See:
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R035_008_B5088B41928F7.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R035_008_B5088B41928F7.pdf)
Para 9c:
c. Final decisions of the MARB, including the names and units of the parties, a brief description of the case and the decision of the MARB shall be published periodically in VolunteerNow or another publication of general CAP circulation. The names of cadets will be withheld from publication. A copy of the final MARB decision will also be sent to each commander in the member's chain of command.
Here's another example of an attempt to silence members from appealing by publicaly disclosing this. Frankly all other disciplinary action is NOT released to the public or CAP members at large and now we have a regulation that states IF a member appeals the decision; the decision/along with a short case summary is going to be published so that ANYONE and any search engine can find e.g. "Volunteer Now" is added.
Seems to me that the member appealing should have every right to request that his/her name not be listed in any public release and remain confidential just as the original disciplinary/adverse action was. :-\ ???
Anyone care to explain WHY the name of the individual appealing has to be made public ??? (when perhaps maybe only the wing/region of assignment would be adequate) ???
RM
How would this discourage anyone from appealing? The original action would have to be adverse against you so at that point you have nothing to lose by taking it all the way up the chain. If you agree with whatever punishment you received (being kicked out of CAP, demoted, whatever), then you're fine -- the reasons won't be public. If you've been wronged, then you should want it shouted out everywhere.
People WILL take sides based on what they read. "Oh, that isn't fair" or "Hey, the rules are the rules." Even if the appeal is overturned, the member's relationship with other member will be impacted, possibly by things that were unfairly or improperly charged against him.
On the other hand, I'd say that if they're going to publish the name of the SM, they should publish the names of the members of the MARB too. It's not clear to me if that's in there, but it should be.
You're an idiot. The MARB report (https://www.capnhq.gov/news/Report_of_Recent_Membership_Action_Review_Board_Cases_Sep_11.pdf) is already publically available. Google already indexes it. Go crawl back under your bridge and quit trying to stir up trouble.
Quote from: davidsinn on April 01, 2012, 07:33:03 PM
You're an idiot. The MARB report (https://www.capnhq.gov/news/Report_of_Recent_Membership_Action_Review_Board_Cases_Sep_11.pdf) is already publically available. Google already indexes it. Go crawl back under your bridge and quit trying to stir up trouble.
The report apparently can be accessed by anyone for actions since January 2007, since it appears to be a running report of the board's action. I initially thought that the report was only accessible from the members sign on, on e services since there's a specific button for that -- apparently Mr. Google can get to it so it is not secure and members since January 2007 have been subject to this release. :(
Now if we look at the logic of this, the Air Force has a board of correction and also various review boards when someone is being discharged. I don't recall this every being placed on the internet for everyone to see. I think it's well within a member's right to ask that his/her name not be released in the public domain on any adverse action appeal. By releasing this information the board can harm the individual in other ways external to Civil Air Patrol. We are talking about unpaid volunteers here. >:(
You know a lot of you want to be like the Air Force in every way, but you fail to understand that CAP Inc does not give the same protection to individual CAP members that an AF member has. It's very surprising that the Board of Governors is not more proactive in protecting the well being of CAP members as required by AFI 10-2702, para 2.2 to be at least in the spirit of the federal privacy act, as it pertains to protection of member/former member sensitive personal adverse information.
Oh by the way David, here's a link to the AF Board of Correction Proceedings:
http://boards.law.af.mil/AF_BCMR.htm (http://boards.law.af.mil/AF_BCMR.htm) You will note that no names of individuals appealing are released but a summary is provided.
I don't think I'm trying to cause a problem, I'm just stating what seems to be reasonable (e.g. withhold publication of the members identification IF they request it).
Again anyone have the knowledge as to what the reasoning/purpose is for publishing the individual members' names (and BTW I also don't feel that the various leadership's names (only positions) need to be published in the public domain also) ??? I again think that public release may have a chilling effect on more members appealing. :-\ >:( :(
RM
I love it when people scream "THE SKY IS FALLING" when there is a technical correction...
Here's the 2009 version of the same provision:
Quotec. Final decisions of the MARB, including the names and units of the parties, a brief description of the case and the decision of the MARB shall be published periodically in CAP NEWS ONLINE or another publication of general CAP circulation. The names of cadets will be withheld from publication. A copy of the final MARB decision will also be sent to each commander in the member's chain of command.
So...they changed "CAP NEWS ONLINE" to VolunteerNow...Oh My God! What is the world coming to???
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on April 01, 2012, 09:18:05 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on April 01, 2012, 07:33:03 PM
You're an idiot. The MARB report (https://www.capnhq.gov/news/Report_of_Recent_Membership_Action_Review_Board_Cases_Sep_11.pdf) is already publically available. Google already indexes it. Go crawl back under your bridge and quit trying to stir up trouble.
The report apparently can be accessed by anyone for actions since January 2007, since it appears to be a running report of the board's action. I initially thought that the report was only accessible from the members sign on, on e services since there's a specific button for that -- apparently Mr. Google can get to it so it is not secure and members since January 2007 have been subject to this release. :(
Now if we look at the logic of this, the Air Force has a board of correction and also various review boards when someone is being discharged. I don't recall this every being placed on the internet for everyone to see. I think it's well within a member's right to ask that his/her name not be released in the public domain on any adverse action appeal. By releasing this information the board can harm the individual in other ways external to Civil Air Patrol. We are talking about unpaid volunteers here. >:(
You know a lot of you want to be like the Air Force in every way, but you failed to understand that CAP Inc does not give the same protection to individual CAP members that an AF member has. It's very surprising that the Board of Governors is not more proactive in protecting the well being of CAP members as required by AFI 10-2702, para 2.2 to be at least in the spirit of the federal privacy act, as it pertains to protection of member/former member sensitive personal adverse information.
Oh by the way David, here's a link to the AF Board of Correction Proceedings:
http://boards.law.af.mil/AF_BCMR.htm (http://boards.law.af.mil/AF_BCMR.htm) You will note that no names of individuals appealing are released but a summary is provided.
I don't think I'm trying to cause a problem, I'm just stating what seems to be reasonable (e.g. withhold publication of the members identification IF they request it).
Again anyone have the knowledge as to what the reasoning/purpose is for publishing the individual members' names (and BTW I also don't feel that the various leadership's names (only positions) need to be published in the public domain also) ??? I again think that public release may have a chilling effect on more members appealing. :-\ >:( :(
RM
So by your logic my county publishing the police blotter is a bad thing? You screw up you own it. All the MARB does anyway is make sure procedures are followed. It is not a disciplinary board. You get canned and higher command screwed up the process? Welcome back. You get canned and all the t's are crossed and i's dotted? Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Quote
We are talking about unpaid volunteers here. >:(
You keep saying that and it's offensive. A volunteer is someone who is untrained and does it because they don't have anything better to do.
I'm an unpaid professional.
Volunteers train until they get it right, professionals train until they can't get it wrong.
I as well as most all of the unit I am in STRIVE to be professionals.
From what I have seen of the MARBs published it doesn't go into very much detail, does not list any PII for any parties involved, and the problem here is what? Article 15's and Court Martials are publicized throughout the military and especially the AF the only thing there is that names are not listed for Art 15s. I see no difference between this, a police blotter or a news story about something someone did wrong etc.
I reviewed the AFI and para you cited and IMO and limited experience the BOG are doing what they are suppose to do in this aspect. As you put it everyone is a volunteer, but I have seen nothing in any of the MARBs posted that has violated any law. Don't you get tired of looking for conspiracy theories where there are none to be had?
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 01, 2012, 09:42:18 PM
From what I have seen of the MARBs published it doesn't go into very much detail, does not list any PII for any parties involved, and the problem here is what? Article 15's and Court Martials are publicized throughout the military and especially the AF the only thing there is that names are not listed for Art 15s. I see no difference between this, a police blotter or a news story about something someone did wrong etc.
I reviewed the AFI and para you cited and IMO and limited experience the BOG are doing what they are suppose to do in this aspect. As you put it everyone is a volunteer, but I have seen nothing in any of the MARBs posted that has violated any law. Don't you get tired of looking for conspiracy theories where there are none to be had?
So tell me what other non profit organization do you know will publish on the internet for all to see an appeal made by an unpaid volunteer including their name summary of the adverse actions, and decision for ANYONE with internet access to see ??? ??? ??? You don't think this is totally adverse to the individual ??? What real purpose does this serve by publishing individual names and units ???
Lets see now looking at the internet post:
http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/member_action_review_board.cfm (http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/member_action_review_board.cfm)
some examples:
...."terminate his membership due to misconduct and gross inefficiency....."
...."conduct unbecoming a member, making a false statement
concerning CAP and failure to obey rules, regulations and orders of higher
authority........"termination action based on misconduct involving
the use of an all-terrain vehicle at a CAP activity...... (this was a cadet, under the new regulation cannot post anything on a cadet in the public domain, wonder why?????????).
....."conduct unbecoming a member of CAP, failure to obey rules,
regulations and orders of higher authority, insubordination, and continued
membership was adverse to the best interest of CAP......."
......"poor duty performance as the reason for the actions...."
etc..
Looks pretty negative to me to have any of these words associated with one's name.
Remember this is being posted on the internet ONLY due to an APPEAL of the member. Up until this time NO one outside of CAP's internal chain of command involved in the adverse actions is aware of the particulars. Now it is being posted to the internet for anyone to see :(. Do you think that this might affect a member/former member in employment and other endeavors in the future ??? :-\
IF an internet background check is done, and likely would be done ??? None of these violations are things that would end up in criminal or civil court (surely if that is the case than the public record is what it is). Even in private employment a termination for any of the above would likely NOT be released on any inquiries received for potential employers. Many employers have policies that will release dates of employment, position title, and maybe salary verification (IF something is signed by the individual).
I think one can see why most members aren't going to appeal, unless the policy is changed and personal ID information is removed from any report posted to the internet. (perhaps even just identify by rank (or class of rank e.g. company grade officer, field grade officer) and region of assignment). For those appealing I would think one could consider requesting that any personal identifiable information be removed from the appeal report decision prior to publishing on the internet.
BTW current MARB members can be found at:
http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/member_action_review_board.cfm (http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/member_action_review_board.cfm)
Remember these volunteers don't make policy, they just review cases and make decisions.
This public release of negative information (both organizationally and against the individual member) from a public relations standpoint from a non profit organization that primarily uses volunteers, is puzzling :-[ :(
RM
Quote from: davidsinn on April 01, 2012, 07:33:03 PM
You're an idiot. The MARB report (https://www.capnhq.gov/news/Report_of_Recent_Membership_Action_Review_Board_Cases_Sep_11.pdf) is already publically available. Google already indexes it. Go crawl back under your bridge and quit trying to stir up trouble.
Knock off the name-calling.
RM,
You're presenting this as if it's part of the new, revised regulation...hence the outrage, when you know [darn]ed well that the only thing that changed in the impugned section was the place where they are published was changed to VolunteerNow. This change was clearly indicated in the revised regulation as the only change to that section.
Again outside of a name there is no PII involved in the action or the posting and your problem is what?
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 02, 2012, 12:41:56 AM
Again outside of a name there is no PII involved in the action or the posting and your problem is what?
He's just doing what he does best.
TROLLING
Quote from: PHall on April 02, 2012, 12:46:43 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 02, 2012, 12:41:56 AM
Again outside of a name there is no PII involved in the action or the posting and your problem is what?
He's just doing what he does best. TROLLING
Yeah I figured.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on April 02, 2012, 12:15:45 AM
BTW current MARB members can be found at:
http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/member_action_review_board.cfm (http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/member_action_review_board.cfm)
Remember these volunteers don't make policy, they just review cases and make decisions.
This public release of negative information (both organizationally and against the individual member) from a public relations standpoint from a non profit organization that primarily uses volunteers, is puzzling :-[ :(
RM
The listing of the "current MARB members" is not up to date. There are currently 8 members; one from each region. The MARB is still chaired by the NLO. The members listed have not been connected with the Board since 1 Oct 2011.
The public release of the reports have been made since 2001; on the internet since 2006.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 02, 2012, 12:48:39 AM
Quote from: PHall on April 02, 2012, 12:46:43 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 02, 2012, 12:41:56 AM
Again outside of a name there is no PII involved in the action or the posting and your problem is what?
He's just doing what he does best. TROLLING
Yeah I figured.
Hey, it is quite simple, yes remove the individuals name and unit of assignment, and ID unit only by the region of assignment. Also I would restrict this to the members only access area and not in any way give total public access to this. Again notice that now any cadet appeals will not be placed in the public domain, so the policy makers have a wide latitude in what they choose to publish.
Once again what is the compelling reason for public access to an appeal decision on an adverse action??? Can an appealing member restrict this public access/disclosure ??? Up until that appeal EVERYTHING else related to the adverse action was a
private matter between the individual CAP member and CAP's internal chain of command. So now the organization decides to disclose this appeal in the public domain with complete identifying information -- Frankly this looks to me like
retaliation against the individual for submitting an appeal >:(
I'm not trolling, and really this is just good public relations policy NOT to be releasing this kind of negative information to the public at large. Listing it in "Volunteer Now" on the internet gives everyone access to this negativity. Most members would want to resolve this privately not for it to be disclosed in the public domain (or course unless they give specific authorization to do this) Seriously, no one including the BOG can figure that one out ??? :( :-[
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on April 01, 2012, 07:06:45 PM
See:
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R035_008_B5088B41928F7.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R035_008_B5088B41928F7.pdf)
Para 9c:
c. Final decisions of the MARB, including the names and units of the parties, a brief description of the case and the decision of the MARB shall be published periodically in VolunteerNow or another publication of general CAP circulation. The names of cadets will be withheld from publication. A copy of the final MARB decision will also be sent to each commander in the member's chain of command.
Here's another example of an attempt to silence members from appealing by publicaly disclosing this. Frankly all other disciplinary action is NOT released to the public or CAP members at large and now we have a regulation that states IF a member appeals the decision; the decision/along with a short case summary is going to be published so that ANYONE and any search engine can find e.g. "Volunteer Now" is added.
Seems to me that the member appealing should have every right to request that his/her name not be listed in any public release and remain confidential just as the original disciplinary/adverse action was. :-\ ???
Anyone care to explain WHY the name of the individual appealing has to be made public ??? (when perhaps maybe only the wing/region of assignment would be adequate) ???
RM
1) THERE IS NO APPEAL from a MARB action!
2) This is all about transparancy....If the MARB is willing to say "we did this...and this is why" then you can be sure that the MARB is going to try to make good decisions....if they are all kept secret....then you never know what or why something was done unless you know the particpants.
3) By the time the case gets to a MARB the individual's name has already been up and down the chain. What's to protect? If they win...then everyone knows they win and those rumors about why they were getting 2b'ed, demoted, or fired will be put to rest. If they lose then everyone knows exactly why.
4) Anyone with access to E-services can access the MARB actions report....you are comeing a little late to this hunt if you are concerned about privacy.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on April 01, 2012, 09:30:50 PM
Volunteers train until they get it right, professionals train until they can't get it wrong.
I as well as most all of the unit I am in STRIVE to be professionals.
That assumes that vlunteers can't be professionals?
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on April 02, 2012, 01:16:05 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 02, 2012, 12:48:39 AM
Quote from: PHall on April 02, 2012, 12:46:43 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 02, 2012, 12:41:56 AM
Again outside of a name there is no PII involved in the action or the posting and your problem is what?
He's just doing what he does best. TROLLING
Yeah I figured.
Hey, it is quite simple, yes remove the individuals name and unit of assignment, and ID unit only by the region of assignment. Also I would restrict this to the members only access area and not in any way give total public access to this. Again notice that now any cadet appeals will not be placed in the public domain, so the policy makers have a wide latitude in what they choose to publish.
Once again what is the compelling reason for public access to an appeal decision on an adverse action??? Can an appealing member restrict this public access/disclosure ??? Up until that appeal EVERYTHING else related to the adverse action was a private matter between the individual CAP member and CAP's internal chain of command. So now the organization decides to disclose this appeal in the public domain with complete identifying information -- Frankly this looks to me like retaliation against the individual for submitting an appeal >:(
I'm not trolling, and really this is just good public relations policy NOT to be releasing this kind of negative information to the public at large. Listing it in "Volunteer Now" on the internet gives everyone access to this negativity. Most members would want to resolve this privately not for it to be disclosed in the public domain (or course unless they give specific authorization to do this) Seriously, no one including the BOG can figure that one out ??? :( :-[
RM
Many organizations disclose negative information on a daily basis. If you are so hung up on it I recommend you be appointed to NEC or BOG and change it.
Maybe it has to do with the uniqueness of our organization, and the appropriated funds that allow most of what we do to happen?
Just sayin'..
Quote from: lordmonar on April 02, 2012, 01:22:46 AM
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on April 01, 2012, 09:30:50 PM
Volunteers train until they get it right, professionals train until they can't get it wrong.
I as well as most all of the unit I am in STRIVE to be professionals.
That assumes that vlunteers can't be professionals?
No, you stop being a "volunteer" when you pick up the mentality of a professional, and present yourself as one too. You are still volunteering your time, but it is on a professional level. JMHO
In fairness to the OP, whom I usually disagree with, the MARB publication matter is one where two different "goods" are in competition with one another in a zero-sum scenario.
It would be good for volunteers to be able to pursue every last avenue of our internal grievance programs without their name hitting Google and the general unpleasantness going public.
It would be good for a volunteer organization to pursue the virtue of transparency such that the sunlight of full disclosure keeps the organization honest, especially if that organization is often criticized for having an incestuous governance system.
Given the choice between an individual's desire for personal privacy while pursuing (in most cases) a second or third appeal, and the organization's duty to demonstrate that it is not covering up its own bad actions, I vote for transparency.
But give RM some slack, it is a dilemma, though, IMO, he's on the wrong side.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on April 02, 2012, 01:16:05 AMHey, it is quite simple, yes remove the individuals name and unit of assignment, and ID unit only by the region of assignment. Also I would restrict this to the members only access area and not in any way give total public access to this. Again notice that now any cadet appeals will not be placed in the public domain, so the policy makers have a wide latitude in what they choose to publish.
Once again what is the compelling reason for public access to an appeal decision on an adverse action??? Can an appealing member restrict this public access/disclosure ??? Up until that appeal EVERYTHING else related to the adverse action was a private matter between the individual CAP member and CAP's internal chain of command. So now the organization decides to disclose this appeal in the public domain with complete identifying information -- Frankly this looks to me like retaliation against the individual for submitting an appeal >:(
I'm not trolling, and really this is just good public relations policy NOT to be releasing this kind of negative information to the public at large. Listing it in "Volunteer Now" on the internet gives everyone access to this negativity. Most members would want to resolve this privately not for it to be disclosed in the public domain (or course unless they give specific authorization to do this) Seriously, no one including the BOG can figure that one out ??? :( :-[
RM
It is not retaliation.....it is vindificaiton or resolution.
As for a good reason for it to be public? The entire MARB concept is so that individuals can't be shut off into the dark somewhere due to politics or retaliation. Go look at the MARB reports already published.....most of them are about reports or retaliation. So.....the MARB report is the final once and for all....everybody get's his name in the paper on this one....action.....so everyone needs to make sure that they got their ducks in a row and they really want to go down that route.
Pubilishing the information with out the names......is useless in the form of keeping the organisation honest. A) Everyone who knows.....know who you are taking about. Takes about 30 seconds to figure it out. B) A wing commander or 2b appeal board needs to keep in mind that their name may appear in the paper one day over this....so they need to do their job right.
Quite frankly, the only thing that makes most of those who appeal up to the MARB look bad is the fact that so many of them lose because they weren't smart enough to get the paperwork in on time. Those who follow the proper procedures seem to have a decent chance of getting the original adverse action reversed.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 02, 2012, 01:54:40 AM
It is not retaliation.....it is vindificaiton or resolution.
As for a good reason for it to be public? The entire MARB concept is so that individuals can't be shut off into the dark somewhere due to politics or retaliation. Go look at the MARB reports already published.....most of them are about reports or retaliation. So.....the MARB report is the final once and for all....everybody get's his name in the paper on this one....action.....so everyone needs to make sure that they got their ducks in a row and they really want to go down that route.
Pubilishing the information with out the names......is useless in the form of keeping the organisation honest. A) Everyone who knows.....know who you are taking about. Takes about 30 seconds to figure it out. B) A wing commander or 2b appeal board needs to keep in mind that their name may appear in the paper one day over this....so they need to do their job right.
Well IF the member who is appealing authorizes the release of the results to the general public than so be it. Otherwise this is personal sensitive information that needs to be protected from unauthorized disclosure. That should be part of an election the member can make at the time he/she submits the appeal package. IF they don't want public release, than the results aren't released to the public. As you see in the new regulation, cadet appeals will no longer be published.
"CAP Volunteer Now" is primarily for external audiences of CAP. It should NOT be utilized to publish adverse action appeal results. Personally, I really don't think the general public has a compelling interest to have access to this negative sensitive personal appeal information. Also Mr. Google and other search engines are going to find and keep this forever. Any member appealing needs to be aware of this and the potential adverse effect this may have on them many years later, and having nothing to do with CAP. CAP has a members only website called CAP E Services, and IF anything is going to be published it should be on that "protected" site, and specifically annotated with some sort of protection statement, since it is likely that at least some of the membership might have an interest in these results. Personally, I have little interest in looking at any of this adverse action appeals, since it has NO effect on me.
Also I question why information from January 2007 is still on the website when a new action is just posted to that same sheet in pdf format. That's over 5 years ago, why does this information remain on the website for so many years ??? What is the retention policy for posting this adverse personal sensitive information to the website ???
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on April 02, 2012, 03:50:46 AM
As you see in the new regulation, cadet appeals will no longer be published.
I think it says cadet
names will no longer be published.
And once again RADIOMAN015 we ask, why are you still a member? You never, ever have anything good to say about CAP.
Of course how you can associate with a bunch of wannabes is beyond me. And have said in the past that CAP is nothing but a bunch of wannabes.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on April 02, 2012, 03:50:46 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 02, 2012, 01:54:40 AM
It is not retaliation.....it is vindificaiton or resolution.
As for a good reason for it to be public? The entire MARB concept is so that individuals can't be shut off into the dark somewhere due to politics or retaliation. Go look at the MARB reports already published.....most of them are about reports or retaliation. So.....the MARB report is the final once and for all....everybody get's his name in the paper on this one....action.....so everyone needs to make sure that they got their ducks in a row and they really want to go down that route.
Pubilishing the information with out the names......is useless in the form of keeping the organisation honest. A) Everyone who knows.....know who you are taking about. Takes about 30 seconds to figure it out. B) A wing commander or 2b appeal board needs to keep in mind that their name may appear in the paper one day over this....so they need to do their job right.
Well IF the member who is appealing authorizes the release of the results to the general public than so be it. Otherwise this is personal sensitive information that needs to be protected from unauthorized disclosure. That should be part of an election the member can make at the time he/she submits the appeal package. IF they don't want public release, than the results aren't released to the public. As you see in the new regulation, cadet appeals will no longer be published.
"CAP Volunteer Now" is primarily for external audiences of CAP. It should NOT be utilized to publish adverse action appeal results. Personally, I really don't think the general public has a compelling interest to have access to this negative sensitive personal appeal information. Also Mr. Google and other search engines are going to find and keep this forever. Any member appealing needs to be aware of this and the potential adverse effect this may have on them many years later, and having nothing to do with CAP. CAP has a members only website called CAP E Services, and IF anything is going to be published it should be on that "protected" site, and specifically annotated with some sort of protection statement, since it is likely that at least some of the membership might have an interest in these results. Personally, I have little interest in looking at any of this adverse action appeals, since it has NO effect on me.
Also I question why information from January 2007 is still on the website when a new action is just posted to that same sheet in pdf format. That's over 5 years ago, why does this information remain on the website for so many years ??? What is the retention policy for posting this adverse personal sensitive information to the website ???
RM
Again the only information given out is the members name, unit and wing and basics on the action and decision nothing else is put out that can even be considered PII or FOUO so where is your
legitimate issue with it? This is the same as a news story printing a suspects name and basic information on their alleged crime and you do not see the suspect having a choice if its printed or not.
The door swings both ways, anyway.
I know of a member who was a Captain, got demoted to 1st Lt and removed from his wing staff position at the same time because he filed a legitimate FWA complaint and the wing commander was told "Hey, Captain X filed an FWA complaint against you."
He asked me "What do I do?" Since it was clear the demotion was retaliatory in nature (trust me, it was), I pointed him at the MARB and he filed a MARB appeal. The MARB saw that the demotion was retaliatory in nature, as well. They restore him to Captain and published in the CAP News (the Volunteer wasn't around yet) that he'd been restored in rank. The entry in CAP News was quite clear about the restoration, and it named the wing commander who demoted him.
A) If the action is MARB'able, and you're the appellant, and you've done nothing wrong (ie. you have a good case), then what do you care if your name gets published or not?
B) If the action is MARB'able, and you're the appellant, and you're appealing because you clearly screwed but you want to see if the MARB will get you off on a technicality, well, hey, you screwed up, Jack. Nobody's fault but yours. Take your lumps.
C) If the action is MARB'able and you're the appellant, and you lose, what exactly do you care?
I tend to lean toward more transparency rather than less.
Quote from: PA Guy on April 02, 2012, 04:07:42 AM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on April 02, 2012, 03:50:46 AM
As you see in the new regulation, cadet appeals will no longer be published.
I think it says cadet names will no longer be published.
As far as I know, cadet names never been published. This is not a new regulation. The only real changes deal with the makeup of the board and who may vote on particular appeals. The "change" posted in the OP is only a change in nomenclature. It is not anything new that results of MARB decisions have been published. I have no idea why we are discussing this as if it were something new.
Quote from: ß τ ε on April 02, 2012, 05:10:50 AM
Quote from: PA Guy on April 02, 2012, 04:07:42 AM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on April 02, 2012, 03:50:46 AM
As you see in the new regulation, cadet appeals will no longer be published.
I think it says cadet names will no longer be published.
As far as I know, cadet names never been published. This is not a new regulation. The only real changes deal with the makeup of the board and who may vote on particular appeals. The "change" posted in the OP is only a change in nomenclature. It is not anything new that results of MARB decisions have been published. I have no idea why we are discussing this as if it were something new.
That's the point I've been making.
The only change to this portion of the reguation was changing "CAP Online News" to "VolunteerNow".
NOTHING ELSE CHANGED. Names have been published for some times. This revised regulation
makes no changes to the publication of names.
Cadet names are released. I was aware of the CTWG incident, but didn't know the cadet's name until I saw it in the MARB report.