New CPP Codified - Updated 52-10

[Storm Chaser]

I've known my best friend since high school. We were cadets in the same squadron. We were best man at each other's wedding. He's enlisted and I'm an officer.

According to the AFI and other applicable regulations, we can't be friends as that's considered fraternization, which is prohibited. Is the Air Force really expecting us to stop being friends?

We were in the same unit once. We maintained a professional relationship on base and in uniform. We avoided anything that could be construed as favoritism or improper behavior. We didn't stop being friends or socializing outside of work. Everyone knew we were friends, but we never gave a reason for anyone to complain or address our friendship. But according to regulations, our friendship and socialization was still considered fraternization.

We can through blanket prohibitions around, but real life is different. Good judgment needs to be exercised. If military commanders and leaders can do that, how come in CAP, a civilian volunteer organization, they can't?

[Brit_in_CAP]

Accident liability has nothing to do with Cadet Protection Policy, yet is quoted in CAPR 52-10? Why?

I doubt a blanket prohibition could be enforced and/or disciplinary actions taken blindly. CAP cannot control the personal lives of its members. If a close friend asks me to give his kid a ride, I'm not going to refuse just because the kid happens to be a cadet. While CAP has an obligation to protect its members, hence CPPT, it has no legal authority to prevent someone from doing their friend a favor. But if I chose to give my friend's kid a ride, my friend and I assume the risk and potential liability. That's what the regulations says.

Yes, the regulation about transportation, which does not speak to, or negate the other rules regarding CPPT.  I'd be willing to bet the relevent transport regs will be amended to synch with the CPT ones, but even if they aren't, that doesn't change anything.

People can do mental gymnastics about "personal time", but a ride to a CAP meeting or other activity
is clearly covered by CPPT.

I've had a positive experience in CAP as well, but that doesn't change the fact that those very
rides to a meeting could be considered the grooming behavior discussed in the updated regs.

Like both of you, I've had a very positive experience in my short time with CAP, and I certainly intend to stay with the organization.

That said, I agree with Eclipse; giving rides to a meeting is clearly covered by CPPT.

This really saddens me as I attended many of my Air Training Corps meetings thanks to a Civilian Instructor who had to drive past our home to get to the HQ; he was kind enough to transport me when my parents could not.  Whilst cadet transport isn't a problem for the squadron now it could be in the future, and I can see us having to arrange parent car pools or devising some arrangement whereby we have another Adult Leader (CPP term) to act as 'co-pilot'.

Even if Eclipse and I were both wrong I still wouldn't transport a single cadet of either gender; the general attitude in society towards child protection leads me to think that my innocent and helpful attitude will be misconstrued by somebody, somewhere.  If I had to do so in an emergency - last cadet left stranded at the meeting for example - you can be sure I'd be calling the parents / guardians long before the cadet became the last cadet and I'd be sending my written account of the matter to the CC, for my own protection let alone the cadet's protection.

One more instance of where the language in the rewrite is poorly constructed.

[Eclipse]

According to the AFI and other applicable regulations, we can't be friends as that's considered fraternization, which is prohibited. Is the Air Force really expecting us to stop being friends?

This has nothing to do with senior members, and there's no point introducing unrelated issues, they just muddy the discussion.

[Storm Chaser]

According to the AFI and other applicable regulations, we can't be friends as that's considered fraternization, which is prohibited. Is the Air Force really expecting us to stop being friends?

This has nothing to do with senior members, and there's no point introducing unrelated issues, they just muddy the discussion.

Maybe according to you. I see the comparison very relevant. Fortunately, it's not up to you to determine that.

[Brit_in_CAP]

I've known my best friend since high school. We were cadets in the same squadron. We were best man at each other's wedding. He's enlisted and I'm an officer.

According to the AFI and other applicable regulations, we can't be friends as that's considered fraternization, which is prohibited. Is the Air Force really expecting us to stop being friends?

We were in the same unit once. We maintained a professional relationship on base and in uniform. We avoided anything that could be construed as favoritism or improper behavior. We didn't stop being friends or socializing outside of work. Everyone knew we were friends, but we never gave a reason for anyone to complain or address our friendship. But according to regulations, our friendship and socialization was still considered fraternization.

We can through blanket prohibitions around, but real life is different. Good judgment needs to be exercised. If military commanders and leaders can do that, how come in CAP, a civilian volunteer organization, they can't?

During my own A/F service I was in the same situation; my two closest friends were NCOs and we'd been friends since we were Corporals together on the same base.  My Flight Commander at my first posting as a technician was close friends with the E-7  - they had been Apprentices on the same entry.  Nobody knew and even when they did, they didn't care because it was clear that neither side took advantage of the situation.

You're right - good judgment and good manners, if I may add that, come into play.  Common sense is required, and on both sides.  Nobody seriously expects friendships to stop because of changes in career paths.

I think, sadly, that in the arena of CPP, common sense and good manners went to lunch - and didn't come back.

[Storm Chaser]

Since obviously my interpretation of this regulation is different from that of other members, I'm going to ask the question in the CAP Knowledgebase to seek clarification. I could very well be wrong and will have to adapt as required. Regardless, erring on the side of caution or with the most conservative response is appropriate.

I suspect one of two things are going to happen. If KB disagrees with my interpretation, then Eclipse will point out how I was wrong and he knew it all along. But if they agree, then he'll point out how they have no authority to make such determination. I guess we'll see what happens.

[Eclipse]

According to the AFI and other applicable regulations, we can't be friends as that's considered fraternization, which is prohibited. Is the Air Force really expecting us to stop being friends?

This has nothing to do with senior members, and there's no point introducing unrelated issues, they just muddy the discussion.

Maybe according to you. I see the comparison very relevant. Fortunately, it's not up to you to determine that.

How is a relationship between senior members relevent to a discussion about proper behavior involving cadets?

One relationship is prohibited or restricted depending on the circumstance, once isn't even mentioned, anywhere, at all
(frankly to the detriment of CAP< but that is a separate discussion.

I suspect one of two things are going to happen. If KB disagrees with my interpretation, then Eclipse will point out how I was wrong and he knew it all along. But if they agree, then he'll point out how they have no authority to make such determination. I guess we'll see what happens.

Neither of those statements, necessarily, is potentially false.  In this case, however, this is not an "interpretation" issue,
it's either in the text or it isn't.

If you choose to make your life more difficult for some reason, so be it, but there's zero rules about senior-member relationships.

You also leaped from "senior driving a cadet" to "senior driving a senior" - not clear why you made that jump.

[Storm Chaser]

If you choose to make your life more difficult for some reason, so be it, but there's zero rules about senior-member relationships.

Actually I don't. But I also don't like bullies and that's your overall attitude in CAP Talk and I suspect, sadly, in CAP. In every discussion we have, you're always "right". Even when countless others disagree. If there's a gray area in the regulation, your interpretation is the only one that can be "correct". Heck, maybe you're right on this particular issue, but it doesn't change what I'm saying about your overall attitude.

And for the record, my comparison wasn't referring to senior member relationships; I was trying to illustrate how blanket rules can't be applied blindly in every situation. But as usual, you failed to see the point I was trying to make and were quick to come up with judgement.

You also leaped from "senior driving a cadet" to "senior driving a senior" - not clear why you made that jump.

I did not. Reread my post and pay attention to detail.

[Eclipse]

Agree or disagree, but don't get personal.

Countless?  Bully?  Please.

Interestingly, in this case, there's literally no gray here, but the risk to leaving it unchallenged (as with many other
similar issues on CT), is that it put an idea in the head of a 1/2-attentioned reader, and before you know it we
have more wive's tales.

And for the record, my comparison wasn't referring to senior member relationships; I was trying to illustrate how blanket rules can't be applied blindly in every situation. But as usual, you failed to see the point I was trying to make and were quick to come up with judgement.

No, I got it - you reached for an example that breaks your point because it's apples and oranges.

In this particular case, the "blanket rule" is done on purpose.

Just because you "know" someone doesn't mean you won't abuse them, and a prior relationship, family, friend, or otherwise,
is where a lot of this kind of thing starts.  CAP simply wants no part of the risk, for anyone, simply for the sake of the perceived convenience
of one of the parties.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Agree with Eclipse.

If it is not mentioned in the rules, ie the rules do not address senior-to-senior behavior, do not raise the issue of "what-if" since some here will now think "the rules stated... I read it in CAPTalk.net." Or start looking where in the regs it is addressed.

[Storm Chaser]

Agree or disagree, but don't get personal.

I'm not trying to get personal. I made a comparison. You didn't think it was valid. But instead of just saying that, you accused me of "muddy[ing] the discussion".

Countless?

Maybe not regarding this issue, but regarding many others... yes.

Bully?  Please.

You push your weight around like if you're the only one with knowledge, the only one with experience, the only one with an opinion that counts. I've read your many posts (thousands of them) and that is what you do. You even do that with other members who clearly are more experienced and qualified than you.

I don't mind disagreeing. I also don't mind debating. But we need to be respectful about it and you're not always so. We only need to do a search here in CAP Talk to confirm what I'm saying.

But you know what, I think we've derailed this discussion enough. I understand what you're saying about this regulation. And it's obvious that you think my interpretation is incorrect. Instead of trying to prove you wrong (which it's not my intention), I want to seek clarification from an authoritative source and, in the mean time, I will err on the side of caution in regards to this policy and ensure that there's always three members in the vehicle. Good day.

[Storm Chaser]

Agree with Eclipse.

If it is not mentioned in the rules, ie the rules do not address senior-to-senior behavior, do not raise the issue of "what-if" since some here will now think "the rules stated... I read it in CAPTalk.net." Or start looking where in the regs it is addressed.

Captain, may I ask where exactly did I address senior-to-senior behavior? Because I'm pretty sure I didn't. Please reread my post and pay close attention. Nowhere did I address what you and Eclipse are saying.

[Luis R. Ramos]

I've known my best friend since high school. We were cadets in the same squadron. We were best man at each other's wedding. He's enlisted and I'm an officer...

Maybe I am wrong, but this means there is an ongoing relationship. Since you are beyond cadet age, it means you are still doing it as seniors.

If you are not carrying it out now, then use the past tense. As in "He was enlisted and I was an officer."

[Eclipse]

You push your weight around like if you're the only one with knowledge, the only one with experience, the only one with an opinion that counts. I've read your many posts (thousands of them) and that is what you do. You even do that with other members who clearly are more experienced and qualified than you.

Yes - my considerable, non-admin, "same voice as everyone else" "weight".

Make an argument, or don't - but don't get upset when someone disagrees, or doesn't simply accept
misguided interpretations.

My opinion is either accepted or disregarded on merits.  Outside what AOR I might have at the time, it's got
no more authority then anyone else's, the KB, and certainly less the the chain of the person or issue
being discussed.

That doesn't mean just because someone else has local authority, that makes their interpretation
"correct", or even a good idea, it just means they have the final say in that AOR.

[Storm Chaser]

I've known my best friend since high school. We were cadets in the same squadron. We were best man at each other's wedding. He's enlisted and I'm an officer...

Maybe I am wrong, but this means there is an ongoing relationship. Since you are beyond cadet age, it means you are still doing it as seniors.

If you are not carrying it out now, then use the past tense. As in "He was enlisted and I was an officer."

Sir, you had to keep reading.

According to the AFI and other applicable regulations, we can't be friends as that's considered fraternization, which is prohibited. Is the Air Force really expecting us to stop being friends? (emphasis mine)

This comparison had nothing to do with CPPT, but with the fact that regulations can't always be applied blindly across the board, as every situation is different. That good judgement, especially on the command side, should be exercised.

[Storm Chaser]

Make an argument, or don't - but don't get upset when someone disagrees, or doesn't simply accept
misguided interpretations. (emphasis mine)

There we go again. Well, I guess that's just Eclipse.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Another thing, why do you bring the Air Force here? This is the CAP and the regulation concerns CAP behavior, not Air Force behavior. This is what causes unecessary confusion and back-and-forth.

[Eclipse]

This comparison had nothing to do with CPPT, but with the fact that regulations can't always be applied blindly across the board, as every situation is different. That good judgement, especially on the command side, should be exercised.

So in this case you use an example where you willfully violated a very clear regulation, one
intended to discourage nepotism and insure good order, because you "knew better", and want to
use that as an argument in favor of command discretion in a matter related to cadet safety?

This is literally the reason we >have< blanket regulations, because people who "know better"
can't simply follow simple rules.

[Storm Chaser]

Another thing, why do you bring the Air Force here? This is the CAP and the regulation concerns CAP behavior, not Air Force behavior.

Seriously? I was making a comparison; nothing more, nothing less. It was my post; if you don't think it's relevant to the discussion, you're certainly entitled to that opinion. But how can you pass judgment when you didn't even read or interpret the post correctly to begin with?

And if you haven't figured it out yet, we are the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary. We wear military style uniforms and grade insignias and ribbons and badges. We have military style titles. And use Air Force money to accomplish many of our missions. So why can't I use an example of my experience in the Air Force?

[Luis R. Ramos]

Did not read it correctly...?

Again, this was a result of you adding things to regulations! If you want to post items that way then you haver to accept there are people that will read them incorrectly. And the cycle goes on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on... on... and on...