2011, 12:37:07 AM
or draft a proposal and send it up the chain.

Unless you're actively doing something to fix what you perceive as a problem, then you are only perpetuating it.


Whats the worse that happens?  They say no?  Then what have you lost?

I have drafted proposals.  They still exist.  In the aftermath of the CSU debacle I thought "what's the use?"

However, NHQ have a moratorium on any uniform changes as far as I know (Ned, is this still true?).

And I really doubt that NHQ gives a monkey's about an opinion from a worker-bee Captain, especially one contrary to the status quo.

"Who's the tennis referee next to all those officers on the dais?" 

"He's everyone's commander."

"Oh..."

Quote from: Eclipse on November 10, 2011, 06:01:38 PM
"Who's the tennis referee next to all those officers on the dais?" 

"He's everyone's commander."

"Oh..."

Not fair.
Tennis referee's get to wear jackets.

Quote from: CyBorg on November 09, 2011, 07:19:05 PM
...we had a military-type distinctive uniform, the CSU, and for reasons unexplained it's been taken away from us.

I think enough has been said about the CSU's disappearance that we can say we know why it's gone. It was illegally authorized. The Air Force didn't get the opportunity to bless it. It never appeared in regulation. And arguably, it was the brainchild of a megalomaniac. Does that work for you? :)

I agree with you...to a point.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on November 12, 2011, 08:04:26 AM
I think enough has been said about the CSU's disappearance that we can say we know why it's gone.

Depending on who you talk to.  A hard-and-fast "this-is-why" reason was never given.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on November 12, 2011, 08:04:26 AM
It was illegally authorized.

No argument there...and with that being the case it should have been kiboshed out of the starting gate instead of given time to become known and liked by many CAP members.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on November 12, 2011, 08:04:26 AM
The Air Force didn't get the opportunity to bless it.

Non-concur.  Alterations were made to the CSU after asking AF input; i.e., removal of "U.S." collar brass and replacement with "CAP," removal of metal grade from flight cap.  They could have said "no" to it at any stage along the way.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on November 12, 2011, 08:04:26 AM
It never appeared in regulation.

A good chunk of our regs aren't in regulation...unless you count vaguely-codified ICL's.

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/2008_01_25_Uniforms.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/2008_01_25_Uniforms.pdf) pp. 3-4

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on November 12, 2011, 08:04:26 AM
And arguably, it was the brainchild of a megalomaniac. Does that work for you? :)

Said personage has been tossed out on his...ear...for his transgressions.  It is neither logical nor just to punish the membership for the actions of one, nor to put the screws to a good idea that came from a less-than-good person.

Having said that, it's a done deal.  However, there is no reason I can see to just continue with the status quo.

QuoteA good chunk of our regs aren't in regulation...unless you count vaguely-codified ICL's.

Actually not true.  Right now, with the exception of the uniform ICLs we only have 4 active ICLs, all of which were put out in 2011.  NHQ has done a good job cleaning up the ICL backlog that used to be very, very bad.

Quote from: CyBorg on November 12, 2011, 09:02:50 AM

Having said that, it's a done deal.  However, there is no reason I can see to just continue with the status quo.

The National Board would disagree with you. They made it pretty clear the "status quo" is what they want, and what we will get for the next 4 years.

Quote from: NCRblues on November 12, 2011, 05:34:15 PM
The National Board would disagree with you. They made it pretty clear the "status quo" is what they want, and what we will get for the next 4 years.

Perhaps.  That doesn't make it right.

Quote from: CyBorg on November 12, 2011, 05:39:26 PM

Quote from: NCRblues on November 12, 2011, 05:34:15 PM
The National Board would disagree with you. They made it pretty clear the "status quo" is what they want, and what we will get for the next 4 years.

Perhaps.  That doesn't make it right.

Oh no no... never said it was right. In fact I disagree with it strongly, but we are stuck with it.

Quote from: NCRblues on November 12, 2011, 05:43:14 PM
Oh no no... never said it was right. In fact I disagree with it strongly, but we are stuck with it.

Yes...the greying of the Civil Air Patrol, and I don't mean my hair (what's left of it).

And... there is a significant portion of the population that just do not want to wear a uniform. This group includes a lot of woman, introverts and others for some reason or another, just do not want to wear one.  The CAP specifically states in its "Get Started Booklet for Adults": "Some members  choose to serve without wearing a uniform, although one of the CAP uniforms is required in certain instances..."

As some folks just do not want to wear a uniform of any type, do the belong in the CAP? Apparently they do as the policy allows for it.

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 13, 2011, 07:11:32 PM
And... there is a significant portion of the population that just do not want to wear a uniform. This group includes a lot of woman, introverts and others for some reason or another, just do not want to wear one.  The CAP specifically states in its "Get Started Booklet for Adults": "Some members  choose to serve without wearing a uniform, although one of the CAP uniforms is required in certain instances..."

As some folks just do not want to wear a uniform of any type, do the belong in the CAP? Apparently they do as the policy allows for it.

39-1 mandates a member acquire the minimum basic uniform. A booklet is not regulatory.

Quote from: davidsinn on November 13, 2011, 08:55:52 PM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 13, 2011, 07:11:32 PM
And... there is a significant portion of the population that just do not want to wear a uniform. This group includes a lot of woman, introverts and others for some reason or another, just do not want to wear one.  The CAP specifically states in its "Get Started Booklet for Adults": "Some members  choose to serve without wearing a uniform, although one of the CAP uniforms is required in certain instances..."

As some folks just do not want to wear a uniform of any type, do the belong in the CAP? Apparently they do as the policy allows for it.

39-1 mandates a member acquire the minimum basic uniform. A booklet is not regulatory.

As 39-1 states: "senior members not meeting weight and grooming standards may
wear CAP distinctive uniforms or civilian attire as befits the occasion".

I then pose this question: As "may" is not the same as "shall" and as you can serve in the CAP with a beard, "overweight" or with your hair "down", and as you must wear a uniform only in some circumstances, would that mean as long as I have a uniform at home I do not have to put it on if I don't fly, work directly with cadets, etc? 

And you are right that a pamphlet is not a regulation, but it certainly would be a good argument that you are in compliance with an official publication approved and issued by the CAP National HQ if one was called to task for not wearing a uniform.

And please, lets not make this about me as some folks like to do.

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 13, 2011, 09:15:17 PM

Quote from: davidsinn on November 13, 2011, 08:55:52 PM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 13, 2011, 07:11:32 PM
And... there is a significant portion of the population that just do not want to wear a uniform. This group includes a lot of woman, introverts and others for some reason or another, just do not want to wear one.  The CAP specifically states in its "Get Started Booklet for Adults": "Some members  choose to serve without wearing a uniform, although one of the CAP uniforms is required in certain instances..."

As some folks just do not want to wear a uniform of any type, do the belong in the CAP? Apparently they do as the policy allows for it.

39-1 mandates a member acquire the minimum basic uniform. A booklet is not regulatory.

As 39-1 states: "senior members not meeting weight and grooming standards may
wear CAP distinctive uniforms or civilian attire as befits the occasion".

I then pose this question: As "may" is not the same as "shall" and as you can serve in the CAP with a beard, "overweight" or with your hair "down", and as you must wear a uniform only in some circumstances, would that mean as long as I have a uniform at home I do not have to put it on if I don't fly, work directly with cadets, etc? 

And you are right that a pamphlet is not a regulation, but it certainly would be a good argument that you are in compliance with an official publication approved and issued by the CAP National HQ if one was called to task for not wearing a uniform.

And please, lets not make this about me as some folks like to do.

This is about you because for whatever reason you are misguided about a great many things.

Quote1-5. Uniform Combinations. Various combinations of CAP uniforms are authorized in order to allow
for various climatic conditions, availability of uniforms, etc., but no member is obligated to equip
himself/herself with all or even a major part of the combinations described in this publication. Memberswill equip themselves with the basic uniform.

Quotea. Minimum Basic Service Uniform. Male: Short-sleeve, light blue shirt; dark blue trousers; blue
belt/silver buckle, blue flight cap; black shoes, and socks. Insignia: CAP nameplate, shoulder patch,
collar/lapel insignia, embroidered epaulet sleeve, and flight cap emblem. Female: Short-sleeve light
blue blouse; Dark blue skirt or slacks; flight cap; neutral nylon hose; black shoes; black handbag.
Insignia: CAP nameplate, shoulder patch, collar/lapel insignia, embroidered epaulet sleeve, and flight
cap emblem.
b. CAP Distinctive Basic Uniform (senior members only). Male: Short-sleeve, white aviator shirt;
gray trousers; black belt; black shoes and socks. Insignia: CAP nameplate, embroidered epaulet sleeve.
Female: Short-sleeve, white aviator shirt; gray slacks or skirt; plain black shoes. Insignia: CAP
nameplate, embroidered epaulet sleeve.

As for your question you must be in a proper uniform to fly in a corporate aircraft, as stated in multiple regs. You must wear a uniform when conducting the cadet program as stated in multiple regs.

The only option you have is which basic uniform you may wear. You must have one of them.

davidsinn: "As for your question you must be in a proper uniform to fly in a corporate aircraft, as stated in multiple regs. You must wear a uniform when conducting the cadet program as stated in multiple regs.

The only option you have is which basic uniform you may wear. You must have one of them."


I can't disagree with what you say, as I just said it:

"...as you must wear a uniform only in some circumstances, would that mean as long as I have a uniform at home I do not have to put it on if I don't fly, work directly with cadets, etc? "

And I was responding to a question concerning uniforms and you had to get personal by stating I am "misguided".  So if I take an opposing or different view that makes me misguided? Please this is just a rhetorical question so no need to flame me for it.

When reading all the CAP regulations and policies, what with some conflicting with others,  one would do well to consider what we called in school the "common sense clause":


"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."
– Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823

Hardshell,

Here it is...

If you have the basic uniform = great, good job, welcome to following the rules.
If you do not have the basic uniform= shame, go get one.

Put on the uniform when flying in CAP aircraft or when conducting the CP, or when your commander says you must. Other than that, do whatever you want to buddy because no matter what we say here, you are going to do it anyway.

Have a good one.

P.S. feel free to answer any of my questions at anytime. I'm sure many of us on here are wondering about your amazing resume.

Quote from: NCRblues on November 13, 2011, 10:32:14 PM
Hardshell,

Here it is...

If you have the basic uniform = great, good job, welcome to following the rules.
If you do not have the basic uniform= shame, go get one.

Put on the uniform when flying in CAP aircraft or when conducting the CP, or when your commander says you must. Other than that, do whatever you want to buddy because no matter what we say here, you are going to do it anyway.

Have a good one.

P.S. feel free to answer any of my questions at anytime. I'm sure many of us on here are wondering about your amazing resume.

NCRBlues, as you were civil I will respond: I do not "do whatever you want to buddy because no matter what we say here, you are going to do it anyway". I follow the directions of my command and as the wearing of the uniform in not always mandatory, I choose not to wear it. I do not just do my job at the weekly meetings, its done all throughout the week/weekend, whenever someone is available to sit down and meet with me. As to me feeling free to answer your questions, suffice it to say, not ever going to happen for the reasons I have given. Nuff said so please let's just agree to disagree, and let it go. Now if possible lets keep this thread on track

It is mandatory. It's IAW CAPM 39-1. I can't help it if your commander doesn't enforce the reg. You should regardless. We don't even know which Wing King/Queen doesn't enforce it.

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 13, 2011, 11:14:58 PM
It is mandatory. It's IAW CAPM 39-1. I can't help it if your commander doesn't enforce the reg. You should regardless. We don't even know which Wing King/Queen doesn't enforce it.

I'm sorry, but it is not "mandatory" all the time, period. But we were through this: 39-1 states clearly states, and I quote: "senior members not meeting weight and grooming standards may wear CAP distinctive uniforms or civilian attire as befits the occasion" and my commander decides what befits the occasion. Yes there are times when you must wear the uniform, but as stated above, we have been through this and when they must be worn, etc., etc..

As to "We don't even know which Wing King/Queen doesn't enforce it", knowing where I live/work is not a part of what we need to share in this forum so as to have this discussion.   :)

Owning it is mandatory.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 13, 2011, 11:39:39 PM
Owning it is mandatory.

Indeed, but we can all agree that wearing a uniform is not mandatory all the time, correct? And you know what, I have my old CG Aux uniform and it is the same as the USAF light blue/dark blue (same color, company I belive) so I guess I am set!

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 13, 2011, 11:21:48 PM
I'm sorry, but it is not "mandatory" all the time, period. But we were through this: 39-1 states clearly states, and I quote: "senior members not meeting weight and grooming standards may wear CAP distinctive uniforms or civilian attire as befits the occasion" and my commander decides what befits the occasion. Yes there are times when you must wear the uniform, but as stated above, we have been through this and when they must be worn, etc., etc..

^^^ I can see how you interpret that to suit anything that achieves your personal objectives.  That is not how that was meant however.  That was intended for things like like Black tie events or formal events when some CAP members choose to wear a USAF style Mess Dress...The current Corporate White Shirt and Gray Pants was deemed not formal enough for these events so Appropriate Civilian attire was authorized for these events for those members out of USAF Standards.

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 13, 2011, 11:43:07 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 13, 2011, 11:39:39 PM
Owning it is mandatory.

Indeed, but we can all agree that wearing a uniform is not mandatory all the time, correct?

No, we can't, and certainly not when performing official duties with the gravity of an IG investigation.
Raising the "cleaning the shed", etc., card won't get you far with this either.

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 13, 2011, 11:21:48 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 13, 2011, 11:14:58 PM
It is mandatory. It's IAW CAPM 39-1. I can't help it if your commander doesn't enforce the reg. You should regardless. We don't even know which Wing King/Queen doesn't enforce it.

I'm sorry, but it is not "mandatory" all the time, period. But we were through this: 39-1 states clearly states, and I quote: "senior members not meeting weight and grooming standards may wear CAP distinctive uniforms or civilian attire as befits the occasion" and my commander decides what befits the occasion. Yes there are times when you must wear the uniform, but as stated above, we have been through this and when they must be worn, etc., etc..

As to "We don't even know which Wing King/Queen doesn't enforce it", knowing where I live/work is not a part of what we need to share in this forum so as to have this discussion.   :)

CAPM 39-1 Table 1-1 Line 6 States:when engaged in normal duties as a CAP member or attending local,
wing/region, or national CAP functions (see note 1).
Note 1. The National Commander and other commanders may specify the wear of a particular uniform type
for the purpose of achieving a uniform appearance at squadron, group, wing, region, and national
functions. However, all commanders must be mindful of the objective of attaining a neatly
uniformed appearance at a minimum of personal expense to the individual member and will
consequently refrain from imposing unreasonable uniform requirements.

So yes it IS mandatory, and there is no getting out of it.  I think that if a commander is NOT enforcing the the manual, as mandated in Section 1-2, that boss ought to be notified that your commander is deficient in his/her duties.

Section 1-2 states: 1-2. Command Responsibility. All commanders will ensure that all members, individually and
collectively, present a professional, well-groomed appearance, which will reflect credit upon CAP as the
auxiliary of the United States Air Force. They will ensure all members are uniformed in accordance with
the provisions of this manual, uniform violations are promptly corrected, and that members are
continually informed as to the proper wear of the uniform. The wing commander, or the commander to
whom such authority is delegated by the wing commander, will prescribe the type clothing to be worn
by members while flying or engaging in organized recreational activities. (The region commander will
prescribe wear policy for members of the region headquarters.)
edited to add section 1-2

Quote from: SARDOC on November 13, 2011, 11:46:35 PM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 13, 2011, 11:21:48 PM
I'm sorry, but it is not "mandatory" all the time, period. But we were through this: 39-1 states clearly states, and I quote: "senior members not meeting weight and grooming standards may wear CAP distinctive uniforms or civilian attire as befits the occasion" and my commander decides what befits the occasion. Yes there are times when you must wear the uniform, but as stated above, we have been through this and when they must be worn, etc., etc..

^^^ I can see how you interpret that to suit anything that achieves your personal objectives.  That is not how that was meant however.  That was intended for things like like Black tie events or formal events when some CAP members choose to wear a USAF style Mess Dress...The current Corporate White Shirt and Gray Pants was deemed not formal enough for these events so Appropriate Civilian attire was authorized for these events for those members out of USAF Standards.

And of course, the same applies to you. By stating that "that is not how that was meant" by the regs does not make it so.

Respectfully, unless you have something like a policy, regulation, some sort of footnotes to the regulations or a legal opinion, your interruption of what the regulations "meant" would fall under your opinion.

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 14, 2011, 12:11:34 AM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 13, 2011, 11:21:48 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 13, 2011, 11:14:58 PM
It is mandatory. It's IAW CAPM 39-1. I can't help it if your commander doesn't enforce the reg. You should regardless. We don't even know which Wing King/Queen doesn't enforce it.

I'm sorry, but it is not "mandatory" all the time, period. But we were through this: 39-1 states clearly states, and I quote: "senior members not meeting weight and grooming standards may wear CAP distinctive uniforms or civilian attire as befits the occasion" and my commander decides what befits the occasion. Yes there are times when you must wear the uniform, but as stated above, we have been through this and when they must be worn, etc., etc..

As to "We don't even know which Wing King/Queen doesn't enforce it", knowing where I live/work is not a part of what we need to share in this forum so as to have this discussion.   :)

CAPM 39-1 Table 1-1 Line 6 States:when engaged in normal duties as a CAP member or attending local,
wing/region, or national CAP functions (see note 1).
Note 1. The National Commander and other commanders may specify the wear of a particular uniform type
for the purpose of achieving a uniform appearance at squadron, group, wing, region, and national
functions. However, all commanders must be mindful of the objective of attaining a neatly
uniformed appearance at a minimum of personal expense to the individual member and will
consequently refrain from imposing unreasonable uniform requirements.

So yes it IS mandatory, and there is no getting out of it.  I think that if a commander is NOT enforcing the the manual, as mandated in Section 1-2, that boss ought to be notified that your commander is deficient in his/her duties.

Section 1-2 states: 1-2. Command Responsibility. All commanders will ensure that all members, individually and
collectively, present a professional, well-groomed appearance, which will reflect credit upon CAP as the
auxiliary of the United States Air Force. They will ensure all members are uniformed in accordance with
the provisions of this manual, uniform violations are promptly corrected, and that members are
continually informed as to the proper wear of the uniform. The wing commander, or the commander to
whom such authority is delegated by the wing commander, will prescribe the type clothing to be worn
by members while flying or engaging in organized recreational activities. (The region commander will
prescribe wear policy for members of the region headquarters.)
edited to add section 1-2

So, its OK to ignore 39-1 at one cite, buy citing another?  39-1 also clearly states: "senior members not meeting weight and grooming standards may wear CAP distinctive uniforms or civilian attire as befits the occasion"  

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 14, 2011, 12:13:44 AM

Quote from: SARDOC on November 13, 2011, 11:46:35 PM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 13, 2011, 11:21:48 PM
I'm sorry, but it is not "mandatory" all the time, period. But we were through this: 39-1 states clearly states, and I quote: "senior members not meeting weight and grooming standards may wear CAP distinctive uniforms or civilian attire as befits the occasion" and my commander decides what befits the occasion. Yes there are times when you must wear the uniform, but as stated above, we have been through this and when they must be worn, etc., etc..

^^^ I can see how you interpret that to suit anything that achieves your personal objectives.  That is not how that was meant however.  That was intended for things like like Black tie events or formal events when some CAP members choose to wear a USAF style Mess Dress...The current Corporate White Shirt and Gray Pants was deemed not formal enough for these events so Appropriate Civilian attire was authorized for these events for those members out of USAF Standards.

And of course, the same applies to you. By stating that "that is not how that was meant" by the regs does not make it so.

Respectfully, unless you have something like a policy, regulation, some sort of footnotes to the regulations or a legal opinion, your interruption of what the regulations "meant" would fall under your opinion.

I agree and can see someone arguing that loophole.  So since the quote you selected from 39-1 applies only to members who don't meet weight or grooming standards would you also agree that those who do meet Weight and Grooming standards are not eligible for that exemption?

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 13, 2011, 11:43:07 PM
Indeed, but we can all agree that wearing a uniform is not mandatory all the time, correct? And you know what, I have my old CG Aux uniform and it is the same as the USAF light blue/dark blue (same color, company I belive) so I guess I am set!

Non-concur.

The CG trousers are not the same shade of blue as the AF.

And there is a minimum uniform all senior members must have: either the AF-style shirtsleeve dress or the grey/white uniform.  That was made clear to me when I joined in 1993 (though the grey/white was different then) and even the uniform-disliking flying club senior squadron I belonged to acknowledged that.

If you are not wearing a uniform when flying or on ground team ops, I don't think the insurance coverage CAP has will kick in for you.

I was a CGAuxie myself some years back.  They definitely had uniform wear prescribed.

Flotilla meetings - Usually one of the tropical combinations, or winter dress/undress blue, depending on weather.
On patrol - Working blues (now ODU's).  I patrolled on the Division Captain's boat and you didn't even get on the vessel without proper uniform.
Nicely dressed - Service dress blue Alpha/Bravo.
Fancy dress (like COW)  - Mess dress blue/white, Dinner Dress blue/white.

If you don't like wearing a uniform, what are you doing in the auxiliary of a uniformed service?

Quoteoc·ca·sion   [uh-key-zhuhn] 
noun
1.a particular time, especially as marked by certain circumstances or occurrences: They met on three occasions.
2.a special or important time, event, ceremony, celebration, etc.: His birthday will be quite an occasion.
3.a convenient or favorable time, opportunity, or juncture: This slack period would be a good occasion to take inventory.
4.the immediate or incidental cause or reason for some action or result: What is the occasion for this uproar?
5.(in the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead) the coincidence of the eternal objects forming a specific point-event.

@Hardshell it seems that "Occasion" is not a matter of routine...but a special circumstance so specific that it needs to be authorized by your commander.

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 14, 2011, 12:20:32 AM
So, its OK to ignore 39-1 at one cite, buy citing another?  39-1 also clearly states: "senior members not meeting weight and grooming standards may wear CAP distinctive uniforms or civilian attire as befits the occasion"

Nope. It gives credence to SARDOC's post as to the intention of those lines.

Quote from: SARDOC on November 13, 2011, 11:46:35 PM
^^^ I can see how you interpret that to suit anything that achieves your personal objectives.  That is not how that was meant however.  That was intended for things like like Black tie events or formal events when some CAP members choose to wear a USAF style Mess Dress...The current Corporate White Shirt and Gray Pants was deemed not formal enough for these events so Appropriate Civilian attire was authorized for these events for those members out of USAF Standards.

We are taking all of CAPM 39-1 into consideration, not just the parts that we want to see.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 13, 2011, 11:53:01 PM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 13, 2011, 11:43:07 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 13, 2011, 11:39:39 PM
Owning it is mandatory.

Indeed, but we can all agree that wearing a uniform is not mandatory all the time, correct?

No, we can't, and certainly not when performing official duties with the gravity of an IG investigation.
Raising the "cleaning the shed", etc., card won't get you far with this either.

The regs are clear, uniform wear is NOT always mandatory, and that is not really logically debatable.

However, "certainly not when performing official duties with the gravity of an IG investigation" is your opinion and therefore debatable but not within your purview, unless you are in command of the parties involved.

We have demonstrated that they are.

I have a question for you hardshell...

You say you use days/nights other than normal meeting nights correct?

How often do you do "IG investigations"?

I happen to know several wing IG's very well, and 2 of the 3 have only even done ONE "investigation" and the other has done zero. (not counting reports of surveys)

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 14, 2011, 12:31:08 AM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 14, 2011, 12:20:32 AM
So, its OK to ignore 39-1 at one cite, buy citing another?  39-1 also clearly states: "senior members not meeting weight and grooming standards may wear CAP distinctive uniforms or civilian attire as befits the occasion"

Nope. It gives credence to SARDOC's post as to the intention of those lines.

Quote from: SARDOC on November 13, 2011, 11:46:35 PM
^^^ I can see how you interpret that to suit anything that achieves your personal objectives.  That is not how that was meant however.  That was intended for things like like Black tie events or formal events when some CAP members choose to wear a USAF style Mess Dress...The current Corporate White Shirt and Gray Pants was deemed not formal enough for these events so Appropriate Civilian attire was authorized for these events for those members out of USAF Standards.

We are taking all of CAPM 39-1 into consideration, not just the parts that we want to see.

And I really respect this thought as most every reg is subject to some interpretation, confusion and contradiction. (No, never in the CAP!)

However how can you get past the plain, simple wording:"senior members not meeting weight and grooming standards may wear CAP distinctive uniforms or civilian attire as befits the occasion"?  Just asking.

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 14, 2011, 12:33:26 AM
We have demonstrated that they are.

I disagree. You have demonstrated you opinion.

 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Trollface.svg)

Quote from: NCRblues on November 14, 2011, 12:35:49 AM
I have a question for you hardshell...

You say you use days/nights other than normal meeting nights correct?

How often do you do "IG investigations"?

I happen to know several wing IG's very well, and 2 of the 3 have only even done ONE "investigation" and the other has done zero. (not counting reports of surveys)

These questions are along the same line as your others in that they are specific and investigative in nature towards me and not really necessary to the question of this thread: "Senior Officers uncomfortable in Air Force skin?"

I will agree with you in that the CAP in general is not generally flooded with investigation and if only one or twelve per year, it does not negate my reasoning.

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 14, 2011, 01:02:48 AM

Quote from: NCRblues on November 14, 2011, 12:35:49 AM
I have a question for you hardshell...

You say you use days/nights other than normal meeting nights correct?

How often do you do "IG investigations"?

I happen to know several wing IG's very well, and 2 of the 3 have only even done ONE "investigation" and the other has done zero. (not counting reports of surveys)

These questions are along the same line as your others in that they are specific and investigative in nature towards me and not really necessary to the question of this thread: "Senior Officers uncomfortable in Air Force skin?"

I will agree with you in that the CAP in general is not generally flooded with investigation and if only one or twelve per year, it does not negate my reasoning.

I was not asking in an "investigative nature". I was simply wondering how often you have to ask someone to meet on an off night away from cap, and how often those people do it.

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 14, 2011, 12:45:14 AM

However how can you get past the plain, simple wording:"senior members not meeting weight and grooming standards may wear CAP distinctive uniforms or civilian attire as befits the occasion"?  Just asking.[/color]

no getting around it. There is a list of AD style and a corresponding list of corporate uniforms. That line that you use to justify not wearing a uniform is to cover the gaps such as the Mess Dress.

Quote from: NCRblues on November 14, 2011, 01:04:46 AM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 14, 2011, 01:02:48 AM

Quote from: NCRblues on November 14, 2011, 12:35:49 AM
I have a question for you hardshell...

You say you use days/nights other than normal meeting nights correct?

How often do you do "IG investigations"?

I happen to know several wing IG's very well, and 2 of the 3 have only even done ONE "investigation" and the other has done zero. (not counting reports of surveys)

These questions are along the same line as your others in that they are specific and investigative in nature towards me and not really necessary to the question of this thread: "Senior Officers uncomfortable in Air Force skin?"

I will agree with you in that the CAP in general is not generally flooded with investigation and if only one or twelve per year, it does not negate my reasoning.

I was not asking in an "investigative nature". I was simply wondering how often you have to ask someone to meet on an off night away from cap, and how often those people do it.

I have found that a lot of solid viable complaints never get past the initial contact when the party reporting finds out that they have to meet within the view of their peers. I always give them an option in meeting places within policy, logic and accessibility and provides safeguards to all involved.

That was not an answer to the question asked. So I may take it that you have not done a single IF.

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 14, 2011, 12:45:14 AM
However how can you get past the plain, simple wording:"senior members not meeting weight and grooming standards may wear CAP distinctive uniforms or civilian attire as befits the occasion"?  Just asking.[/color]

Since you quote this so often as the acceptance that Uniforms are not always required...Would you also agree that this only applies to members who don't meet weight and grooming standards?  And that is not intended for routine functions as the minimum uniforms meet the needs of most occasions as cited in 39-1?

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 14, 2011, 01:23:19 AM
That was not an answer to the question asked. So I may take it that you have not done a single IF.

did you mean FI?

Darn autocorrect. IG.

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 14, 2011, 01:15:40 AM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 14, 2011, 12:45:14 AM

However how can you get past the plain, simple wording:"senior members not meeting weight and grooming standards may wear CAP distinctive uniforms or civilian attire as befits the occasion"?  Just asking.[/color]

no getting around it. There is a list of AD style and a corresponding list of corporate uniforms. That line that you use to justify not wearing a uniform is to cover the gaps such as the Mess Dress.

Nowhere could I find where it speak of the mess dress uniform as it relates to "senior members not meeting weight and grooming standards may wear CAP distinctive uniforms or civilian attire as befits the occasion." I could not even find any reference to the mess dress anywhere on the page. Can you cite a page & paragraph where it says this, or is this how you interrupt it?

Sorry, IMHO as much as you may want it so, two sources (the regs and an pamphlet officially issued by the CAP Nat' HQ) make it clear that the wearing of a uniform is not always mandatory.

Quote from: SARDOC on November 14, 2011, 01:25:23 AM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 14, 2011, 12:45:14 AM
However how can you get past the plain, simple wording:"senior members not meeting weight and grooming standards may wear CAP distinctive uniforms or civilian attire as befits the occasion"?  Just asking.[/color]

Since you quote this so often as the acceptance that Uniforms are not always required...Would you also agree that this only applies to members who don't meet weight and grooming standards?  And that is not intended for routine functions as the minimum uniforms meet the needs of most occasions as cited in 39-1?

As to "Would you also agree that this only applies to members who don't meet weight and grooming standards?" Yes.

As to "And that is not intended for routine functions as the minimum uniforms meet the needs of most occasions as cited in 39-1?". No, I would not. It states ...may wear CAP distinctive uniforms or civilian attire as befits the occasion

the very next statement found in CAPR 39-1 is "when engaged in normal duties as a CAP member or attending local,
wing/region, or national CAP functions"  the "X" in the table indicates "Wear" and not "Optional" so if being an IG is part of your normal duties as a CAP member it would seem that that Table makes wearing your uniform mandatory.

Quote from: CyBorg on November 14, 2011, 12:23:33 AM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 13, 2011, 11:43:07 PM
Indeed, but we can all agree that wearing a uniform is not mandatory all the time, correct? And you know what, I have my old CG Aux uniform and it is the same as the USAF light blue/dark blue (same color, company I belive) so I guess I am set!

Non-concur.

The CG trousers are not the same shade of blue as the AF.

And there is a minimum uniform all senior members must have: either the AF-style shirtsleeve dress or the grey/white uniform.  That was made clear to me when I joined in 1993 (though the grey/white was different then) and even the uniform-disliking flying club senior squadron I belonged to acknowledged that.

If you are not wearing a uniform when flying or on ground team ops, I don't think the insurance coverage CAP has will kick in for you.

I was a CGAuxie myself some years back.  They definitely had uniform wear prescribed.

Flotilla meetings - Usually one of the tropical combinations, or winter dress/undress blue, depending on weather.
On patrol - Working blues (now ODU's).  I patrolled on the Division Captain's boat and you didn't even get on the vessel without proper uniform.
Nicely dressed - Service dress blue Alpha/Bravo.
Fancy dress (like COW)  - Mess dress blue/white, Dinner Dress blue/white.

If you don't like wearing a uniform, what are you doing in the auxiliary of a uniformed service?

I may well be wrong about the pants, as it was just a thought.

As to: "If you don't like wearing a uniform, what are you doing in the auxiliary of a uniformed service?", my preferences are mine and not a subject to others scrutiny. I need not defend this authorized choice that the CAP allows for. I have however posted my reasoning on when I feel a uniform is not desirable on specific occasions.

Quote from: SARDOC on November 14, 2011, 01:55:59 AM
the very next statement found in CAPR 39-1 is "when engaged in normal duties as a CAP member or attending local,
wing/region, or national CAP functions"  the "X" in the table indicates "Wear" and not "Optional" so if being an IG is part of your normal duties as a CAP member it would seem that that Table makes wearing your uniform mandatory.

These two sentences are not hinged on each other, they are two separate sentences on different lines. So I will reiterate that as much as you may want it so, two sources (the regs and an pamphlet officially issued by the CAP Nat' HQ) make it clear that the wearing of a uniform is not always mandatory.

Quote from: SARDOC on November 14, 2011, 01:26:56 AM

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 14, 2011, 01:23:19 AM
That was not an answer to the question asked.

did you mean FI?

In a word "no" in re: "So I may take it that you have not done a single IF" (sic).

So, Hardshell, what is your explanation for one statement saying that all members must wear uniforms while on normal CAP duty and the next sentence implying that those that don't meet weight/grooming have some sort of of out considering that there are perfectly appropriate uniform options available to them?

Quote from: RiverAux on November 14, 2011, 02:08:13 AM
So, Hardshell, what is your explanation for one statement saying that all members must wear uniforms while on normal CAP duty and the next sentence implying that those that don't meet weight/grooming have some sort of of out considering that there are perfectly appropriate uniform options available to them?

Any explanation that I offer would only be only my opinion. But I thought I made comment on that? You may also want to refer to the Thomas Jefferson quote above.

Conversely, what is your explanation concerning two official CAP HQ issued writings (undoubtedly reviewed and/or approved by "CAP legal" and/or the USAF) wherein it states that uniforms are not always required?

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 14, 2011, 02:08:03 AM

Quote from: SARDOC on November 14, 2011, 01:26:56 AM

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 14, 2011, 01:23:19 AM
That was not an answer to the question asked.

did you mean FI?

In a word "no" in re: "So I may take it that you have not done a single IF" (sic).

So, no, you have never conducted an IG investigation... That says it all.

Quote from: NCRblues on November 14, 2011, 02:34:32 AM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 14, 2011, 02:08:03 AM

Quote from: SARDOC on November 14, 2011, 01:26:56 AM

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 14, 2011, 01:23:19 AM
That was not an answer to the question asked.

did you mean FI?

In a word "no" in re: "So I may take it that you have not done a single IF" (sic).

So, no, you have never conducted an IG investigation... That says it all.

I said No to the statement "So I may take it that you have not done a single IFs." (IGs). meaning no you may not take it that I have not performed any IG investigations. So to to make it clear: Yes, I have done IG investigations.

"That says it all"? Again with the rude comments, however I will let that slide as the response might have been confusing.

CyBorg:  I did not address your statement: "If you are not wearing a uniform when flying or on ground team ops, I don't think the insurance coverage CAP has will kick in for you", Sorry, I just missed it.

You may well be correct, however I have said several times I do wear my uniform when required. I do not see the occasion when I would be flying in a CAP aircraft or directly involved with ground handling.

He is not an IG, he may have taken a basic or maybe the senior IG course but I doubt he is a real Wing IG. I however am an IG and have done a few investigation, mostly consisting of official interviews. IG Investigations are considered 'A' missions so a uniform is required. If you are a real Wing IG, then simply tell us what wing, I'm sure the wing staff roster will list you as such. It's not privileged information.

SUI's and IG Investigations are Air Force Funded activities, therefor, you simply can not perform them in civilian clothes.

I don't know about how things are in his wing, but investigations are very rare animals, I have done three in the last three years and that was considered alot. Most of the stuff we do is SUI's. My BS meter is pinging pretty loud with this guy.

(http://members.cox.net/xanadu99/CAP/Clock_ticking_away.gif)

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 13, 2011, 07:11:32 PM
introverts

I am one of the biggest introverts you will ever find.  I have no problem wearing a uniform, and neither do any of the other introverts I've ever met.

Perhaps "shy" is the word you're looking for, because I don't see how the way I process information matters in my desire to wear a set of uniforms.

Quote from: jimmydeanno on November 14, 2011, 03:20:55 PMPerhaps "shy" is the word you're looking for, because I don't see how the way I process information matters in my desire to wear a set of uniforms.

I concur with this, 100%. The "I" in INTP is strong with this one.

Quote from: jimmydeanno on November 14, 2011, 03:20:55 PM
I am one of the biggest introverts you will ever find.  I have no problem wearing a uniform, and neither do any of the other introverts I've ever met.

I am also a profound introvert.  Look up "ISFJ" on your favourite search engine.  A former girlfriend's father asked me if I ever used words longer than two syllables.

It has no bearing on my wearing a uniform.

In fact, it probably makes it easier because I don't stick out like a sore thumb.

As a Sq CC I for one am glad that Hardshell Clam is   NOT  a member of my squadron.  With an attitude like his, I don't need that kind of grief.

Quote from: a2capt on November 14, 2011, 03:50:19 PM

Quote from: jimmydeanno on November 14, 2011, 03:20:55 PMPerhaps "shy" is the word you're looking for, because I don't see how the way I process information matters in my desire to wear a set of uniforms.

I concur with this, 100%. The "I" in INTP is strong with this one.

The "I" affects several aspects of your personality and how you process information.  As a certified Myers-Briggs instructor/evaluator, I view it more as how you recharge your personal battery.   What becomes stressful for one person is relaxing to another.  I am a very strong "I" and have NEVER been considered shy or especially quite.

Quote from: Smokey on November 15, 2011, 12:21:37 AM
As a Sq CC I for one am glad that Hardshell Clam is   NOT  a member of my squadron.  With an attitude like his, I don't need that kind of grief.

What, an attitude of doing what his commander wants him to do?  Perish the thought.

And a point about manuals vs. regulations.  Manuals are not regulations.  Regulations tell you what you must do (ie. wear a uniform when flying or executing the Cadet Programs mission), manuals tell you how to do it when the regulation tells you that you must do it.

Quote from: JeffDG on November 15, 2011, 12:51:29 AM

Quote from: Smokey on November 15, 2011, 12:21:37 AM
As a Sq CC I for one am glad that Hardshell Clam is   NOT  a member of my squadron.  With an attitude like his, I don't need that kind of grief.

What, an attitude of doing what his commander wants him to do?  Perish the thought.

And a point about manuals vs. regulations.  Manuals are not regulations.  Regulations tell you what you must do (ie. wear a uniform when flying or executing the Cadet Programs mission), manuals tell you how to do it when the regulation tells you that you must do it.

There is not a uniform REG. The manual says compliance is mandatory.

Quote from: davidsinn on November 15, 2011, 01:04:50 AM

Quote from: JeffDG on November 15, 2011, 12:51:29 AM

Quote from: Smokey on November 15, 2011, 12:21:37 AM
As a Sq CC I for one am glad that Hardshell Clam is   NOT  a member of my squadron.  With an attitude like his, I don't need that kind of grief.

What, an attitude of doing what his commander wants him to do?  Perish the thought.

And a point about manuals vs. regulations.  Manuals are not regulations.  Regulations tell you what you must do (ie. wear a uniform when flying or executing the Cadet Programs mission), manuals tell you how to do it when the regulation tells you that you must do it.

There is not a uniform REG. The manual says compliance is mandatory.

Absolutely.  Whenever a regulation or other command directive says that you must wear a uniform, you must wear it in accord with the manual.  In that way, the uniform manual is mandatory, but a manual does not tell you when you must wear a uniform, it tells you how to wear it when some other directive tells you that you must.

My reading of the 5-4 leads me to believe that manuals are no less regulatory than regulations.

Quote from: CAPR 5-4, para 1.a.1. Definitions. As used in national publications distributed on or after the date of this regulation, the following words will have the definition indicated:
a. "Shall", "will" or "must", when used in a regulation, manual, OI, supplement, or change there to indicate a mandatory requirement [directive].

Quote from: CAPR 5-4, para 1.f.f. "Manuals" announce procedures and guidance for performing standard tasks and usually contain examples.

Quote from: CAPR 5-4, para 1.j.j. "Publication" means regulations, manuals, pamphlets, operating instructions, any other documented guidance and supplements thereto.

Quote from: CAPR 5-4, para 1.l.l. "Regulations" announce policies, direct actions and prescribe standards.

I suppose that some readers will interpret the above to mean something else, based on how it fits their view of how CAP should operate, but it looks pretty clear to me.

Quote from: SarDragon on November 15, 2011, 01:12:30 AM
My reading of the 5-4 leads me to believe that manuals are no less regulatory than regulations.

Quote from: CAPR 5-4, para 1.a.1. Definitions. As used in national publications distributed on or after the date of this regulation, the following words will have the definition indicated:
a. "Shall", "will" or "must", when used in a regulation, manual, OI, supplement, or change there to indicate a mandatory requirement [directive].

Quote from: CAPR 5-4, para 1.f.f. "Manuals" announce procedures and guidance for performing standard tasks and usually contain examples.

Quote from: CAPR 5-4, para 1.j.j. "Publication" means regulations, manuals, pamphlets, operating instructions, any other documented guidance and supplements thereto.

Quote from: CAPR 5-4, para 1.l.l. "Regulations" announce policies, direct actions and prescribe standards.

I suppose that some readers will interpret the above to mean something else, based on how it fits their view of how CAP should operate, but it looks pretty clear to me.

"Manuals announce procedures and guidance for performing standard tasks"

That's what I said.  The manual tells you "how".  It does not tell you to do something.  It's entire purpose is to provide guidance for when some other source (either a regulation or command directive) tells you that you must do something.

This is pretty basic stuff...used in organizations all over the place.  You have things like "Work Instructions" (ie. regulations) that tell you what you must do, and you have other guides (manuals) that tell you how to do it when told to do it.

JeffDG's statements are consistent with typical organizational items.  Even with the definitions provided in CAPR 5-4.  Training in Organizational Management focus heavily on this and people will argue semantics until the cows come home. 

The Definition found in CAPR 5-4 "Manuals" announce procedures (a particular course or mode of action. ie step by step directions on how to perform a task) and Guidance(advice or counseling)for performing standard tasks and usually contain examples.

Nothing in there is particularly regulatory. 

I believe JeffDG's point is that the uniform manual only has regulatory power when adopted by reference in an actual regulation.  Where I find regulations that have members wear the CAP uniform, I can't find a particular reference that adopts CAPM 39-1 specifically...I'm sure someone has better search skills than I do.

Quote from: SARDOC on November 15, 2011, 01:49:20 AM
I believe JeffDG's point is that the uniform manual only has regulatory power when adopted by reference in an actual regulation.  Where I find regulations that have members wear the CAP uniform, I can't find a particular reference that adopts CAPM 39-1 specifically...I'm sure someone has better search skills than I do.

I don't think that a regulation needs to specify CAPM 39-1.  If a regulation specifies that "thou shalt wear a uniform" (for example, CAPR 60-1 2-3(c) ) brings the Uniform Manual into play.

Quote from: JeffDG on November 15, 2011, 01:57:18 AM
I don't think that a regulation needs to specify CAPM 39-1.  If a regulation specifies that "thou shalt wear a uniform" (for example, CAPR 60-1 2-3(c) ) brings the Uniform Manual into play.

CAPR 60-1 does while not specifically calling out CAPM39-1 does state "appropriate CAP uniform"  Which is profoundly more specific than "Wear a uniform" because where would one go to find and APPROPRIATE CAP uniform.  If 60-1 just stated that they must "wear a Uniform" that would be way to vague for our membership. View any uniform thread on CAPTALK...you'd have those saying they could wear their Boy Scout uniform or work uniform and be in compliance while we know that is not the intended purpose of the regulation. 

During the rewrite of some of these regulations I would suggest that they should indeed specifically adopt CAPM 39-1 by reference in it's entirety and it would end some of the silly debates.  It would help if these were regulations were written by those with other Organizational management experience...most seem very poorly written, not updated frequently enough or open to too much interpretation in areas where is was never intended.

R,M,P - all, for the most part, irrelevant.

It makes for good coffee chat, which I engage as much as anyone, but the reality is that CAP hasn't abided by it's own protocol and structure in regards to pubs for at least a decade, and further, they regularly conflict while individually asserting their respective sovereignty.

Can anybody give me any direction on why military stuff isn't allowed on the CAP uniform (ribbons, badges, etc)?

I know what the regs say but it doesn't satisfy my why question.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 15, 2011, 02:22:46 AM
R,M,P - all, for the most part, irrelevant.

It makes for good coffee chat, which I engage as much as anyone, but the reality is that CAP hasn't abided by it's own protocol and structure in regards to pubs for at least a decade, and further, they regularly conflict while individually asserting their respective sovereignty.

Absolutely True...Why is that?   If an organization isn't going to abide by their own rules..why don't they just get rid of them?  It seems to be an institutional malaise that has propelled us towards organizational impotence.

Quote from: Salty on November 15, 2011, 02:28:32 AM
Can anybody give me any direction on why military stuff isn't allowed on the CAP uniform (ribbons, badges, etc)?

I know what the regs say but it doesn't satisfy my why question.

I don't know if it's written anywhere but I think it's ultimately because the USAF doesn't like it.   Although anybody can wear medals or ribbons they've earned on Civilian clothes outside of CAP ie Veterans Day Parades, VFW, American legion functions, etc.

Yeah I knew about the holiday stuff.  In the USAF uniform instruction it mentions honorably discharged vets and retirees can wear the uniform on certain holidays.

What I don't get is why there is a disconnect between the white aviator shirt/bbdu and the USAF blues/bdu.

Ask Radioman.

Quote from: DrJbdm on November 14, 2011, 05:34:57 AM
He is not an IG, he may have taken a basic or maybe the senior IG course but I doubt he is a real Wing IG. I however am an IG and have done a few investigation, mostly consisting of official interviews. IG Investigations are considered 'A' missions so a uniform is required. If you are a real Wing IG, then simply tell us what wing, I'm sure the wing staff roster will list you as such. It's not privileged information.

SUI's and IG Investigations are Air Force Funded activities, therefor, you simply can not perform them in civilian clothes.

I don't know about how things are in his wing, but investigations are very rare animals, I have done three in the last three years and that was considered alot. Most of the stuff we do is SUI's. My BS meter is pinging pretty loud with this guy.

You are 100% correct in that I am NOT "the" IG, but then, I have said that several times! I am simply on staff. Nor anyplace do I say we do a lot of investigations,

Concerning the wear of civilian clothing while performing IG duties: there is ABSOLUTELY no special regulation within the CAP or USAF requiring the wear of a uniform while performing an IG function. There is no difference between the regulations in any of the specialty tracks, PERIOD! You have to wear a uniform when mandated by the regs (flying, directly involved with cadets, etc.) You DO NOT have to wear one otherwise unless directed by competent authority.

Finally concerning your "BS" meter, have it checked as where you state "therefor, you simply can not perform them in civilian clothes",  is simply an opinion/interruption. Please, if I'm wrong, let us know the cite or official policy, etc. confirming this. Wishing that uniform wear was always mandatory and it actually being that way are not the same thing.

My finial thought and post on this subject: CAP Nat HQ has stated in writing that the wear of the uniform is mandatory for certain functions, otherwise optional.  You are free to contact them and this is exactly what they will tell you, the same as they told me.  

Hardshell....just admit it....you loathe the uniform, have no interest in wearing it and have comtempt for those who do.  You are not happy being part of a military aux. Please do CAP a favor and find an organization you will be happy in and stop trying to bring everyone down.  You might want to try a birdwatching group, literary club, etc.  They will gladly welcome you in civilian clothes.

Hardshell Clam, are you Radioman015's brother?

When my wing went through its last CI -- a triennial bane of every wing staff member's existence -- the CAP members of the inspection team were wearing a special golf shirt. The Air Force members of the team were in blues.

The question was asked of one of the inspectors, and I can't remember if it was an Air Force member of the team or a senior member of the wing staff here, why the CAP inspectors weren't in uniform. The answer: "This IS our uniform." Had it been an Air Force member of the team asking the question, I'm sure it was cloaked criticism lost on the CAP members of the team. It may have been a senior member of our wing staff, who I'm sure was asking with the same methodology in mind.

"This IS our uniform." Huh? It's not in regulation, nor has any such thing ever been authorized. It's a case of senior members who want to follow the beat of their own drum, rather than work within the system, if you ask me. Of course, you don't dare question your inspectors, and this last inspection had several of us thinking there was a vendetta out against the wing from somewhere!

But if you're a CAP member on a CAP operation, whether it's a SAREX or an inspection or a squadron meeting, you should wear the established uniform everyone else wears. Golf shirts are as pervasive, and as annoying, as kudzu, but we've allowed the flying-club culture to pervade. Time to purge it, dontcha think?

Guess if inspectors can wear their own funny shirts, public affairs officers can, too. We'll see how far that one goes. Leadership by example, after all.

Re: reg vs. manual, let's review the quotes above.

Quote from: CAPR 5-4, para 1.a.1. Definitions. As used in national publications distributed on or after the date of this regulation, the following words will have the definition indicated:
a. "Shall", "will" or "must", when used in a regulation, manual, OI, supplement, or change there to indicate a mandatory requirement [directive].

Quote from: CAPR 5-4, para 1.f.f. "Manuals" announce procedures and guidance for performing standard tasks and usually contain examples.

Quote from: CAPR 5-4, para 1.j.j. "Publication" means regulations, manuals, pamphlets, operating instructions, any other documented guidance and supplements thereto.

Quote from: CAPR 5-4, para 1.l.l. "Regulations" announce policies, direct actions and prescribe standards.

Publications with "shall", "will", or "must" are directive. Publications include regs and manuals. Therefore if a manual says "shall" or "must", it is directive.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on November 15, 2011, 06:45:02 AM
Golf shirts are as pervasive, and as annoying, as kudzu, but we've allowed the flying-club culture to pervade. Time to purge it, dontcha think?

Some of us want or need something very simple that can be easily swapped into between work and the meeting, for example. You're always welcome not to wear it, but I do, and am a highly dedicated member. Please don't assume that golf shirt = flying club.

I wear the polo all the time.  I also wear blues and BDUs.  My unit doesn't even have a plane, or pilots, so I'm not sure how we can have a flying club mentality.

It's a practical uniform and meets the needs of whatever I'm doing when I wear it.

39-1, Page 6, Table 1-1 indicates when/IF a uniform should be worn.
the heading WEAR is checked (note: Not optional) for the item listed as:

Quotewhen engaged in normal duties as a CAP member or attending local,
wing/region, or national CAP functions (see note 1).

Section 1-5 states:

QuoteMembers will equip themselves with the basic uniform.

and

QuoteMembers may obtain and wear the additional uniform items authorized in this publication on an optional basis.

So while table 1-1 may say:

Quotesenior members not meeting weight and grooming standards may wear CAP distinctive uniforms or civilian attire as befits the occasion.

The very next line clarifies it by defining normal CAP duties as a CAP member and attending local, wing/region or national CAP functions as occasions during which a uniform MUST be worn.

Thus you MUST own either a blues uniform or an aviator combo with the min. required trimmings.
When conducting CAP business as a CAP member you must wear at least the knit shirt combo.
If the occasion calls for a dres uniform and there is no equiv. for those that do not meet weight or grooming standards wear a suit.

QuoteCOMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY.

I don't even own the polo shirt.....I just wear the AF style uniforms. My guess is that most people who wear the polo shirt don't have AF uniforms because they don't meet weight/ grooming requirements ( and a few who just hate the military, America, God, and apple pie-you know who you are!) or are too cheap or poor to buy the AF Uniform. If we gave the axe to all the fat and fuzzies, we would lose about 1/2 our S/M's! I personally would rather see a corpulent  S/M in a distinctive uniform than with fat rolls hanging out of a too-tight USAF style uniform, which makes us all look like clowns, and is very embarrassing on an actual military base. ( Is that a doughnut in your footlocker Private Pyle?) 

Major Lord

Quote from: Smokey on November 15, 2011, 03:46:28 AM
Hardshell....just admit it....you loathe the uniform, have no interest in wearing it and have comtempt for those who do.  You are not happy being part of a military aux. Please do CAP a favor and find an organization you will be happy in and stop trying to bring everyone down.  You might want to try a birdwatching group, literary club, etc.  They will gladly welcome you in civilian clothes.

No, I do not "loath" the uniform, the CAP or the military institution. I am proud to wear one when it is required by the regulations and choose to not wear it when not required. This is my personal choice, period. Do not assume a (rather) spirited debate concerning the regulations is anything but that.

As to trying to bring "everyone down", you alone control your happiness. Folks have a choice to read what I post, respond, hopefully with some thought and not insults. If reading differing views brings you down I would say, don't. And FYI: My boss would step on me like a bug if I was doing something wrong.

Cheers all.

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 15, 2011, 06:17:16 PMMy boss would step on me like a bug if I was doing something wrong.

Is he one of the "brass"?

To be fair I've seen plenty of people in the active USAF, USAFR and ANG who were too fat to wear the uniform.  It's not just a CAP issue.

Part of my job in the USAF was doing physical exams.  My exams have put more than one person on the WM program.  In fact, my first roommate in the USAF was booted because of his failure in the WM program.

You really have three choices when it comes to weight and senior members.

1)boot the overweight members
2)create a mandatory senior member fitness program
3)create uniforms that aren't subject to the weight standards

Quote from: Salty on November 15, 2011, 02:37:33 AM
What I don't get is why there is a disconnect between the white aviator shirt/bbdu and the USAF blues/bdu.

It wasn't always that way.

When I joined CAP in 1993, everyone in my unit wore blues/BDU's.  I never saw any other uniform until I went to my first Wing activity, and it was the old-style white/grey (no epaulettes, no ribbons, blazer nameplate) and a smattering of Guyabera shirts.

When I saw the grey/white start to really come into use was when it was revised in 1995 to permit the grey rank slides and CAP blingage.

I've mentioned the flying club senior squadron I was a part of and their attitude toward uniforms being very similar to Radioman and Hardshell Clam.  That was 1999-2001.  The prevailing attitude there is that we shouldn't be wearing the AF uniform, period, because "we've got our own" (polo shirts, grey/white, blazer).  I have a picture of myself with the other staff members of a class conducted at that unit.  I am the ONLY one wearing USAF blues...everyone else is in the blazer, and that was exceptional.  Normal meeting dress was usually the golf shirt with whatever trousers struck the wearer's fancy at the time, or flight suits with no insignia except the leather nameplate.

Since then I have noticed a distinct shift in who wears which uniform demographically, though I don't mean it to be all-inclusive.

Longer-serving members, and ones with a military background, generally wear the USAF blues, if they can.  However, my CC is retired AF and wears the G/W because he has a beard occasionally and admits to being out of H/W for the blues.

Newer members and NPS members tend to gravitate toward the polo shirt/grey-white...maybe because it's simpler and cheap, and customs and courtesies don't apply.  However, one member I served with, an AGR ANG SMSgt, only wore the corporates because he said "I wear the AF uniform every day already."

I do think at some stage the "corporatists" will prevail and that it will end up being the AF uniform just for cadets and corporates for seniors.

What I don't understand is the fixation with grey...every time something is done with uniforms on the corporate side (CSU notwithstanding), it just seems to be "Let's make it grey!" ::)

Quote from: Salty on November 15, 2011, 07:29:34 PM
3)create uniforms that aren't subject to the weight standards

The "corporates" aren't subject to the weight standards, and our H/W standards are totally different to the AF's.

I just don't get it about the H/W standards...the CGAUX doesn't have them, the Navy Sea Cadets doesn't have them as stringently, and overseas cadet/auxiliaries don't...and their uniforms are much, much closer to their parent service than ours...

Quote from: CyBorg on November 15, 2011, 07:41:28 PM

Quote from: Salty on November 15, 2011, 02:37:33 AM
What I don't get is why there is a disconnect between the white aviator shirt/bbdu and the USAF blues/bdu.

-
Newer members and NPS members tend to gravitate toward the polo shirt/grey-white...maybe because it's simpler and cheap, and customs and courtesies don't apply. 

The only exceptions listed in capp 151 for customs and courtesies are the polo (as you said) and the blazer.  All other combinations (such as the aviator shirt) require the rendering of all proper customs and courtesies.

My experience is a little bit different from yours.  I joined in 1989.  Cadets were wearing the OD green fatigues and the seniors were wearing the ultramarine blue utility uniform or civis.  The only senior member in the squadron who wore woodland bdu's was a friend of mine's dad (active ANG).  The deputy commander for cadets wore blues or the nomex green flightsuit.

During all my travels as a cadet I noticed the only time seniors were in blues was during commander's call.  I rarely saw the old blazer combination outside of a wing conference.

To be honest, the attitude towards uniforms in general doesn't seem a whole lot different now than when I left CAP in 1995.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 15, 2011, 07:09:33 PM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 15, 2011, 06:17:16 PMMy boss would step on me like a bug if I was doing something wrong.

Is he one of the "brass"?

Does this remark have any meaning or just you sniping? I referred to "the brass" in a past post(s) generically referring to those appointed as leadership over my grade.

True to form you feel it necessary to engage in ad hominem like remarks.

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 15, 2011, 10:06:33 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 15, 2011, 07:09:33 PM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 15, 2011, 06:17:16 PMMy boss would step on me like a bug if I was doing something wrong.

Is he one of the "brass"?

Does this remark have any meaning or just you sniping? I referred to "the brass" in a past post(s) generically referring to those appointed as leadership over my grade.

True to form you feel it necessary to engage in ad hominem like remarks.

"Point of parlimentary procudure, sir...."
you don't get to 13,000 posts by commenting ad rem ALL of the time.
:)

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 15, 2011, 10:06:33 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 15, 2011, 07:09:33 PM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 15, 2011, 06:17:16 PMMy boss would step on me like a bug if I was doing something wrong.

Is he one of the "brass"?

Does this remark have any meaning or just you sniping? I referred to "the brass" in a past post(s) generically referring to those appointed as leadership over my grade.

True to form you feel it necessary to engage in ad hominem like remarks.

I really believe that if you answered a couple simple questions, the "sniping" would stop.

The members of this board here just want to know what kind of experience we are dealing with.

Simple answers will solve your problem. I am "anonymous" on this board, and yet I say when I joined CAP, and what unit/units I served with when on AD. You can to....

Answer how long you have been in cap, and how long you served in the military, and im pretty sure 90% of the snide comments about you would stop.

Let's face it...Hardshell cannot answer the questions put to him because of false claims.  His claim to want to protect his privacy is a smokescreen to cover this up.  He pretends to be above the fray, answering in roundabout ways, with a holier than though attitude.  He does not have the courage to put up or shut up.

I say.....he's a troll trying to stir the pot.  Contrary to his claim of being a proud member he constantly tries to weasel around regs and march to his own drummer.  But my guess is the music he is marching to comes from the same voices he hears.....


I'm sure he will never reveal answers to the questions posed.  And I'm willing to back it up with my CAP salary for a year!

I'll put up 3 years of my CAP paycheck.

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 16, 2011, 01:31:23 AM
I'll put up 3 years of my CAP paycheck.

I'll see your three and raise you two more...

Quote from: davidsinn on November 16, 2011, 01:32:17 AM

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 16, 2011, 01:31:23 AM
I'll put up 3 years of my CAP paycheck.

I'll see your three and raise you two more...

Now you are just rubbing it in. 8)

Quote from: Extremepredjudice on November 16, 2011, 01:33:02 AM

Quote from: davidsinn on November 16, 2011, 01:32:17 AM

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 16, 2011, 01:31:23 AM
I'll put up 3 years of my CAP paycheck.

I'll see your three and raise you two more...

Now you are just rubbing it in. 8)

I don't have much use for trolls...

Trolls have useful implications as a fundraising entity for a local unit.

Quote from: jimmydeanno on November 16, 2011, 01:35:45 AM
Trolls have useful implications as a fundraising entity for a local unit.

Do tell.

Quote from: Extremepredjudice on November 16, 2011, 01:33:02 AM

Quote from: davidsinn on November 16, 2011, 01:32:17 AM

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 16, 2011, 01:31:23 AM
I'll put up 3 years of my CAP paycheck.

I'll see your three and raise you two more...

Now you are just rubbing it in. 8)

SO TO SPEAK!!! >:D

egads. 

Quote from: davidsinn on November 16, 2011, 01:52:37 AM

Quote from: jimmydeanno on November 16, 2011, 01:35:45 AM
Trolls have useful implications as a fundraising entity for a local unit.

Do tell.

We need funds to defend us from forcing hum out.

I kid, I kid.

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 16, 2011, 01:56:00 AM

Quote from: davidsinn on November 16, 2011, 01:52:37 AM

Quote from: jimmydeanno on November 16, 2011, 01:35:45 AM
Trolls have useful implications as a fundraising entity for a local unit.

Do tell.

We need funds to defend us from forcing hum out.

I kid, I kid.

Well played.

Quote from: Smokey on November 16, 2011, 01:17:58 AM
Let's face it...Hardshell cannot answer the questions put to him because of false claims.  His claim to want to protect his privacy is a smokescreen to cover this up.  He pretends to be above the fray, answering in roundabout ways, with a holier than though attitude.  He does not have the courage to put up or shut up.

I say.....he's a troll trying to stir the pot.  Contrary to his claim of being a proud member he constantly tries to weasel around regs and march to his own drummer.  But my guess is the music he is marching to comes from the same voices he hears.....


I'm sure he will never reveal answers to the questions posed.  And I'm willing to back it up with my CAP salary for a year!

Have your $ ready sir, as the rest of you circling wolves. No, wolves are great animals, so more like mongrel ferrets.

I've already answered the two questions NCRBlues asked at lest once in another post. Have you seen the "shopping list" of questions he wanted me to answer? These included the years I graduated schools, dates I enlisted, dates I went to work for and what agencies I worked for, etc. Frankly that information is absolutely none of his or anyone else's business on this forum.

My guess is that the music that you dance to and you perception of my "holier than though attitude" and the other such derogatory remarks you made is that you (and others) feel threatened so you feel a need to belittle? 

7 years reg army, reserves and militia. 2 years CAP. But then as I am a phony what would prevent me from answering the question falsely? Wait, its my master plan to conquer the CAPTalk then the world! ;)  

Sorry, I don't circle. I observe and report. The big question is what wing you are an IG.

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 16, 2011, 02:32:40 AM
Sorry, I don't circle. I observe and report. The big question is what wing you are an IG.

"Observe and Report" sounds like a rent-a-cop. As there are only a few people on each wings IG staff and most publish that staff list, how much anonymity would that provide me? While I have nothing against it, I will not post my name, unit, ribbons, badges etc. as I just do not think that is necessary.  

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 02:22:47 AM7 years reg army, reserves and militia. 2 years CAP. But then as I am a phony what would prevent me from answering the question falsely? Wait, its my master plan to conquer the CAPTalk then the world! ;)  

Nah, you're gonna have to wait in line behind Colgan for that action.  8)

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 02:22:47 AMFrankly that information is absolutely none of his or anyone else's business on this forum.

Correct, except that you repeatedly bring up your experience in regards to relevance to CAP service or the discussion at hand, which then makes it
fair game if someone thinks the pieces don't fit.

You are entitled to your opinion, and this forum provides a place to express it, provided you do not violate the terms of service.  However when you speak with experiential authority about topics in which you appear to have a flawed understanding, or purport to have been directed to do things by superiors which are "out of character" for CAP commanders, then those assertions are also fair game.

You also appear sensitive to not controlling the conversation, which anyone with internet experience knows is not possible, especially when you
use pointed phrases clearly intended to illicit a reaction and then assert you used a single word or phrase incorrectly. 

There is nothing wrong with being the "new guy", (we've all been there) and admitting to a learning curve.  CAP does not work or play like any other entity, which can be very frustrating for new members who believe they have relevant military or civilian experience, only to find themselves repeatedly behind the curve on the practical application and reality of CAP service.

I will say this, nothing will make your job more difficult as an CAP IG then purporting to understand things you have no experience with, interpreting regulations you don't have a grasp on yourself in discussions with experienced members, or treating the IG program like anything more than a question and answer session. The assertion that a uniform somehow impedes your duties, or that your civilian experience makes you better qualified to ask "Who saw the missing radio last."  is fundamental misunderstanding of how and why we have IG's in CAP.

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 02:40:55 AM

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 16, 2011, 02:32:40 AM
Sorry, I don't circle. I observe and report. The big question is what wing you are an IG.

"Observe and Report" sounds like a rent-a-cop. As there are only a few people on each wings IG staff and most publish that staff list, how much anonymity would that provide me? While I have nothing against it, I will not post my name, unit, ribbons, badges etc. as I just do not think that is necessary.

If you have nothing against it, what's the issue. As the observe and report, I could be Counter Drug and have a real need to cover those aspects. But I'm not, I'm not even a Rent-a-cop. I did, however, stay in a Holiday Inn last night.

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 16, 2011, 02:48:02 AM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 02:40:55 AM

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 16, 2011, 02:32:40 AM
Sorry, I don't circle. I observe and report. The big question is what wing you are an IG.

"Observe and Report" sounds like a rent-a-cop. As there are only a few people on each wings IG staff and most publish that staff list, how much anonymity would that provide me? While I have nothing against it, I will not post my name, unit, ribbons, badges etc. as I just do not think that is necessary.

If you have nothing against it, what's the issue. As the observe and report, I could be Counter Drug and have a real need to cover those aspects. But I'm not, I'm not even a Rent-a-cop. I did, however, stay in a Holiday Inn last night.

Hey was jus "funning" a bit. "Observe and Report" is just bad mall cop movie.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 16, 2011, 02:48:00 AM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 02:22:47 AMFrankly that information is absolutely none of his or anyone else's business on this forum.

Correct, except that you repeatedly bring up your experience in regards to relevance to CAP service or the discussion at hand, which then makes it
fair game if someone thinks the pieces don't fit.

You are entitled to your opinion, and this forum provides a place to express it, provided you do not violate the terms of service.  However when you speak with experiential authority about topics in which you appear to have a flawed understanding, or purport to have been directed to do things by superiors which are "out of character" for CAP commanders, then those assertions are also fair game.

You also appear sensitive to not controlling the conversation, which anyone with internet experience knows is not possible, especially when you
use pointed phrases clearly intended to illicit a reaction and then assert you used a single word or phrase incorrectly. 

There is nothing wrong with being the "new guy", (we've all been there) and admitting to a learning curve.  CAP does not work or play like any other entity, which can be very frustrating for new members who believe they have relevant military or civilian experience, only to find themselves repeatedly behind the curve on the practical application and reality of CAP service.

I will say this, nothing will make your job more difficult as an CAP IG then purporting to understand things you have no experience with, interpreting regulations you don't have a grasp on yourself in discussions with experienced members, or treating the IG program like anything more than a question and answer session. The assertion that a uniform somehow impedes your duties, or that your civilian experience makes you better qualified to ask "Who saw the missing radio last."  is fundamental misunderstanding of how and why we have IG's in CAP.

I respect a lot of what you said and I have made a few errors I'll agree. As to the "who saw the missing radio last " remark, are you asserting that someone with lets say the IG basic course (takes about 8 hours)  and is oh maybe a insurance salesman who conducts maybe 3 investigations a year in the CAP is just as qualified as a professionally trained and experienced investigator?   

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 02:58:55 AMremark, are you asserting that someone with lets say the IG basic course (takes about 8 hours)  and is oh maybe a insurance salesman who conducts maybe 3 investigations a year in the CAP is just as qualified as a professionally trained and experienced investigator?

Yes.  In fact a professionally trained investigator may well be at a disadvantage because he will be inclined to use techniques and make assumptions which
are wholly inappropriate for CAP, or simply spend a lot of their time bumping heads with people because they don't understand how CAP actually "works" at the ground level.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 16, 2011, 03:18:58 AM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 02:58:55 AMremark, are you asserting that someone with lets say the IG basic course (takes about 8 hours)  and is oh maybe a insurance salesman who conducts maybe 3 investigations a year in the CAP is just as qualified as a professionally trained and experienced investigator?

Yes.  In fact a professionally trained investigator may well be at a disadvantage because he will be inclined to use techniques and make assumptions which
are wholly inappropriate for CAP, or simply spend a lot of their time bumping heads with people because they don't understand how CAP actually "works" at the ground level.

I do not know where to begin in responding to this... I will say the part of the "techniques" that professionally trained investigators use is not making assumptions and not "bumping heads", unlike what people see on TV. Most any agent/detective/PI will tell you this.

Well, for starters, how would wearing a uniform impede your function?

Quote from: Eclipse on November 16, 2011, 03:38:27 AM
Well, for starters, how would wearing a uniform impede your function?

"So it's a police lesson that you want Boy-O" (From a movie).  Just not going there, already been berated enough for my opinion about uniforms.

If you really want to know about interviews during an investigation here is the "method" that I was trained in at GLYNCO:

"The Reid technique is a method of questioning subjects and assessing their credibility. The technique consists of a non-accusatory interview combining both investigative and behavior-provoking questions. If the investigative information indicates that the subject committed the crime in question, the Reid Nine Steps of Interrogation are utilized to persuade the subject to tell the truth about what they did".

There are a lot of good books on the subject and FYI, most inetrvews are more like what you see on detective shows on the BBC, rather then our TV cop shows.

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 03:53:17 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 16, 2011, 03:38:27 AM
Well, for starters, how would wearing a uniform impede your function?

"So it's a police lesson that you want Boy-O" (From a movie).  Just not going there, already been berated enough for my opinion about uniforms.

If you really want to know about interviews during an investigation here is the "method that I was trained in at GLYNCO:

"The Reid technique is a method of questioning subjects and assessing their credibility. The technique consists of a non-accusatory interview combining both investigative and behavior-provoking questions. If the investigative information indicates that the subject committed the crime in question, the Reid Nine Steps of Interrogation are utilized to persuade the subject to tell the truth about what they did".

Um. Most CAP IG investigations are about missing items not wrongdoing.

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 03:53:17 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 16, 2011, 03:38:27 AM
Well, for starters, how would wearing a uniform impede your function?

"So it's a police lesson that you want Boy-O" (From a movie).  Just not going there, already been berated enough for my opinion about uniforms.

If you really want to know about interviews during an investigation here is the "method" that I was trained in at GLYNCO:

"The Reid technique is a method of questioning subjects and assessing their credibility. The technique consists of a non-accusatory interview combining both investigative and behavior-provoking questions. If the investigative information indicates that the subject committed the crime in question, the Reid Nine Steps of Interrogation are utilized to persuade the subject to tell the truth about what they did".

There are a lot of good books on the subject and FYI, most inetrvews are more like what you see on detective shows on the BBC, rather then our TV cop shows.

Nice quote of Wikipedia there man!!

Quote from: davidsinn on November 16, 2011, 03:56:49 AM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 03:53:17 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 16, 2011, 03:38:27 AM
Well, for starters, how would wearing a uniform impede your function?

"So it's a police lesson that you want Boy-O" (From a movie).  Just not going there, already been berated enough for my opinion about uniforms.

If you really want to know about interviews during an investigation here is the "method that I was trained in at GLYNCO:

"The Reid technique is a method of questioning subjects and assessing their credibility. The technique consists of a non-accusatory interview combining both investigative and behavior-provoking questions. If the investigative information indicates that the subject committed the crime in question, the Reid Nine Steps of Interrogation are utilized to persuade the subject to tell the truth about what they did".

Um. Most CAP IG investigations are about missing items not wrongdoing.

So this training would not be useful to an IG or even a unit commander? Are not a lot of federal IG investigations about fraud, waste and abuse, missing federal property and civil issues?

Quote from: NCRblues on November 16, 2011, 04:02:48 AM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 03:53:17 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 16, 2011, 03:38:27 AM
Well, for starters, how would wearing a uniform impede your function?

"So it's a police lesson that you want Boy-O" (From a movie).  Just not going there, already been berated enough for my opinion about uniforms.

If you really want to know about interviews during an investigation here is the "method" that I was trained in at GLYNCO:

"The Reid technique is a method of questioning subjects and assessing their credibility. The technique consists of a non-accusatory interview combining both investigative and behavior-provoking questions. If the investigative information indicates that the subject committed the crime in question, the Reid Nine Steps of Interrogation are utilized to persuade the subject to tell the truth about what they did".

There are a lot of good books on the subject and FYI, most inetrvews are more like what you see on detective shows on the BBC, rather then our TV cop shows.

Nice quote of Wikipedia there man!!

Hence the quote marks... Your point?

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 03:53:17 AM
"The Reid technique is a method of questioning subjects and assessing their credibility. The technique consists of a non-accusatory interview combining both investigative and behavior-provoking questions. If the investigative information indicates that the subject committed the crime in question, the Reid Nine Steps of Interrogation are utilized to persuade the subject to tell the truth about what they did".

OK, so a great place to start - the above is for the most part completely inappropriate for CAP IG, and specifically what I was referring to.

An IG's job is to ask direct questions, record the answers, and report them to the commander who directed the investigation.  In the vast majority of
CAP investigations, which as davidsinn said are regarding missing property, note the word "missing" not "stolen", the entire situation
is handled via email and closed without any need for "provoking behavior".   There is also the occasional bent airplane - those usually involve
adults and are handled over the phone.

If you think you're going to get anywhere trying to "provoke behavior" in a CAP pilot who bent an elevator pushing the plane back into the
hangar, or who took off with the tow bar attached, you are mistaken.

Further, the majority of cases involving missing equipment are administrative issues where junk gear was disposed of outside the proper channels,
or equipment returned to CAP was not properly recorded.  The cases of stolen property, especially stolen by a member, are nearly nonexistent.
I was part of an ROS board regarding an AC adapter that was lost during a mission - original retail price?  $13.  The only "behavior" this provoked
was all of us asking why the guy who reported it missing didn't just buy a replacement and move on.

Abuse allegations, obviously, are more serious, but they are also rare, and again, the IG's job is to ask and report, not play mind games with members in an attempt to get them to make a Perry-Mason-like 4th act admission.

The other important duty of the IG Directorate is compliance inspections, in which case, again, you are simply asking the questions and recording the answers.  SUI Teams are not supposed to get involved in "why" something "is, only reporting the status so the respective commander may make decisions.

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 04:09:11 AMSo this training would not be useful to an IG or even a unit commander? Are not a lot of federal IG investigations about fraud, waste and abuse, missing federal property and civil issues?

IG activities are not "Federal Investigations".

Quote from: Eclipse on November 16, 2011, 04:15:32 AM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 04:09:11 AMSo this training would not be useful to an IG or even a unit commander? Are not a lot of federal IG investigations about fraud, waste and abuse, missing federal property and civil issues?

IG activities are not "Federal Investigations".

Sorry but "Well Duh" And you missed my point or just refused to see it.

You asked a question about why my preferences in uniform wear during an interview and my response was not meant that is how an IG investigation was performed, but you knew that. You used my reference to go into a tirade as to how investigations should be done...

I know you have taken the basic  (tech) IG course, but have  YOU conducted any investigations (not inspections) at the wing level?

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 04:33:11 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 16, 2011, 04:15:32 AM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 04:09:11 AMSo this training would not be useful to an IG or even a unit commander? Are not a lot of federal IG investigations about fraud, waste and abuse, missing federal property and civil issues?

IG activities are not "Federal Investigations".

Sorry but "Well Duh" And you missed my point or just refused to see it.

You asked a question about why my preferences in uniform wear during an interview and my response was not meant that is how an IG investigation was performed, but you knew that. You used my reference to go into a tirade as to how investigations should be done...

I know you have taken the basic  (tech) IG course, but have  YOU conducted any investigations (not inspections) at the wing level?

Have you?

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 04:33:11 AMYou asked a question about why my preferences in uniform wear during an interview and my response was not meant that is how an IG investigation was performed,

Actually, you never answered the question, you just quoted Wikipedia about some non-CAP training.

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 04:33:11 AM
I know you have taken the basic  (tech) IG course, but have YOU conducted any investigations (not inspections) at the wing level?

I am not an IG, and I don't play one on TV.  However it said "Commander" on my business card for about 7 years, I have completed L-IV, and have served in a few staff positions which had wing-level+ impact, so I have a pretty good idea how things work in CAP.  You can correct me at any point I say something not supported by a regulation or your experience.

Quote from: Extremepredjudice on November 16, 2011, 04:40:44 AM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 04:33:11 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 16, 2011, 04:15:32 AM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 04:09:11 AMSo this training would not be useful to an IG or even a unit commander? Are not a lot of federal IG investigations about fraud, waste and abuse, missing federal property and civil issues?

IG activities are not "Federal Investigations".

Sorry but "Well Duh" And you missed my point or just refused to see it.

You asked a question about why my preferences in uniform wear during an interview and my response was not meant that is how an IG investigation was performed, but you knew that. You used my reference to go into a tirade as to how investigations should be done...

I know you have taken the basic  (tech) IG course, but have  YOU conducted any investigations (not inspections) at the wing level?

Have you?

Previously asked and answered.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 16, 2011, 04:41:54 AM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 04:33:11 AMYou asked a question about why my preferences in uniform wear during an interview and my response was not meant that is how an IG investigation was performed,

Actually, you never answered the question, you just quoted Wikipedia about some non-CAP training.

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 04:33:11 AM
I know you have taken the basic  (tech) IG course, but have YOU conducted any investigations (not inspections) at the wing level?

I am not an IG, and I don't play one on TV.  However it said "Commander" on my business card for about 7 years, I have completed L-IV, and have served in a few staff positions which had wing-level+ impact, so I have a pretty good idea how things work in CAP.  You can correct me at any point I say something not supported by a regulation or your experience.

And I respect your command background. I have years performing both simple and complex civil & criminal investigations, so I do have a grasp on them.  I did not reply to your uniform question directly to avoid a protected debate, yet again on this issue. I provided you a reference so you could better understand my investigative choices.

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 04:50:33 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 16, 2011, 04:41:54 AM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 04:33:11 AMYou asked a question about why my preferences in uniform wear during an interview and my response was not meant that is how an IG investigation was performed,

Actually, you never answered the question, you just quoted Wikipedia about some non-CAP training.

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 04:33:11 AM
I know you have taken the basic  (tech) IG course, but have YOU conducted any investigations (not inspections) at the wing level?

I am not an IG, and I don't play one on TV.  However it said "Commander" on my business card for about 7 years, I have completed L-IV, and have served in a few staff positions which had wing-level+ impact, so I have a pretty good idea how things work in CAP.  You can correct me at any point I say something not supported by a regulation or your experience.

And I respect your command background. I have years performing both simple and complex civil & criminal investigations, so I do have a grasp on them.  I did not reply to your uniform question directly to avoid a protected debate, yet again on this issue. I provided you a reference so you could better understand my investigative choices.

So, we have a uniform thread that devolved (evolved?) into a discussion of IG activities (among other things). This is an interesting twist here on CAPTalk!  :clap:

This is like watching someone digging one hole to fill another, that in the meantime became a sinkhole, so when they come up for air they look and see no progress. Just a second hole getting bigger.

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 03:53:17 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 16, 2011, 03:38:27 AM
Well, for starters, how would wearing a uniform impede your function?

"So it's a police lesson that you want Boy-O" (From a movie).  Just not going there, already been berated enough for my opinion about uniforms.

If you really want to know about interviews during an investigation here is the "method" that I was trained in at GLYNCO:

"The Reid technique is a method of questioning subjects and assessing their credibility. The technique consists of a non-accusatory interview combining both investigative and behavior-provoking questions. If the investigative information indicates that the subject committed the crime in question, the Reid Nine Steps of Interrogation are utilized to persuade the subject to tell the truth about what they did".

There are a lot of good books on the subject and FYI, most interviews are more like what you see on detective shows on the BBC, rather then our TV cop shows.

The Reid School? Your interview Gung fu is weak! Wicklander Zulawski brought us out of the stone age of Interview and Interrogation! Just joshing you there, Mr. Clam. Reid is known as a "badge heavy" technique in the industry, where Wicklander's technique became the industry standard when most employment related polygraph tests became illegal.
I am admittedly, a graduate of the Wicklander School of Interview and Interrogation, and a Licensed Private Investigator in California, but from what I have seen of the IG process, my skill set is nearly meaningless in the context of CAP IG processes. ( I am not a CAP IG: I am a paid professional)

I think it was interesting about your being in "The Militia". The Second Act of Militia, 1792, provides for all able bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 42 to be members of the irregular (state)  militia, and to be summoned to suppress insurrection or invasion against foreign invaders and Indian Tribes.

Major Lord

Quote from: Major Lord on November 16, 2011, 03:40:30 PM
I think it was interesting about your being in "The Militia". The Second Act of Militia, 1792, provides for all able bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 42 to be members of the irregular (state)  militia, and to be summoned to suppress insurrection or invasion against foreign invaders and Indian Tribes.

Forget 1792, Currently:  Title 10 United States Code § 311

Quote(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

Quote from: JeffDG on November 16, 2011, 04:10:32 PM

Quote from: Major Lord on November 16, 2011, 03:40:30 PM
I think it was interesting about your being in "The Militia". The Second Act of Militia, 1792, provides for all able bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 42 to be members of the irregular (state)  militia, and to be summoned to suppress insurrection or invasion against foreign invaders and Indian Tribes.

Forget 1792, Currently:  Title 10 United States Code § 311

Quote(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

It hardly seems fair does it? All guys are instant members, but a female has to join the Guard! The question for is somewhat moot now, since the National Guard is clearly the "regular" militia, and all other able bodied males are members of the assigned age are "irregular Militia", almost everybody is in "the militia!"

Major Lord

Quote from: Major Lord on November 16, 2011, 04:36:11 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on November 16, 2011, 04:10:32 PM

Quote from: Major Lord on November 16, 2011, 03:40:30 PM
I think it was interesting about your being in "The Militia". The Second Act of Militia, 1792, provides for all able bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 42 to be members of the irregular (state)  militia, and to be summoned to suppress insurrection or invasion against foreign invaders and Indian Tribes.

Forget 1792, Currently:  Title 10 United States Code § 311

Quote(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

It hardly seems fair does it? All guys are instant members, but a female has to join the Guard! The question for is somewhat moot now, since the National Guard is clearly the "regular" militia, and all other able bodied males are members of the assigned age are "irregular Militia", almost everybody is in "the militia!"

Major Lord

I'm not, and yes, I am in the age range.

Anybody noticed that Harshell....still...hasn't answered directly the questions put to him????

He must be a politician or a boxer in the way he ducks and weaves answering the direct questions put to him.  I'm sure he'll have an equeally vague response to this post too.

Well, when those Indian tribes try and invade America Mister, don't expect to be on the phone tree list! There are lots of reasons you could not be in the Irregular Militia, you could have been "2b'd" or Court Marshaled by a tribunal of  Militia Officers, not be, or planning to be, an American Citizen, not be able-bodied ( or able minded) etc. Or are you just making the point that the law does not apply to you? I am too old officially , but I could still open a can of grade B whopass if Canada gets uppity and swarms our borders!

Major Lord

Quote from: Major Lord on November 16, 2011, 05:03:41 PM
Well, when those Indian tribes try and invade America Mister, don't expect to be on the phone tree list! There are lots of reasons you could not be in the Irregular Militia, you could have been "2b'd" or Court Marshaled by a tribunal of  Militia Officers, not be, or planning to be, an American Citizen, not be able-bodied ( or able minded) etc. Or are you just making the point that the law does not apply to you? I am too old officially , but I could still open a can of grade B whopass if Canada gets uppity and swarms our borders!

Major Lord

Ahhh, but we Canadians are all among you!

And actually, a "Declaration of Intent to Naturalize" is a rather worthless document from USCIS that you can file, and pay $250 for the privilege of doing so, with no known benefit for doing so.

Quote from: Extremepredjudice on November 16, 2011, 04:40:44 AM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 04:33:11 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 16, 2011, 04:15:32 AM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 04:09:11 AM
I know you have taken the basic  (tech) IG course, but have  YOU conducted any investigations (not inspections) at the wing level?[/color]

Have you?

As I recall, I have already responded to this question.

Quote from: Major Lord on November 16, 2011, 03:40:30 PM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 03:53:17 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 16, 2011, 03:38:27 AM
Well, for starters, how would wearing a uniform impede your function?

"So it's a police lesson that you want Boy-O" (From a movie).  Just not going there, already been berated enough for my opinion about uniforms.

If you really want to know about interviews during an investigation here is the "method" that I was trained in at GLYNCO:

"The Reid technique is a method of questioning subjects and assessing their credibility. The technique consists of a non-accusatory interview combining both investigative and behavior-provoking questions. If the investigative information indicates that the subject committed the crime in question, the Reid Nine Steps of Interrogation are utilized to persuade the subject to tell the truth about what they did".

There are a lot of good books on the subject and FYI, most interviews are more like what you see on detective shows on the BBC, rather then our TV cop shows.

The Reid School? Your interview Gung fu is weak! Wicklander Zulawski brought us out of the stone age of Interview and Interrogation! Just joshing you there, Mr. Clam. Reid is known as a "badge heavy" technique in the industry, where Wicklander's technique became the industry standard when most employment related polygraph tests became illegal.
I am admittedly, a graduate of the Wicklander School of Interview and Interrogation, and a Licensed Private Investigator in California, but from what I have seen of the IG process, my skill set is nearly meaningless in the context of CAP IG processes. ( I am not a CAP IG: I am a paid professional)

I think it was interesting about your being in "The Militia". The Second Act of Militia, 1792, provides for all able bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 42 to be members of the irregular (state)  militia, and to be summoned to suppress insurrection or invasion against foreign invaders and Indian Tribes.

Major Lord

I was just saying that is the program I took at GLYNCO is all, as part of CI basic.  I was clearly stating as to where I developed a skill set and NOT how the IG works. And can you tell me that your background and training would not be of any use as an investigating officer? As to your school being better at my school, I bet we could wup you in a food fight! ;) The Reid school is still being taught at police academies all ovet the world.

And, I was a uniformed drill going  member of the SDF/State Military Force/Militia or what ever some folks want it called.

Quote from: Smokey on November 16, 2011, 04:54:54 PM
Anybody noticed that Harshell....still...hasn't answered directly the questions put to him????

He must be a politician or a boxer in the way he ducks and weaves answering the direct questions put to him.  I'm sure he'll have an equeally vague response to this post too.

I thought I answered the questions posted at Reply #124 on: Yesterday at 07:22:47 PM.
The question:
"Answer how long you have been in cap, and how long you served in the military, and im pretty sure 90% of the snide comments about you would stop".

I responded:
7 years reg army, reserves and militia. 2 years CAP. But then as I am a phony what would prevent me from answering the question falsely? Wait, its my master plan to conquer the CAPTalk then the world! 

So, I DID answer the questions put to me and your comment above is uncalled for.

This is getting really old.

The Big Burning Question is what wing he/shes an IG for, if he/she is an IG. . .
The answers that have been given do not match the CAP that we all know and love.  It is suspicious, to just about anyone.

"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!"

Homer Simpson

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 09:49:05 PM
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!"

Homer Simpson

Interesting sentiment comming from somone on the IG staff.  :-\

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 16, 2011, 09:33:13 PM
The Big Burning Question is what wing he/shes an IG for, if he/she is an IG. . .
The answers that have been given do not match the CAP that we all know and love.  It is suspicious, to just about anyone.

And when you and "everyone" posts all the information that has been asked of me, so will I.

Quote from: lordmonar on November 16, 2011, 09:50:19 PM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 09:49:05 PM
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!"

Homer Simpson

Interesting sentiment comming from somone on the IG staff.  :-\

It was a JOKE. But sure, twist it to suit yourself.

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 09:51:01 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 16, 2011, 09:33:13 PM
The Big Burning Question is what wing he/shes an IG for, if he/she is an IG. . .
The answers that have been given do not match the CAP that we all know and love.  It is suspicious, to just about anyone.

And when you and "everyone" posts all the information that has been asked of me, so will I.

I haven't made any unsubstantiated claims that drew fire.  You have.  Anyways, CAP entry 26 Oct 04, no breaks, AD Army 26 Jun 08 through 26 Apr 10 (medical discharge) IG Basic in NCWG 2009 or 2010.  Never worked an IG Complaint, went through several SUIs (as a member of tyhe Unit being inspected)  Current UOA is WY-066.

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 09:51:01 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 16, 2011, 09:33:13 PM
The Big Burning Question is what wing he/shes an IG for, if he/she is an IG. . .
The answers that have been given do not match the CAP that we all know and love.  It is suspicious, to just about anyone.

And when you and "everyone" posts all the information that has been asked of me, so will I.

I think I covered my part in my sig. Who's next? -heh
Using my real name for a username was a nice touch too, eh? :)
I thought about leaving a little bit of my identity out to keep myself mysterious.
Thank you for proving (directly and or indirectly) I made the right choice.  ;D
(i kid of course.)

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 16, 2011, 10:00:02 PM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 09:51:01 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 16, 2011, 09:33:13 PM
The Big Burning Question is what wing he/shes an IG for, if he/she is an IG. . .
The answers that have been given do not match the CAP that we all know and love.  It is suspicious, to just about anyone.

And when you and "everyone" posts all the information that has been asked of me, so will I.

I haven't made any unsubstantiated claims that drew fire.  You have.  Anyways, CAP entry 26 Oct 04, no breaks, AD Army 26 Jun 08 through 26 Apr 10 (medical discharge) IG Basic in NCWG 2009 or 2010.  Never worked an IG Complaint, went through several SUIs (as a member of tyhe Unit being inspected)  Current UOA is WY-066.

"Dear Homer, IOU one emergency donut. Signed Homer. Bastard! He's always one step ahead."
Homer Simpson  

Quote from: john_Bowers on November 16, 2011, 10:02:11 PM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 09:51:01 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 16, 2011, 09:33:13 PM
The Big Burning Question is what wing he/shes an IG for, if he/she is an IG. . .
The answers that have been given do not match the CAP that we all know and love.  It is suspicious, to just about anyone.

And when you and "everyone" posts all the information that has been asked of me, so will I.

I think I covered my part in my sig. Who's next? -heh


Using my real name for a username was a nice touch too, eh? :)
I thought about leaving a little bit of my identity out to keep myself mysterious.
Thank you for proving (directly and or indirectly) I made the right choice.  ;D
(i kid of course.)

Indeed

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 10:23:16 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 16, 2011, 10:00:02 PM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 09:51:01 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 16, 2011, 09:33:13 PM
The Big Burning Question is what wing he/shes an IG for, if he/she is an IG. . .
The answers that have been given do not match the CAP that we all know and love.  It is suspicious, to just about anyone.

And when you and "everyone" posts all the information that has been asked of me, so will I.

I haven't made any unsubstantiated claims that drew fire.  You have.  Anyways, CAP entry 26 Oct 04, no breaks, AD Army 26 Jun 08 through 26 Apr 10 (medical discharge) IG Basic in NCWG 2009 or 2010.  Never worked an IG Complaint, went through several SUIs (as a member of tyhe Unit being inspected)  Current UOA is WY-066.

"Dear Homer, IOU one emergency donut. Signed Homer. Bastard! He's always one step ahead."
Homer Simpson

Mmmmmmm...forbidden donut....

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 10:23:16 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 16, 2011, 10:00:02 PM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 09:51:01 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 16, 2011, 09:33:13 PM
The Big Burning Question is what wing he/shes an IG for, if he/she is an IG. . .
The answers that have been given do not match the CAP that we all know and love.  It is suspicious, to just about anyone.

And when you and "everyone" posts all the information that has been asked of me, so will I.

I haven't made any unsubstantiated claims that drew fire.  You have.  Anyways, CAP entry 26 Oct 04, no breaks, AD Army 26 Jun 08 through 26 Apr 10 (medical discharge) IG Basic in NCWG 2009 or 2010.  Never worked an IG Complaint, went through several SUIs (as a member of tyhe Unit being inspected)  Current UOA is WY-066.

"Dear Homer, IOU one emergency donut. Signed Homer. Bastard! He's always one step ahead."
Homer Simpson

:o really?  i'm being honest and you're. . .ignorant, apathetic,  I don't know . .  I do know you aren't serious.

I am not really anti-Reid, its just mostly used in Law Enforcement, and has a slightly different dynamic than Wicklander. Please note that I am NOT making any accusations here. I think even the kinder gentler Wicklander techniques would make the CAP Guardhouse lawyers faint of heart, and although I know that I could do a better job than most at finding the truth of a situation, I think that the CAP IG only has this is mind as a secondary consideration.

For instance, one technique used in large scale investigations, where dozens or hundreds have to be interviewed is a "Narrowing Interview". One part of this is soliciting the most trusted person down to the least trusted person from each individual in a group. Good guys tend to endorse good guys, and bad guys tend to endorse bad guys, and a number of arithmetic subsets usually emerge quickly ( Of course, this works best when not everyone in the group is a dirtbag, which we can't assume) Bad Guys are generally less likely to endorse or rate individuals on their trust scale, which is another way of identifying them.

This technique is fast and dirty, and used for those " Who killed professor Klum in the library" type cases. I can guarantee you , asking CAP members for non-endorsements ( least trusted rating) is really, really, going to piss off CAP. So I believe that my civilian expertise is still too "active" a method for CAP, which seems to rely more on the passive methods. Reid would make them lose control of their sphincters! I remember having to respond to an IG investigation in writing covering about 20 pages of "accusations" like, Q: Why did you state that Senior Members have no Honor code? Answer, Because Senior Members have no Honor Code. Q: Why did you prevent a Cadet from promoting? Answer: The Cadet had not completed the promotion requirements.

The CAP IG process to me looks more like shotgun discovery motions than investigations per se.

"Weaseling out of things is what separates us from the animals........Except the weasels!" Homer Simpson

Major Lord

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 09:51:01 PM
And when you and "everyone" posts all the information that has been asked of me, so will I.

CAP- joined Nov 2000 no break in service

USAF- Joined may 2005- discharged (honorable medical) june 2010 (or may or july) depending on which DD-214/215 I look at...got to love the govt right?). 2 tours of IRAQ with the 332nd EMG.

Current CAP service - newly appointed wing DCP.

and look, im still "anonymous".... anything else?

 I have been trained in the Reid Technique, while I believe that at its base it provides a good set of skills to help determine truth or untruth while asking interview questions but it may not be completely usable on every CAP IG investigation. Is it something that can be used all the time in every CAP investigation? No. But can it be used in certain CAP investigations? Yes. I have used it in conducting a couple of different CAP investigations. Keep in mind that most CAP investigations never reach a formal interview stage, most can be wrapped up with a few phone calls / emails.

  In some cases, you simply cannot just ask the question, record the answer and move on. Commanders need to know enough information to make a good decision, as a CAP IG or Investigative Officer; I cannot just take the answer given and move on in all cases. If the answer given doesn't fit the things you know, then you need to look into this a little closer. Having an investigator who is trained and expereinced to observe the non verbal cues we give off while answering questions either truthfully or untruthfully can be very beneficial in this process. This stuff isn't covered at the Basic IG or even Senior IG course, but it is covered some at the IG College.

   Hardshell, I have been in this business a long time, I have never heard of a Federal Officer trained at the Federal law Enforcement Training Center to refer to it as "Glynco". It's normally referred to as FLETC. You have professed to be a former or was it current Federal Officer? What Agency did you / do you work for? Were you in an 1811 series job?  What year did you graduate FLETC and what course of Instruction, length of time were you there?  None of the answers you give would hurt your desire to remain anonymous. Simply saying you worked as a Special Agent for TIGTA or whatever Agency you worked for would say nothing of your identity. How you answer these questions will of course determine if you are being honest with us about your past employment. Oh by the way, don't try giving Wikipedia answers, some of us have been to and graduated from FLETC, and can smell the ones faking the funk a mile away. Maybe you are being honest, if you are or have been a real US. Federal Officer then great, I will be the first to apologize for calling you out. 

   You also claimed to be an Attorney from what others have said on this board. Where did you graduate from Law School and where have you been admitted to the Bar? Once again, those answers can not hurt your desire to remain anonymous. I believe you went thru the CAP IG course, probably even the Senior IG course, I believe you may even be an Assistant IG for a some Wing. I do believe that you are misguided and even wrong by your desire to conduct IG business outside of an appropriate CAP uniform. I always wear a CAP uniform while conducting CAP business, normally blues while conducting an interview and normally wear BDU's or more likely simply a CAP Polo shirt or even a flight suit on SUI's (if I fly in). I will be the first to admit, that I do not typically wear a uniform to every CAP meeting I attend, it's normally not convenient.

.................and what color is the boat house at Hereford?

Okay, let me be a little forthcoming. As an investigator/interviewer, its okay for us to lie to witnesses and subjects and trick them into answering our questions. Now this is not the sole technique to the interview method, but I think CAP would choke on using deception to obtain information. Of course, I have not taken the IG course, so maybe its in the training texts. Lying in CAP does not seem to be particularly uncommon.......The basic skills of interview and deception detection are of course relevant to what a CAP IG does, I just doubt that their brief goes as far as a criminal interview conducted at either the law enforcement or civilian level. Reid is also good for cops because its much easier to spell than "Wicklander-Zulawski!"  ;D

Major Lord

The Reality Of Lackluster Logic.

Quote from: NCRblues on November 16, 2011, 11:06:53 PM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 09:51:01 PM
And when you and "everyone" posts all the information that has been asked of me, so will I.

CAP- joined Nov 2000 no break in service

USAF- Joined may 2005- discharged (honorable medical) june 2010 (or may or july) depending on which DD-214/215 I look at...got to love the govt right?). 2 tours of IRAQ with the 332nd EMG.

Current CAP service - newly appointed wing DCP.

and look, im still "anonymous".... anything else?

Care to guess how many DCPs originally joined CAP in 2000?  And none of them in November.

Quote from: JeffDG on November 17, 2011, 12:52:47 AM

Quote from: NCRblues on November 16, 2011, 11:06:53 PM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 09:51:01 PM
And when you and "everyone" posts all the information that has been asked of me, so will I.

CAP- joined Nov 2000 no break in service

USAF- Joined may 2005- discharged (honorable medical) june 2010 (or may or july) depending on which DD-214/215 I look at...got to love the govt right?). 2 tours of IRAQ with the 332nd EMG.

Current CAP service - newly appointed wing DCP.

and look, im still "anonymous".... anything else?

Care to guess how many DCPs originally joined CAP in 2000?  And none of them in November.

Ok let me reprahse that for you...assistant DCP.

Edit: just looked myself up, joined 29th Nov 2000. Need me to PM you?

Quote from: DrJbdm on November 17, 2011, 12:03:39 AM
   Hardshell, I have been in this business a long time, I have never heard of a Federal Officer trained at the Federal law Enforcement Training Center to refer to it as "Glynco". It's normally referred to as FLETC.

Informally known as Glynco.
US Public Health Service, Bureau of Prisons.
Just FYI...

Quote from: SARDOC on November 16, 2011, 08:14:11 PM
This is getting really old.

Quite.

Quote from: JeffDG on November 16, 2011, 10:27:06 PM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 10:23:16 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 16, 2011, 10:00:02 PM

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 16, 2011, 09:51:01 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on November 16, 2011, 09:33:13 PM
The Big Burning Question is what wing he/shes an IG for, if he/she is an IG. . .
The answers that have been given do not match the CAP that we all know and love.  It is suspicious, to just about anyone.

And when you and "everyone" posts all the information that has been asked of me, so will I.

I haven't made any unsubstantiated claims that drew fire.  You have.  Anyways, CAP entry 26 Oct 04, no breaks, AD Army 26 Jun 08 through 26 Apr 10 (medical discharge) IG Basic in NCWG 2009 or 2010.  Never worked an IG Complaint, went through several SUIs (as a member of tyhe Unit being inspected)  Current UOA is WY-066.

"Dear Homer, IOU one emergency donut. Signed Homer. Bastard! He's always one step ahead."
Homer Simpson

Mmmmmmm...forbidden donut....

:)

Quote from: DrJbdm on November 17, 2011, 12:03:39 AM
I have been trained in the Reid Technique, while I believe that at its base it provides a good set of skills to help determine truth or untruth while asking interview questions but it may not be completely usable on every CAP IG investigation. Is it something that can be used all the time in every CAP investigation? No. But can it be used in certain CAP investigations? Yes. I have used it in conducting a couple of different CAP investigations. Keep in mind that most CAP investigations never reach a formal interview stage, most can be wrapped up with a few phone calls / emails.

  In some cases, you simply cannot just ask the question, record the answer and move on. Commanders need to know enough information to make a good decision, as a CAP IG or Investigative Officer; I cannot just take the answer given and move on in all cases. If the answer given doesn't fit the things you know, then you need to look into this a little closer. Having an investigator who is trained and expereinced to observe the non verbal cues we give off while answering questions either truthfully or untruthfully can be very beneficial in this process. This stuff isn't covered at the Basic IG or even Senior IG course, but it is covered some at the IG College.

   Hardshell, I have been in this business a long time, I have never heard of a Federal Officer trained at the Federal law Enforcement Training Center to refer to it as "Glynco". It's normally referred to as FLETC. You have professed to be a former or was it current Federal Officer? What Agency did you / do you work for? Were you in an 1811 series job?  What year did you graduate FLETC and what course of Instruction, length of time were you there?  None of the answers you give would hurt your desire to remain anonymous. Simply saying you worked as a Special Agent for TIGTA or whatever Agency you worked for would say nothing of your identity. How you answer these questions will of course determine if you are being honest with us about your past employment. Oh by the way, don't try giving Wikipedia answers, some of us have been to and graduated from FLETC, and can smell the ones faking the funk a mile away. Maybe you are being honest, if you are or have been a real US. Federal Officer then great, I will be the first to apologize for calling you out. 

   You also claimed to be an Attorney from what others have said on this board. Where did you graduate from Law School and where have you been admitted to the Bar? Once again, those answers can not hurt your desire to remain anonymous. I believe you went thru the CAP IG course, probably even the Senior IG course, I believe you may even be an Assistant IG for a some Wing. I do believe that you are misguided and even wrong by your desire to conduct IG business outside of an appropriate CAP uniform. I always wear a CAP uniform while conducting CAP business, normally blues while conducting an interview and normally wear BDU's or more likely simply a CAP Polo shirt or even a flight suit on SUI's (if I fly in). I will be the first to admit, that I do not typically wear a uniform to every CAP meeting I attend, it's normally not convenient.

FLETC  is/was called "GLYNCO" (From the old Glen County air station)  so as to differentiate it from the two other FLETC satellite facilities (now more) and and was common name when I was in. If you went to "club fed", you should know that name.

Started as an GS-1801-5 and retired as an GS-1811-11. (11 was our journeyman grade at the time) 18 weeks for the IOBTC under INS and then later, 2 months in the CI program, then 1 month agency specific training and 1 month of "boat school". went to these in the 80's, retired out of the DOJ. My positions were "6c covered" with a mandated retirement age of 55 (now 57).

I also served in the FTD at FLETC as a  TDY/agency detailed instructor. Wore a red shirt. (If you know FLETC from my period, you should know what that meant).

As to the bar, with state and year, anyone can find those admitted that year and check names against the IG rosters on the websites.

I think that anyone who has stated that "Oh by the way, don't try giving Wikipedia answers, some of us have been to and graduated from FLETC, and can smell the ones faking the funk a mile away" you should be well satisfied and that there will be NO further "test questions" answered, believe me or not. Смерть шпионам ;)

What, you get so puckered up you hit post without typing anything?


Oh, I see- premature post push..  and yup, someone can compare lists and look at wing web pages. You must be afraid you won't be found on any, after you did say it was on a web page, but not all wings have full web sites.

My bad, fixed that. dang phone! Hard to type this much on.

"You must be afraid you won't be found on any"

You know anyone can take the negative side and it appears you are just so disposed to do do.

Quote from: Hardshell Clam on November 17, 2011, 11:31:43 PM
"You must be afraid you won't be found on any"

You know anyone can take the negative side and it appears you are just so disposed to do do.

You haven't exactly been a ray of sunshine either...

Wait just a doggone minute.... >:(

Hardshell says he....

Doesn't like to wear uniforms.

Does undercover work.

Wore a red shirt.

IT'S RADIOMAN! >:D

Quote from: ol'fido on November 18, 2011, 12:39:45 AM
Wait just a doggone minute.... >:(

Hardshell says he....

Doesn't like to wear uniforms.

Does undercover work.

Wore a red shirt.

IT'S RADIOMAN! >:D

Correct that to "did undercover" nothing to do with CAP, but I do carry a Walther PPK! ;)

Quote from: ol'fido on November 18, 2011, 12:39:45 AM
Wait just a doggone minute.... >:(

Hardshell says he....

Doesn't like to wear uniforms.

Does undercover work.

Wore a red shirt.

IT'S RADIOMAN! >:D

Nah, Radio is on the opposite side of the country.

Quote from: jimmydeanno on November 18, 2011, 12:48:29 AM

Quote from: ol'fido on November 18, 2011, 12:39:45 AM
Wait just a doggone minute.... >:(

Hardshell says he....

Doesn't like to wear uniforms.

Does undercover work.

Wore a red shirt.

IT'S RADIOMAN! >:D

Nah, Radio is on the opposite side of the country.

Nope... Just like Chickenman... He's everywhere! He's everywhere! ;D

Quote from: ol'fido on November 18, 2011, 12:51:47 AM

Quote from: jimmydeanno on November 18, 2011, 12:48:29 AM

Quote from: ol'fido on November 18, 2011, 12:39:45 AM
Wait just a doggone minute.... >:(

Hardshell says he....

Doesn't like to wear uniforms.

Does undercover work.

Wore a red shirt.

IT'S RADIOMAN! >:D

Nah, Radio is on the opposite side of the country.

Nope... Just like Chickenman... He's everywhere! He's everywhere! ;D

Your dating yourself! Maybe Rojer Ramjet?