MEMBERSHIP ACTION REVIEW BOARD Revised Regulation

[RADIOMAN015]

See:
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

[RiverAux]

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. 

[bflynn]

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.

[davidsinn]

You're an idiot. The MARB report is already publically available. Google already indexes it. Go crawl back under your bridge and quit trying to stir up trouble.

[RADIOMAN015]

You're an idiot. The MARB report 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  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



 

[JeffDG]

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:

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 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???

[davidsinn]

You're an idiot. The MARB report 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  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.

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.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

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.

[abdsp51]

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?

[RADIOMAN015]

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
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
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 
 

[whatevah]

You're an idiot. The MARB report 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.

[JeffDG]

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.

[abdsp51]

Again outside of a name there is no PII involved in the action or the posting and your problem is what?

[PHall]

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

[abdsp51]

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.

[FW]

BTW current MARB members can be found at:
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.

[RADIOMAN015]

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 



 

[lordmonar]

See:
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.

[lordmonar]

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?

[abdsp51]

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.