1949 Problems - CAP Uniforms, Grade and Saluting

The following is excerpted from a 1978 transcript of an oral interview with Mr. Harold C. Stuart, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Civil Affairs from 1949 to 1951.  CAP came under his office. 
The USAF structure included at the time:
Chief of Staff - Gen Hoyt S. Vandenberg
Special Assistant for Reserve Affairs Section
Lt. Gen. Elwood R. Quesada - Special Assistant
Lt. Col. William L. Todd - Executive for Civil Air Patrol and Air Scouts

In reading the transcript "the reader should remember that this is essentially a transcript of the spoken, rather than the written word."

In pages one through ten, Mr. Stuart discusses the Air Force Reserve and Guard and the issues they had between themselves and the fledgling active Air Force. Then he gets to this:

"We also had the Air ROTC and the Civil Air Patrol. We had problems with the Civil Air Patrol that was made up of non military people and generally those who had never served or did not serve on active duty in the Air Corps, but flew as civilians, flew with their own aircraft on submarine patrol, and search and rescue missions during the war and after the war.

The main problem there, they made fast promotions. People were named colonel and each state had so many of them with wealth and who had airplanes who were named colonel. And, they had uniforms identical to the Air Force uniforms. They would wear an insignia identical to the Air Force with a small blue patch that designated them as Civil Air Patrol. There is a great deal of resentment among the reservists and the Guard and the regular Air Force, those on active duty.

At various conventions or meetings, the heads of the Civil Air Patrol were commandeering military vehicles. The younger officers and enlisted personnel were saluting and taking some direction not knowing they were Civil Air Patrol. They had a political impact. They were organized virtually in every state and insisted on keeping the Air Force rank and uniforms.

I endeavored to change their insignia or their rank such as using the strips on the arm as is done in many foreign countries as designating their rank or maybe referring to them as the Canadians or rank that the Canadians or the British had when the air forces are distinguished from the Army. I was pretty close, or I think I was pretty close to accomplishing that up until the time that I went back into my private law practice."
---------------------
Part of his bio included with the transcript:
[Mr. Stuart] enlisted in the Army Air Forces in August 1942. His active duty included assignments as an intelligence officer with the 497th Fighter Bomber Squadron at Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Headquarters Ninth Air Force in Europe, and the SHAEF mission to Norway. After he left active duty in February 1946, he remained in the Air Force Reserve.

In addition to his service as Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Stuart actively participated in a variety of civic and business affairs following World War II. His Air Force related activities included being president of the Air Force Association, 1951 1952, and special consultant to the Secretary of the Air Force, 1961 1963. Mr. Stuart also served as chairman of the board of the Air Force Academy Foundation.
--------------
Full transcript: http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/stuarth.htm

Mike

Imagine how big of a problem this was if it was elevated to the AS of the AF for Civil Affairs level.

Fascinating.  Thanks,

There were also a lot of issues in that timeframe between the Air National Guard and the active Air Force.  The ANG was often seen as a "flying club" full of officers who did not take military affiliation seriously, and who would fall back on the "but we belong to the State" when called upon for AF operations.  Back then, ANG aircraft were not allowed to carry USAF titling unless called to FAD.





However, many CAP aircraft flew with U.S. AIR FORCE titling along with CAP identifiers:





I have long been an advocate for distinctive (that word again) rank insignia for CAP officers; the Royal Dutch Air Force derived theirs from the RAF (a lot of Dutch served in RAF squadrons in WWII) and would look good on us.


Second Lieutenant


First Lieutenant


Captain


Major


Lieutenant Colonel


Colonel


Brigadier General (National Deputy CC)


Major General

...but then you get those who say "I don't want to look like Tony McPeak/the Navy/the Coast Guard/the Airlines/anything but what we look like now."

Nonetheless, a rather interesting article.

"We also had the Air ROTC and the Civil Air Patrol. We had problems with the Civil Air Patrol that was made up of non military people and generally those who had never served or did not serve on active duty in the Air Corps, but flew as civilians, flew with their own aircraft on submarine patrol, and search and rescue missions during the war and after the war.

Mike that was interesting. I quoted what I thought the highlight was. CAP is civilians and always will be. Thank you for sharing. 

The main problem there, they made fast promotions. People were named colonel and each state had so many of them with wealth and who had airplanes who were named colonel. And, they had uniforms identical to the Air Force uniforms. They would wear an insignia identical to the Air Force with a small blue patch that designated them as Civil Air Patrol. There is a great deal of resentment among the reservists and the Guard and the regular Air Force, those on active duty.

At various conventions or meetings, the heads of the Civil Air Patrol were commandeering military vehicles. The younger officers and enlisted personnel were saluting and taking some direction not knowing they were Civil Air Patrol. They had a political impact. They were organized virtually in every state and insisted on keeping the Air Force rank and uniforms.

Fascinating.

One man's "commandeering a vehicle" is another's "using the vehicle assigned and Lt Whiner doesn't like it...". There's far too little
detail here to make any real inferences, except that CAP members causing their own issues by not understanding their place
in the universe is nothing new.

It only takes one goofball to wreck it for everyone, and if the goofball's commander isn't vigilant and willing to keep them in
check, Bob's your uncle...

You're not my uncle.   

I read the report.  It reinforces what I said about how the ANG at that time really didn't fit into the Air Force structure.

I have very often thought - and this is from a former ANG member - that it is really redundant to have both an Air National Guard and an Air Force Reserve.  A former supervisor of mine who did a tour at the Pentagon in the ANG section of the NGB readily agreed.  He said "you would not want to see the jockeying among Governors as to who gets the next allocation of F-16's...it's a prestige issue."

I personally wonder why a State Governor needs a wing of F-16's or A-10's.  To me, it would be far more cost-effective to roll those combat units into the Air Force Reserve, as well as rolling direct-combat units of the ArNG into the Army Reserve, while maintaining a capability of supporting the active Army and Air Force as needed, but with units that could be more useful at the State level.  To me, the C-27 would be the ideal aircraft for the Air National Guard.  It would fill the role of transport for which using C-130s would be far too expensive (such as providing parachute training for the Army), yet at the State level could be easily configured into DR/Air Ambulance, as well as transporting ArNG troops for contingencies like disaster relief and riot control.



The issues raised by the report WRT CAP being top-heavy with field-grade officers is almost identical to some complaints I have heard about SDF's.  When I first joined CAP, my SDF was also trying to recruit me (but they said I couldn't be a member of both - go figure) and were going to pin WO-1 on me immediately just because I had an associate's degree in Computer Information Systems.

As far as the report's rightful condemnation of CAP officers using authority they didn't have to procure items they had no right to, that is a behaviour issue much more than a uniform issue.  Eclipse is right, it takes one goofball to wreck it for others.

The uniform could be chopped and changed until the end of time and there would still be goofballs trying to do that.

The Governor of a state does NOT get to pick what kind of aircraft that are assigned to their state's Air National Guard.
They can make their preferences known to the National Guard Bereau, but the NGB is not obligated to follow them.

True.
http://www.leagle.com/decision/20081443558FSupp2d885_11372.xml/BLAGOJEVICH%20v.%20GATES
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/385/768/2441165/

The Air National Guard has a dual role as the air component of the state militia and a reserve component of the Air Force when federalized. It has its place and the Air Force Reserve, which is solely a federal component, cannot replace it or fulfill many of its state functions. The ANG is as necessary as the AFRES and both are an important part of the Air Force total force. In fact, the ANG has proven its worth in many conflicts, to include the War on Terror and the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, among others.

While transport aircraft can be a vital asset to the states, fighter aircraft can play an important role in air defense. In the end, it's not up to the governors, but up to Congress and the DoD and USAF to determine where these assets are located.

As a side note, the C-27 pictured is from the Ohio ANG at Mansfield Lahm Airport, Mansfield OH. The were to take the place of the C-130's which had been at Mansfield for some time. The C-27's are now gone, and the C-130's are back in service!

The Governor of a state does NOT get to pick what kind of aircraft that are assigned to their state's Air National Guard.
They can make their preferences known to the National Guard Bereau, but the NGB is not obligated to follow them.

I did not intend to imply that the Governor gets to pick an ANG unit's aircraft.  My point was that my former supervisor who worked in the NGB described intense politicking among Governors in "making their preferences known."

The Air National Guard has a dual role as the air component of the state militia and a reserve component of the Air Force when federalized. It has its place and the Air Force Reserve, which is solely a federal component, cannot replace it or fulfill many of its state functions. The ANG is as necessary as the AFRES and both are an important part of the Air Force total force. In fact, the ANG has proven its worth in many conflicts, to include the War on Terror and the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, among others.

While transport aircraft can be a vital asset to the states, fighter aircraft can play an important role in air defense. In the end, it's not up to the governors, but up to Congress and the DoD and USAF to determine where these assets are located.

I never, ever meant to demean the ANG.

I was in the ANG, in a Tactical Fighter Wing.  In fact, we would sometimes joke about going to war with other states if they didn't "straighten up and fly right."

My point was not to say the ANG should be disbanded or is somehow inferior to the AFRES.  I never intended that.

My point was to say that I found it somewhat illogical that the ANG, with its dual mission, has historically had the bulk of the Air Reserve Forces' fighter aircraft, and that the AFRES, which is Federal-only, has historically been transport-orientated (with many notable exceptions, of course).  It seems to me that it would be more useful the other way around - with the ANG being able to serve their State and Federal missions more effectively with transport orientation, and for the AFRES to handle the fighter mission of Air Defence of the CONUS as a solely Federal mission.  I also questioned the efficacy of a Governor having need of fighter/attack aircraft under his/her command.

In fact, a few years ago, the former Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, got into a tussle with the Air Force when, during a round of BRAC, he tried to refuse giving up the F-16's of the 183rd Fighter Wing at Springfield on the grounds that they were "his" aircraft, except when the unit was called into Federal service (see Eclipse's citation).  It didn't wash, and Blagojevich later went to prison on an unrelated matter.

Curiously, the 183rd still calls itself a Fighter Wing, though it has no aircraft and has a very multidisciplinary augmentation role.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/183rd_Fighter_Wing

But hey, whattheheck do I know...I was just trying to state an opinion, not disrespect anyone or anything...and I seem to have fallen flat on my empennage trying to get that across.

As a side note, the C-27 pictured is from the Ohio ANG at Mansfield Lahm Airport, Mansfield OH. The were to take the place of the C-130's which had been at Mansfield for some time. The C-27's are now gone, and the C-130's are back in service!

I know.  Based on my lack of success as a former Guard member on offering opinions having to do with the fine men and women of the ANG being misinterpreted, I will say nothing about the circumstances of the unit at Mansfield changing aircraft.

 

My point was to say that I found it somewhat illogical that the ANG, with its dual mission, has historically had the bulk of the Air Reserve Forces' fighter aircraft, and that the AFRES, which is Federal-only, has historically been transport-orientated (with many notable exceptions, of course).  It seems to me that it would be more useful the other way around - with the ANG being able to serve their State and Federal missions more effectively with transport orientation, and for the AFRES to handle the fighter mission of Air Defence of the CONUS as a solely Federal mission.  I also questioned the efficacy of a Governor having need of fighter/attack aircraft under his/her command.

If you were Congress and wanted to limit a President's ability to make and sustain war for a long period without popular support, how would you configure the Reserve Components of each military department? Would you put the major combat formations in the components assigned to the several states and the combat support assets in the federal component?

Right or wrong, there is a valid reason for the current configuration.

Colonel, since I have apparently stumbled over myself already, I am going to limit what I say.

I know the current configuration of the Guard is due to its descent from the State militias - prior to the Militia Act of 1903 (also called, wait for it, the Dick Act), the National Guard was much more under state control and a lot harder to call into Federal service than it is now.  It was more like today's State Guards/State Defence Forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

Also, the Air Force's origins in the Army played a part.

I remember my dad telling me that when he was in the Guard in the 1950s, he did not have to go to Army Basic Training - it was all done at the local unit.  However, when he went active duty he had to go to Basic Training at Fort Hood (he got out of the Guard and started his paperwork to join the Navy, but got drafted into the Army - don't ask me how, I never knew and he's not around anymore for me to ask).

After WWII but before the Air Force became independent, the National Guard of course had aviation units.  Sometimes they did not even display the USAF roundel, as this Delaware F-47 shows:



When the Air Force became independent, it brought the Air National Guard in with it, as well as creating an Air Force Reserve - that's all I will say on my very limited thumbnail sketch of skewed history.

I am also curious as to why there have not been state National Guard versions raised of the Marine Corps, Navy and Coast Guard (and I'm not talking about Naval Militias/SDFs, like Ohio and New York have).  I would think that it could be allowed Constitutionally.



With regard to CAP, on paper I think we are closer to the Air Force than the ANG is, because we do not have dual-status as State/Federal.

Beyond that...


 

With regard to CAP, on paper I think we are closer to the Air Force than the ANG is, because we do not have dual-status as State/Federal.

The dual corporate / auxiliary isn't getting us sitting closer at the table, either, not to mention the lack of a
command chain that flows through from the USAF.

The dual corporate / auxiliary isn't getting us sitting closer at the table, either, not to mention the lack of a command chain that flows through from the USAF.

Problem 1 is as much our fault, if not more, than the USAF's.  CAP in the 1990s wanted to be more "corporate," with "less interference" from the AF, though we still wanted our flying hours paid for.  Be careful what you wish for...

Problem 2 - 

The dual corporate / auxiliary isn't getting us sitting closer at the table, either, not to mention the lack of a command chain that flows through from the USAF.

Problem 1 is as much our fault, if not more, than the USAF's.  CAP in the 1990s wanted to be more "corporate," with "less interference" from the AF, though we still wanted our flying hours paid for.  Be careful what you wish for...

Problem 2 - 

CAP did not wish to be more "corporate" in the 1990s.  The Air Force went through some large budget cuts which led to the removal of all Air Force employees assigned to run CAP HQ.  It was also the beginning of the end of the LO structure below region.  In 1994 (if I remember correctly) , CAP's AF employees became CAP corporate employees. This also coincided with a new C&BL drawn up under, then National Commander Rich Anderson.  This was all done with the consent of the Air Force and Congress.  In 1998, the GAO finally realized CAP was not a government entity.  New legislation was passed, things changed, time went on, and we have the current structure.  CAP changed because of realities it had to deal with.  "Wants" had little to do with it. 

Actually, if it was up to CAP, the pre-1994 structure of CAP would have been just fine.

With regard to CAP, on paper I think we are closer to the Air Force than the ANG is, because we do not have dual-status as State/Federal.

I've served in the Air National Guard as well and can't agree with this statement.

With regard to CAP, on paper I think we are closer to the Air Force than the ANG is, because we do not have dual-status as State/Federal.

I've served in the Air National Guard as well and can't agree with this statement.

Just being pedantic.