CAP Talk

General Discussion => Membership => Topic started by: 05grpcc on May 13, 2005, 12:02:10 AM

Title: National HQ
Post by: 05grpcc on May 13, 2005, 12:02:10 AM
As a former AF member and an eighteen year USAF auxiliary member (LTC)and one who is in favor of moving closer to the AF,why are we not under the direct control of the AF in the same manner as the Coast Guard Aux is under command of the active duty CG?
They are allowed to work along side active CG personell and are treated as equals not as a redheaded step child(CAP)
Title: Re: National HQ
Post by: abysmal on May 13, 2005, 12:18:08 AM
that question ought to get you LOTS of interesting replies....
Title: Re: National HQ
Post by: Pylon on May 13, 2005, 12:30:01 AM
It is a very sensitive subject for many, but CAP and USAF seem to move in cycles of fraternity.  We've been on the outs with the USAF (remember the maroon epaulets?), and we've been pretty cozy with them at times too.  We seem to be on a building path with our CAP-USAF relationship now, as the AF slowly gives us more privileges and responsibilities.

It has been a bone of contention that CAP is marginalized often and not used to its full potential and sometimes regarded as a "pretend-AF."  It's true that CAP doesn't enjoy the same relationship to its parent service as does the CG Aux.  One thing to consider (though not an explanation), is that the CG Aux. is a bit different in that it does not have a Cadet Program. 
 
I unfortunately do not have the active duty AF nor the CG Aux. experience to compliment my CAP membership, and so I only have one viewpoint on this.
 
I'm sure others will chime in...
Title: Re: National HQ
Post by: SarDragon on May 13, 2005, 01:30:17 AM
For the simplest answer - CAP is a corporation, USCG Aux is not. According to their web site http://www.cgaux.info/g_ocx/ , USCG Aux constitutes the reserve component of the USCG. See also: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-o/cgaux/Publications/Brochures/USCG%20BROC.-1%20-2.pdf
Title: Re: National HQ
Post by: pixelwonk on May 13, 2005, 01:10:08 PM
Not quite...

The CGAux does have a corporation, but is not a corporation.  Get it?

Coast Guard Auxiliary Association, Inc. is the only corporation approved by the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard to support the activities of the U. S. Coast Guard Auxiliary. The corporation, also known as "CGAuxA", conducts affairs related to the National Board of the US Coast Guard Auxiliary but is a separate legal entity.
Read more (http://www.cgaux.org/cgauxweb/nbi.html)

The Aux is not the CG Reserve.  Like CAP, auxiliarists are uniformed, noncombatant, civilian volunteers for their parent service.  The USCG has a regular reserve, just like the rest of the services.  It's in interesting fact, however, that many auxiliarists performed the same duties as Active Duty Coasties under the "Temporary Reserve" in WWII.
Title: Re: National HQ
Post by: dwb on May 13, 2005, 01:54:16 PM
In my (admittedly uninformed) opinion, I think CAP is not under the direct control of the USAF simply because the USAF has no interest in managing the day-to-day operations of CAP.

In some ways, CAP is a service that the USAF pays for, almost like "outsourcing" part of its SAR role.

I pine for more USAF assistance, especially at lower echelons.  But that would require more funding, which the USAF is not comfortable with, and more oversight, which CAP is probably not fond of because it takes authority away from corporate officers.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: National HQ
Post by: abysmal on May 13, 2005, 02:06:57 PM
But that would require more funding, which the USAF is not comfortable with, and more oversight, which CAP is probably not fond of because it takes authority away from corporate officers.

BINGO!!

Thus you have the eternal viscous circle.

We want more support from them, they want more accountability from us.
We are a bunch of Civilians that have no legal obligation to the USAF, and they are a military organization which is used to holding all of its members 100% accountable for their every action.

In general the two camps will always be in opposition.
Title: Re: National HQ
Post by: Major_Chuck on May 13, 2005, 05:50:00 PM
I've watched this debate for the last fifteen years and I feel there are a number of factors, some work for us, some against.

First you have the whole 'corporation' versus 'auxiliary' status and just who the crap are we.  For the majority of us, CAP as a corporation means very little.  It allows the organization to solicite funds/donations;  remain a non-profit; operate like a business and charge dues; and keeps a fair degree of independence from the Air Force through the whole Board of Governors, NEC, etc.

I myself favor the Auxiliary status and dislike being considered part of a 'corporation'. 

We are moving closer to the Air Force and we have to be careful that some gung-ho fool who thinks that their CAP rank and new ID card (come October) entitles them to some unearned status with the Military won't screw things up.  The ID card, ranks, etc can go away real fast if the AF wanted it to.

I have found that military members will respect the rank we wear and the work we do as long as we don't come across as a bunch of wannabees playing military.  As long as we are professional in our dealings and actions and play the game by their rules we will do well.

God I hope we never go back to those awful maroon epaulets.

-Chuck
Title: Re: National HQ
Post by: abysmal on May 13, 2005, 06:15:52 PM
God I hope we never go back to those awful maroon epaulets.

I always liked the look of Maroon, but mine was on my beret....