As far as I can determine, there aren't any official rules or regulations relating to CAP unit lineage as there are for military units. So, I have some questions for those members of the group who care about such things:
1. Should we treat units that have been assigned a charter number as distinct and separate units even if they are from the same town? For example, if Smithtown Composite Squadron was chartered from 1960-1970 as #33 and when CAP started again in that city they received charter number #99, are they two units? If we apply "standard" lineage rules, they would be considered two separate units and the #99 unit could not claim the lineage and honors that had been conferred on #33.
2. The above example is pretty straightforward, but what if the #99 squadron decided to call itself the Smithtown Composite Squadron just like #33 did? Does the charter number trump squadron name in terms of unit lineage or since the official name of the unit is the same, could it be considered a reactivation of an old unit, in which case the new Smithtown unit could claim the lineage and honors of the old one?
In other words, should we treat the charter number as nothing more than an internal accounting number adopted for bookkeeping purposes or should we treat it as the defining aspect of unit identity?
FYI, CAP started using charter numbers for units in the early 1950s, which leads to the next question:
3. Assume you had a unit that started in a town during WWII and that diseappared sometime after that. When a new CAP unit was started in that town later on (and got a charter number), could the new unit claim the original unit in that town as part of its lineage?
[darn] good questions. I don't know the answers.
Two times that I know of a unit was assigned a new charter number:
First, after several moves over 30+ years, the orignal charter certificate got lost. They requested a new copy and were assigned a new unit number. Appearently, the system for printing charter certificates won't allow reusing of a charter number.
Second time, the unit changed from a composite squadron to a senior squadron.
IMHO, units being re-established in an area should be able to retain the heritage, charter number and name. It does help tie into the history of the community. If they are not going to use the same name, then I would consider it a new unit, not the reactivation of an old unit, thus not appropriate to use the old number, history, and honors.
FYI, I am aware of a town that used to have a CAP unit and when CAP started up again they asked for and received the charter number and name of the CAP unit that used to be in that town. I would consider that a pretty straightforward reactivation of the old unit.
Now, issuing a new charter number because the unit switched from cadet to composite or something like that doesn't seem "right" to me. After all, military units can change very drastically in terms of what they do and often retain the same numeric description and reteain the honors and lineage. However, that and the other example you brought up throws a few more flies in the ointment.
^ Units that change names are not issued new charter numbers unless it is requested. My old squadron changed from a cadet to a composite squadron and kept the same charter number.
I think however, when a squadron is deactivated, its charter number goes back "in the Que and is reassigned to the next new squadron activated in the wing. If a squadron is reactivated years later, the "old" number has been taken. I think the important thing is reestablishing the name of the squadron. Charter numbers have already changed because of computer programing. (37001 is now NER-PA-001). Then again, it would be really relevent if there was an actual connection between the old and new units (old pictures, files, etc.).
I don't think they're generally recycling old numbers like that. If you check the Organization Table in a CAPWATCH database download they have both charter numbers and charter dates. A quick look at a couple of states seems to indicate that they are issuing brand new charter numbers in numerical sequence. That is how it has been done with the last three new units in my state rather than re-using old numbers.
You do bring up a good point about the charter number changes over time. However, we have cases where the unit name changes but the charter number stays the same as well.
It just gets more complicated the more you think about, doesn't it?
Charter numbers are not reassigned - for example, my old unit was CO-188. There are not 188 units in COWG. When a new unit is chartered, it receives a new charter number not a previously assigned, but unused number.
As for new charter numbers being assigned to units, I can only speak about the unit I was in that received a new charter number twice as I listed below. YMMV.
Overall, it sounds like there is no standard or published rules. Perhaps someone should look into writing such rules and getting them accepted as a regulation.
River, this is one of things which makes me think about something else; like a nice cold drink on a hot day, waiting for some burgers and hot dogs to finish up on the grill. ;D
Happy Labor Day to all.
I did that yesterday, which is why my brain was recharged enough to try to take this on today. :)
Quote from: arajca on August 31, 2008, 03:32:02 PM
Charter numbers are not reassigned - for example, my old unit was CO-188. There are not 188 units in COWG.
I think that the reason for that may stretch back to the dawn of the computer age when they started assigning these numbers. We know that charter numbers were originally assigned alphabetically, and it appears that the numbers for each wing did not start at 0 based on what I've seen in my wing and probably yours. I imagine there was some sort of logic as to what the first charter number would be for each wing, but I don't know what it was.
After that original assignment of charter numbers, it appears that they started going in numerical order as new units were organized.
Does anyone know if there is master list of previously used charter numbers and deactivated units? I wonder if some folks starting units know if there was one previously in the area.
Ms. Suzie Parker is the resident expert on data such as that. It's amazing what knowledge she has. If you're really interested, send her an email.
I bet there is a master list of charter numbers and unit names, but I doubt that it is linked with activation and deactivation dates. It looks like they only started entered charter dates in CAPWATCH in the late 1990s. It would be nice to think the other information is still on paper somewhere...
Quote from: RiverAux on August 31, 2008, 04:00:50 PM
I bet there is a master list of charter numbers and unit names, but I doubt that it is linked with activation and deactivation dates. It looks like they only started entered charter dates in CAPWATCH in the late 1990s. It would be nice to think the other information is still on paper somewhere...
Its not - we have local evidence of (presumed) existence of one unit to March 1942, but NHQ could only substantiate the charter to the 70's when the charter was reissued.
I suspect that units that came into existence and folded prior to the start of charter numbers in the 1950s are not going to easily be found within national records.
While there are issues of "direct lineage," I have always considered the history of CAP in a given area to be undeniably linked.
Thus, CAP Coastal Patrol #15 in Corpus Christi back in the 1940s is a part of the CAP heritage of the area. Also, all the other units that existed back in the 20th century; such as the San Patricio Composite Squadron, the original Alice/Kingsville Composite Squadron and even others, that do not exist and are lost to time.
The history of those units is grayly lost...yet, they encompass CAP in South Texas. I regard the stewardship of that history as a component of our unit's heritage.
I agree with you in general. However, "heritage" is a much looser term than "lineage" in terms of military history. For example, the Texas National Guard can certainly claim the heritage of militia units that operated in the state since its founding, however, a particular unit of the Texas NG can only claim the lineage of a specific militia unit with which it has a direct connection.
So, in this case, I certainly wouldn't have a problem with the local Corpus Christi squadron mentioning the presence of the CAP patrol base or previous units, however I don't think it would be right to claim the actual lineage of those units by for example saying that the Corpus Christi Composite Squadron fought in World War II as Coastal Patrol Base 15. I don't think you were actually saying that by the way, just using that as an example.
So, what I am actually interested in is the more narrow definition of unit lineage. Now, it is not entirely unknown in the military community for the honors and lineage of an inactive unit to be assigned to an entirely new unit or to an existing unit. And, I wouldn't actually have a problem with that, however, I think it would only be acceptable if done as part of a formal CAP honors and lineage program and that such actions be officially sanctioned by CAP NHQ. In other words, Smithtown Composite Squadron couldn't on its own claim the lineage of the Smithtown Squadron that operated there in World War II, but if NHQ said it could, then it would be "legal". The services seem to have provisions for that sort of thing in their programs and given the way CAP has worked over the years, we would probably want to do the same.
Keep in mind that I am applying generally accepted principles of military organizational history that do not officially apply to CAP, but that which perhaps should be used.
Understood. You are correct.
Currently, we are forming a unit identity. We have choosen to "rally" behind the insignia of CAP Coastal Patrol Base 15, mostly since it represents something that is truly "CORPUS CHRISTI CAP." We thus, incorporated it into our current unit patch and even, honor the aviators of that time, included the name of that other unit to demonstrate that we "continue" the heritage of that unit's dedication to Civil Air Patrol in South Texas.
In that sense, the Corpus Christi Comp Squadron carries on the tradition first begun by those 1940s area aviators. We selected that symbol, the "WOLF" because it made more sense to us to take something distinctively CAP in Corpus (check the Library of Congress's American Memory Project for photos) than to create some "artificial" symbol for the unit from City of Corpus Christi monikers...fact is the number of CC-CAP officers living in Corpus Christi proper vastly outweighs those that do not (a good number are from Kingsville, Calallen, Portland and Ingleside.)
We claim the heritage, lineage is another matter altogehter.
Quote from: RiverAux on August 31, 2008, 02:02:28 PM
As far as I can determine, there aren't any official rules or regulations relating to CAP unit lineage as there are for military units. So, I have some questions for those members of the group who care about such things:
1. Should we treat units that have been assigned a charter number as distinct and separate units even if they are from the same town? YES For example, if Smithtown Composite Squadron was chartered from 1960-1970 as #33 and when CAP started again in that city they received charter number #99, are they two units? If we apply "standard" lineage rules, they would be considered two separate units and the #99 unit could not claim the lineage and honors that had been conferred on #33. Lineage is a DIRECT tie in to an exisitng person or group that has no BREAK in between.
2. The above example is pretty straightforward, but what if the #99 squadron decided to call itself the Smithtown Composite Squadron just like #33 did? No they could have a similar name but distinct. They could call it the Smithtown East Composite Squadron but should not use the same name. This could cause a problem in the future. Lets say SM 1 at Smithtown has a CPPT violation, members at the other Smithtown are not goingt o be associated with them. Does the charter number trump squadron name in terms of unit lineage (first come first serve) or since the official name of the unit is the same, could it be considered a reactivation of an old unit, in which case the new Smithtown unit could claim the lineage and honors of the old one? Should never claim awards or anything else you or the unit was not directly involved in by either membership at the time or participation.
In other words, should we treat the charter number as nothing more than an internal accounting number adopted for bookkeeping purposes or should we treat it as the defining aspect of unit identity? Defining aspect of unit identity.
FYI, CAP started using charter numbers for units in the early 1950s, which leads to the next question:
3. Assume you had a unit that started in a town during WWII and that diseappared sometime after that. When a new CAP unit was started in that town later on (and got a charter number), could the new unit claim the original unit in that town as part of its lineage?
No they can claim the heritage but not the lineage becaue it did not have a DIRECT line of succession. Any break and it becomes a heritage factor.
Quote from: arajca on August 31, 2008, 02:15:40 PM
[darn] good questions. I don't know the answers.
Two times that I know of a unit was assigned a new charter number:
First, after several moves over 30+ years, the orignal charter certificate got lost. They requested a new copy and were assigned a new unit number. Appearently, the system for printing charter certificates won't allow reusing of a charter number.
Second time, the unit changed from a composite squadron to a senior squadron. The status of the unit changed but they should still claim the lineage because it is direct linkage.
IMHO, units being re-established in an area should be able to retain the heritage, (I agree heritage yes but unless it was a DIRECT extension of the original it would not be a lineage.) charter number (new charter # should be issued, but could use the same name if wanted) and name. It does help tie into the history of the community. If they are not going to use the same name, then I would consider it a new unit, not the reactivation of an old unit, thus not appropriate to use the old number, history, and honors.
Quote from: arajca on August 31, 2008, 03:47:09 PM
Does anyone know if there is master list of previously used charter numbers and deactivated units? I wonder if some folks starting units know if there was one previously in the area.
None directly that I know of. I have seen some short lists but nothing extensive.
My definiton of Lineage: A DIRECT link to a person or group with no break inbetween. This could be activation dates or participation.
My definition of Heritage: An association tied in with a particular person or group but will have a break somehwhere in the line.
For example I had my family background researched many years ago.
The heritage information I was given after a couple of years and lots of green was this.
Heritage - My family heritage was associated with the Scottish and Irish which I have on 1 side of my family. My heritage is of both sides.
My families coat of arms has a DIRECT lineage to the Third Earl of Fife in the 1600's and a unbroken family line has been proven through historical records. I use the Coat of Arms and can claim lineage to the line but claim the heritage of both Scottish and Irish (primarily Irish).
From the corporate perspective:
Company a founded in 1980 buys a company founded in 1890 and becomes one. The Corp can now claim the 1890 date because they have established an unbroken line.
Thanks for your comments which pretty much follow generally accepted principles.
My only point of difference would be that it is legitimate to reactive an old unit by giving its number (and therefore its honors and lineage) to a "new" unit. The military does this as a routine matter even if there is no direct connection between the members of the old unit and the new and even if there is a break of decades. For CAP purposes I would only allow such a reactivation of an old charter number when the "new" unit is in the same town as the old one. For example, if the Army wanted to reactivate a division that last saw action in WWII, they could do so and assign the name, symbols, motto, history, and honors to the reactivated unit.
Maj. C, I don't think I can go along with the uses you are making of the insignia of CP Base 15 as you describe them. I think that steps over the line. Granted, since there is no official CAP guidance on such things, as long as your Wing Commander approves the symbol, it is "legal"... I just don't think it is right to do so.
I would have to say that reusing the exact same image or patch from a previous unit would give the wrong impression. maybe using elements of the patch perhaps but not the same.
CAPR 20-3 seems to have the closest thing we have to a rule on unit lineage....
Quote9. Reactivation of Former Units. Deactivated units may be reactivated at the discretion of the wing commander upon proper application and payment of the usual charter fee. Original name and charter number may be requested.
Quote from: RiverAux on August 31, 2008, 08:18:14 PM
Maj. C, I don't think I can go along with the uses you are making of the insignia of CP Base 15 as you describe them. I think that steps over the line. Granted, since there is no official CAP guidance on such things, as long as your Wing Commander approves the symbol, it is "legal"... I just don't think it is right to do so.
The patch was approved by the Wing and Region Commanders and encouraged thusly. The color of the original was changed (original "pinks and greens" were changed to blue) slightly to reflect the "new" nature of the new patch.
I don't see anything wrong with our patch, it is a homage to the original CAP presence in our area. No different than a San Antonio unit using the Alamo in its patch or a Massachusetts one using a colonial Minuteman.
I know of a situation in NJWG where a unit was renamed to honor a deceased former member, and then some years later a new unit was chartered with the olde name and a new charter number.
Quote from: Major Carrales on August 31, 2008, 10:53:22 PM
I don't see anything wrong with our patch, it is a homage to the original CAP presence in our area. No different than a San Antonio unit using the Alamo in its patch or a Massachusetts one using a colonial Minuteman.
Except that here we are talking about the appropriation of a symbol associated with a very specific unit by another that has no direct connection to it. Just because it was approved as per current CAP patch regulations doesn't mean that it is "right".
But, I don't want to get too far off track on the symbolism issue. As long as your members aren't being taught and don't get the idea that previous members of the squadron were hunting subs during WWII, I suppose its good enough for now as far as unit lineage goes.
Quote from: RiverAux on August 31, 2008, 11:22:27 PM
But, I don't want to get too far off track on the symbolism issue. As long as your members aren't being taught and don't get the idea that previous members of the squadron were hunting subs during WWII, I suppose its good enough for now as far as unit lineage goes.
All it is is an
hommage to the past heritage of CAP is South Texas, nothing more...nothing less.
Reading anymore into it or the intent behind its use (other than local unit morale, based on pride in general CAP service in WWII) is somewhat disingenuous.