What constitutes "active participation"?

[JeffDG]

Thou shalt be not slapping an officer:  CAPR 35-5 is the authority for demotions.

CAPR 35-5, Section 1-9, Demotions:

1-9. Demotions. If an officer fails to perform the duties satisfactorily or
conducts himself or herself in a manner unbecoming his or her grade, the
unit commander will recommend demotion to an appropriate grade. The unit
commander will initiate this action on a CAPF 2, which will be routed through
channels to the promoting authority, who is also the demoting authority. The
demoting authority will indicate concurrence or non-concurrence and sign the
CAPF 2. If the demoting authority concurs, he or she will forward it to
National Headquarters for validation; if the demoting authority non-concurs,
he or she will return it through channels to the unit commander.

I've always wondered about that reg...who is the demoting authority?

So, let's say I'm a Group Commander and someone on my staff screws up royally, but not quite royally enough to 2b them.  I want to demote them from Maj to Capt.  So, it says:  "which will be routed through channels to the promoting authority, who is also the demoting authority."

Which one?  He's currently a Major (Promoting Authority=Wing Commander), but I want to demote to Capt (Promoting Authority=Group Commander).  It's horribly written and unclear.  Something like "routed through channels to the promoting authority for the member's current grade" would make that so much more clear.

[JeffDG]

The situation I have a problem with is where a Group Commander provides advice to a Squadron Commander and advises that termination is in order, or worse yet, directs the Squadron Commander to terminate, then accepts jurisdiction over the appeal him/herself.

That is a problem, and IMHO is a violation of due process.  If the group commander has a problem with a member, he should initiated the 2B. This isn't rocket science... though it may be a uniform issue...

What I've been saying, but Eclipse keeps claiming that it is the NHQ deisgned process to pre-clear the 2b.

[Alaric]

Thou shalt be not slapping an officer:  CAPR 35-5 is the authority for demotions.

CAPR 35-5, Section 1-9, Demotions:

1-9. Demotions. If an officer fails to perform the duties satisfactorily or
conducts himself or herself in a manner unbecoming his or her grade, the
unit commander will recommend demotion to an appropriate grade. The unit
commander will initiate this action on a CAPF 2, which will be routed through
channels to the promoting authority, who is also the demoting authority. The
demoting authority will indicate concurrence or non-concurrence and sign the
CAPF 2. If the demoting authority concurs, he or she will forward it to
National Headquarters for validation; if the demoting authority non-concurs,
he or she will return it through channels to the unit commander.

I've always wondered about that reg...who is the demoting authority?

So, let's say I'm a Group Commander and someone on my staff screws up royally, but not quite royally enough to 2b them.  I want to demote them from Maj to Capt.  So, it says:  "which will be routed through channels to the promoting authority, who is also the demoting authority."

Which one?  He's currently a Major (Promoting Authority=Wing Commander), but I want to demote to Capt (Promoting Authority=Group Commander).  It's horribly written and unclear.  Something like "routed through channels to the promoting authority for the member's current grade" would make that so much more clear.

As a personnel officer I have always channeled it through the promoting authority that approved the last rank.  Of course in my last Wing there were groups for only a small period of time, so the Wing would have been promoting authority for both Captain and Major

[Майор Хаткевич]

The situation I have a problem with is where a Group Commander provides advice to a Squadron Commander and advises that termination is in order, or worse yet, directs the Squadron Commander to terminate, then accepts jurisdiction over the appeal him/herself.

That is a problem, and IMHO is a violation of due process.  If the group commander has a problem with a member, he should initiated the 2B. This isn't rocket science... though it may be a uniform issue...

What I've been saying, but Eclipse keeps claiming that it is the NHQ deisgned process to pre-clear the 2b.

Pre-clearing was your verbiage, not his.

[JeffDG]

Thou shalt be not slapping an officer:  CAPR 35-5 is the authority for demotions.

CAPR 35-5, Section 1-9, Demotions:

1-9. Demotions. If an officer fails to perform the duties satisfactorily or
conducts himself or herself in a manner unbecoming his or her grade, the
unit commander will recommend demotion to an appropriate grade. The unit
commander will initiate this action on a CAPF 2, which will be routed through
channels to the promoting authority, who is also the demoting authority. The
demoting authority will indicate concurrence or non-concurrence and sign the
CAPF 2. If the demoting authority concurs, he or she will forward it to
National Headquarters for validation; if the demoting authority non-concurs,
he or she will return it through channels to the unit commander.

I've always wondered about that reg...who is the demoting authority?

So, let's say I'm a Group Commander and someone on my staff screws up royally, but not quite royally enough to 2b them.  I want to demote them from Maj to Capt.  So, it says:  "which will be routed through channels to the promoting authority, who is also the demoting authority."

Which one?  He's currently a Major (Promoting Authority=Wing Commander), but I want to demote to Capt (Promoting Authority=Group Commander).  It's horribly written and unclear.  Something like "routed through channels to the promoting authority for the member's current grade" would make that so much more clear.

As a personnel officer I have always channeled it through the promoting authority that approved the last rank.  Of course in my last Wing there were groups for only a small period of time, so the Wing would have been promoting authority for both Captain and Major

Reading it purposefully, in addition to literally, I would come to the same conclusion.  Otherwise the Squadron Commander for Maj Gen Courter's unit (she's a member of a MIWG squadron now) could demote her to 1st Lt.

But just putting those few words in there would eliminate the question.

[JeffDG]

The situation I have a problem with is where a Group Commander provides advice to a Squadron Commander and advises that termination is in order, or worse yet, directs the Squadron Commander to terminate, then accepts jurisdiction over the appeal him/herself.

That is a problem, and IMHO is a violation of due process.  If the group commander has a problem with a member, he should initiated the 2B. This isn't rocket science... though it may be a uniform issue...

What I've been saying, but Eclipse keeps claiming that it is the NHQ deisgned process to pre-clear the 2b.

Pre-clearing was your verbiage, not his.

If there's no discussion or back-and-forth, why on earth wouldn't you just send the completed paperwork as specified in the regulation?  If you're not looking for advice, pre-notification serves no purpose whatsoever, and only serves to erode the due process rights of the member.

And despite MULTIPLE requests, he's not cited one regulation or other directive that makes this the "NHQ designed process" as he claims.

[Alaric]

The situation I have a problem with is where a Group Commander provides advice to a Squadron Commander and advises that termination is in order, or worse yet, directs the Squadron Commander to terminate, then accepts jurisdiction over the appeal him/herself.

That is a problem, and IMHO is a violation of due process.  If the group commander has a problem with a member, he should initiated the 2B. This isn't rocket science... though it may be a uniform issue...

What I've been saying, but Eclipse keeps claiming that it is the NHQ deisgned process to pre-clear the 2b.

Pre-clearing was your verbiage, not his.

If there's no discussion or back-and-forth, why on earth wouldn't you just send the completed paperwork as specified in the regulation?  If you're not looking for advice, pre-notification serves no purpose whatsoever, and only serves to erode the due process rights of the member.

And despite MULTIPLE requests, he's not cited one regulation or other directive that makes this the "NHQ designed process" as he claims.

I'd like him to know its coming under the "don't surprise your boss" doctrine.  If I send the paperwork on the same day to both the person I am 2b'ing and the group commander, it is quite possible that the member will receive it first and call the group commander.  Giving the group/CC a heads up that its coming at least allows him to say "Sorry Captain Doe, I haven't received the paperwork yet, but will be happy to discuss your appeals rights with you."  Or worse, if Captain Doe is a friend of the Wing/CC calls him, who calls down the chain, he can say, yes I was aware sir, I don't have any details yet. 

[lordmonar]

Thou shalt be not slapping an officer:  CAPR 35-5 is the authority for demotions.

CAPR 35-5, Section 1-9, Demotions:

1-9. Demotions. If an officer fails to perform the duties satisfactorily or
conducts himself or herself in a manner unbecoming his or her grade, the
unit commander will recommend demotion to an appropriate grade. The unit
commander will initiate this action on a CAPF 2, which will be routed through
channels to the promoting authority, who is also the demoting authority. The
demoting authority will indicate concurrence or non-concurrence and sign the
CAPF 2. If the demoting authority concurs, he or she will forward it to
National Headquarters for validation; if the demoting authority non-concurs,
he or she will return it through channels to the unit commander.

I've always wondered about that reg...who is the demoting authority?

So, let's say I'm a Group Commander and someone on my staff screws up royally, but not quite royally enough to 2b them.  I want to demote them from Maj to Capt.  So, it says:  "which will be routed through channels to the promoting authority, who is also the demoting authority."

Which one?  He's currently a Major (Promoting Authority=Wing Commander), but I want to demote to Capt (Promoting Authority=Group Commander).  It's horribly written and unclear.  Something like "routed through channels to the promoting authority for the member's current grade" would make that so much more clear.

You go by current rank.  It take a wing commander to make him a major....it takes a wing commander to make him a captain again.

[FW]

The situation I have a problem with is where a Group Commander provides advice to a Squadron Commander and advises that termination is in order, or worse yet, directs the Squadron Commander to terminate, then accepts jurisdiction over the appeal him/herself.

That is a problem, and IMHO is a violation of due process.  If the group commander has a problem with a member, he should initiated the 2B. This isn't rocket science... though it may be a uniform issue...

What I've been saying, but Eclipse keeps claiming that it is the NHQ deisgned process to pre-clear the 2b.

Pre-clearing was your verbiage, not his.

If there's no discussion or back-and-forth, why on earth wouldn't you just send the completed paperwork as specified in the regulation?  If you're not looking for advice, pre-notification serves no purpose whatsoever, and only serves to erode the due process rights of the member.

And despite MULTIPLE requests, he's not cited one regulation or other directive that makes this the "NHQ designed process" as he claims.

I'd like him to know its coming under the "don't surprise your boss" doctrine.  If I send the paperwork on the same day to both the person I am 2b'ing and the group commander, it is quite possible that the member will receive it first and call the group commander.  Giving the group/CC a heads up that its coming at least allows him to say "Sorry Captain Doe, I haven't received the paperwork yet, but will be happy to discuss your appeals rights with you."  Or worse, if Captain Doe is a friend of the Wing/CC calls him, who calls down the chain, he can say, yes I was aware sir, I don't have any details yet.

As a squadron commander, one has a certain authority to ACT.  This includes a termination of membership action on a member under your command.  Asking the group (or wing commander) for advice or permission serves no useful purpose.  Yes, it's tough to be a commander, and sometimes you need to be tough to make a decision which is best for the unit and CAP.  It is not a good idea to "run it by the boss" first.  That's why CAP, has a CAPR 35-3.  The process actually works.  Not following the process invites MARP review. 
I kind of smell "CYA actions" and indecisiveness; not command...

[lordmonar]

That's where I was saying it is a grey area.

It is natural for a subordinate to call up the boss and ask advice, mentoring, santity check.

But in this case doing so violates due process.

Now...there are lots of other people in the wing you can call and ask for help.

Wing/group personnel officer, wing JA, other peer commanders.   They all can be consulted with out violating due process. (assuming they don't sit on the appeal board).

it is not like you are really all alone out there.   

[Storm Chaser]

JeffDG, I've yet to see a single citation from CAP regulations stating that notifying the commander at the next echelon prior to filing a termination action is prohibited, a conflict of interest or against due process.

Let me draw a map.  Not everything is contained in the regulations

So there's no citation. Got it.

This is what I see. There are several intelligent and experienced members on this board arguing different interpretations or points of view regarding the regulation and proper process. That tells me that we need clarification from those with authority to provide it. Better yet, CAPR 35-3 should be updated so that there's no question about the proper process to be followed when (and before) a termination action is initiated.

Until then, we're going to continue going in circles.

[FW]

^ There is a difference between sending copies of a termination action to the approving authority and above (notification), and asking for advice or "preclearing" with the approving authority; which can be considered a violation of due process.  Is regulatory clarification needed for this?

Besides, going in circles is one of CT's favorite pastimes...

[lordmonar]

JeffDG, I've yet to see a single citation from CAP regulations stating that notifying the commander at the next echelon prior to filing a termination action is prohibited, a conflict of interest or against due process.

Let me draw a map.  Not everything is contained in the regulations

So there's no citation. Got it.

This is what I see. There are several intelligent and experienced members on this board arguing different interpretations or points of view regarding the regulation and proper process. That tells me that we need clarification from those with authority to provide it. Better yet, CAPR 35-3 should be updated so that there's no question about the proper process to be followed when (and before) a termination action is initiated.

Until then, we're going to continue going in circles.

Storm....it is the other way around.   35-3 does emphatically state commanders who have been tainted should not appoint the appeals board.   

8. Action to Be Taken on Appeal. Normally, within 10 days of the receipt of a timely appeal from a member, the approving authority will appoint an appeal board on orders and name a chairperson thereto to consider the appeal and report its findings. In the event the approving authority is determined by the next higher level commander to be disqualified from making the final decision due to an impermissible conflict of interest, the next higher level commander shall appoint another commander at the same level to act as the approving authority and appoint the appeal board. For example, if a region commander determines that a wing commander has an impermissible conflict of interest, the region commander shall appoint another wing commander within the region to appoint an appeal board and decide the outcome of the appeal. The appeal board will consist of a minimum of three CAP officers, including the chairperson, who should be equal or higher in grade to that of the terminated member. Only those members who can impartially judge the case will be appointed to serve on the appeal board. Appeal Board orders should have limited distribution to only those involved in the case. In circumstances in which the National Commander is the initiating commander, the approving authority shall be the National Vice Commander, and the conflict of interest rules in this section shall not apply.

The proper procedures are spelled out.

Initiate the 2b.  Send two copies to the member, to next higher command, the wing commander, NHQ and one for the records.  See Attachment 3.

No where in the regulation does it say "before you initiate a 2b contact your approving authority to notify them of action"  Or "before you initiate a 2b contact the approving authority for advice/approval".

So.....there is nothing to interpret.   Any contact prior to initiation of the 2b could constitute a violation of due process.

If you follow the process as spelled out in the reg.....then there is no problem what so ever.

This is the sort of stuff we should be teaching in UCC and CLC instead of the current curriculum.

[Tim Medeiros]

This is the sort of stuff we should be teaching in UCC and CLC instead of the current curriculum.

You mean we actually teach the ins and outs of CAP?  Would never happen 

[Eclipse]

JeffDG, I've yet to see a single citation from CAP regulations stating that notifying the commander at the next echelon prior to filing a termination action is prohibited, a conflict of interest or against due process.

Let me draw a map.  Not everything is contained in the regulations

Everything relevent to this conversation is, and as soon as you have to start trotting out common law,
and external legal precedents, you're well outside of anything relevent to the normal course of CAP business.
The JAs and others make decisions about what is important to members and how they should comport themselves,
and the regulations are drafted as such.  Beyond that, 100% irrelevant.

CAP guarantees due process. 

Yes, it does, and that due process is outlined within the regs, with the MARP being the final authority as to a breach of such.

Any member who feels their termination came without it, is free to appeal to the MARP, which is theoretically as impartial
and as close to the Supreme Court of CAP in this regard as is available.

Quoting external legal statutes because you think they apply, doesn't mean they do, nor does it change what members have,
and will continue to do.

Your continued assertions that Commanders discussing personnel matters as a normal course of business, including
terminations, constitutes a de facto breach of process, are simply incorrect.  Like everything in CAP, there's always potential
for abuse everywhere, but that isn't the same as the defacto condition.

If NHQ felt it did, then those discussions would be specifically prohibited during the termination process, however, they are very clearly >not<.

You keep making assertions that my failure to cite "something" somehow makes your argument, yet you
have not cited anything relevent to CAP or within the regulations that supports your arguments beyond the
common sense idea that there "might be abuse" for which the MARP is the safety valve.

"Might be" does not equal "always is", nor does it inform, direct, or prohibit any action on the part of the commanders involved.

What you may be discounting is that disciplinary terminations stand or fall based on the merits and evidence of the charge,
not some pre-conceived idea that "awareness = collusion". 

[lordmonar]

If NHQ felt it did, then those discussions would be specifically prohibited during the termination process, however, they are very clearly >not<.

Like all the other contradictory, or inadequate regulations NHQ puts out?

In this thread very thread you pointed out how the reg governing prospective members is not enforceable (the three meetings in 30 days rule).
 
Not everything is in the regs....if it were...we would not need leaders in the field.

[Eclipse]

If NHQ felt it did, then those discussions would be specifically prohibited during the termination process, however, they are very clearly >not<.

Like all the other contradictory, or inadequate regulations NHQ puts out?

Absolutely agree on that, though our agreement doesn't magically support Jeff's assertion.
When Leaders are consistently trained, vetted, and receive a clear message, then the ambiguities
and conflicts can be left to the field.  CAP, sadly, has no consistent training, vetting, or message.

In this thread very thread you pointed out how the reg governing prospective members is not enforceable (the three meetings in 30 days rule).

Can't really argue this, either.  It's wholly enforceable, but from a practical perspective not always a good idea.
Again, no clear message - what is important in regards to membership?  Quantity or quality?
And why isn't there a allowance for times when there aren't three meetings in 30 days, or the CC is comfortable
excusing one or more of the three?
 

Not everything is in the regs....if it were...we would not need leaders in the field.

Here we part ways.  CAP would be much better on the whole if people just did what the regs say.
The structure is there, if people would just take the time to read it. 

The kind of stuff we get into it about here are almost always edge cases.

[lordmonar]

Here we part ways.  CAP would be much better on the whole if people just did what the regs say.
The structure is there, if people would just take the time to read it. 

The kind of stuff we get into it about here are almost always edge cases.

Yep.

Where in the regs does it say you MUST 2b your empty shirts.

and now we are back to where we began.   

[Eclipse]

Where in the regs does it say you MUST 2b your empty shirts.

Nowhere, and I have never made the assertion it's required.

Critical to CAP's future?  Command responsibility?  A matter of integrity? Yep.

Required? Nope.

[JeffDG]

Where in the regs does it say you MUST 2b your empty shirts.

Nowhere, and I have never made the assertion it's required.

Critical to CAP's future?  Command responsibility?  A matter of integrity? Yep.

Required? Nope.

Ahhh..so when you want something done your way that's not in the regs, it's a breach lf integrity not to do it your way, just because you say so.

I quote actual legal authority for something that is in the regs, just not defined, and "everything relevant is is in the regs"

Give me a break.  How arrogant can someone be!