Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 21, 2019, 06:56:04 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: NEC Meeting, Air Force Control..
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All Send this topic Print
Author Topic: NEC Meeting, Air Force Control..  (Read 15795 times)
abysmal
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 519

« Reply #20 on: May 25, 2005, 11:47:58 PM »


But when you take a look at what the SF86 delves into... you have to wonder if being a volunteer and paying your own way is worth it.

I don't follow you on this.
What about it would in any way make it nor worth it???
Report to moderator   Logged
2LT Christopher M. Parrett
Deputy Commander of Cadets, Cadet Programs Officer
London Bridge Composite Squadron 501
SWR-AZ-112,  Lake Havasu City, Arizona
pixelwonk
Alt-F4 pilot
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,099

« Reply #21 on: May 25, 2005, 11:49:13 PM »


Our rank is nothing but a custom.  It would be nice if I was 'commissioned' but I am 'appointed' to my current rank and content with that. 

That's why I favor the warrant/flight officer grades we have discussed in the past.  Specifically because the AF does not have them, we would not be trying to show up or compete with anybody.  Let it be a rank system that is unique to CAP, while still reflecting the experience that the member brings to the table.  Let it also be a system where the CAP flight/warrant officer yields to ALL members of the military.   not unlike the CG Aux. (Even the  Aux National Commander would render a salute to an active Duty or Reserve Coastie.)

It would be interesting to do a study on what CAP grade/rank means to the adult members of CAP. 
(notice I didn't say SM, Chuck.  I know you hate the term Senior Member ;D )

Report to moderator   Logged
pixelwonk
Alt-F4 pilot
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,099

« Reply #22 on: May 25, 2005, 11:52:23 PM »


But when you take a look at what the SF86 delves into... you have to wonder if being a volunteer and paying your own way is worth it.

I don't follow you on this.
What about it would in any way make it nor worth it???

Is your volunteer time worth the invasion of your privacy to find out your Medical/Mental health history, credit/bank history, as well as finding out what your neighbors really think of you?  Those are the kinds of questions featured on the SF-86.
Report to moderator   Logged
abysmal
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 519

« Reply #23 on: May 25, 2005, 11:54:29 PM »

I think I am leaning toward going a step further than what your looking at.
I have NO problem at all with wearing the real military rank.
And I think that if you qualify to wear it, AND are willing to be held accountable to the USAF for it proper wear, and are in a position that it makes sence for you to be wearing it, then why not.

And for everyone else, use the alternate rank and alternate uniform.

Maybe its just because I am prior service, but I would have no problem at all in raising my right arm and taking another oath to serve and protect and being held fully accountable for all actions while in uniform, if I also got the priviliges that come with it.
Report to moderator   Logged
2LT Christopher M. Parrett
Deputy Commander of Cadets, Cadet Programs Officer
London Bridge Composite Squadron 501
SWR-AZ-112,  Lake Havasu City, Arizona
abysmal
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 519

« Reply #24 on: May 25, 2005, 11:57:18 PM »

Is your volunteer time worth the invasion of your privacy to find out your Medical/Mental health history, credit/bank history, as well as finding out what your neighbors really think of you?  Those are the kinds of questions featured on the SF-86.

Perhaps your asking the wrong question here.
I have 4 children, 2 of which could be in CAP, 1 of which is.

Do I really want to turn my children over to people in a volunteer quasi-military organization that are UNWILLING to go through the hoops of a SF-86 background check?

Once again this is all about accountability.
If not everyone, then shouldn't those in leadership positions be the MOST accountable to the organization??
Report to moderator   Logged
2LT Christopher M. Parrett
Deputy Commander of Cadets, Cadet Programs Officer
London Bridge Composite Squadron 501
SWR-AZ-112,  Lake Havasu City, Arizona
pixelwonk
Alt-F4 pilot
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,099

« Reply #25 on: May 25, 2005, 11:59:27 PM »

I dunno,  I have CAP-aged children myself and I am comfortable with the criminal background check that CAP does.

but that's just me.
Report to moderator   Logged
Slim
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 599

« Reply #26 on: May 26, 2005, 04:48:39 AM »


But when you take a look at what the SF86 delves into... you have to wonder if being a volunteer and paying your own way is worth it.

I don't follow you on this.
What about it would in any way make it nor worth it???

Is your volunteer time worth the invasion of your privacy to find out your Medical/Mental health history, credit/bank history, as well as finding out what your neighbors really think of you?  Those are the kinds of questions featured on the SF-86.

I decided it wasn't worth it for me.  I just couldn't figure out what had changed that now meant I couldn't pull duty at the station any more because I didn't have a security clearance.  And, since doing things like that were about 97% of the reason I joined in the first place, I just couldn't see the need any more.
Report to moderator   Logged

Slim
Slim
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 599

« Reply #27 on: May 26, 2005, 05:17:43 AM »

I think I am leaning toward going a step further than what your looking at.
I have NO problem at all with wearing the real military rank.
And I think that if you qualify to wear it, AND are willing to be held accountable to the USAF for it proper wear, and are in a position that it makes sence for you to be wearing it, then why not.

And for everyone else, use the alternate rank and alternate uniform.

And how is this not creating a situation of superiority/inferiority?  I'll be the first to stand up and admit that rank among seniors is like honor among thieves.  Your idea (and those that have gone before it--and there have been many), would do nothing but alienate many people who see service in CAP as the only way they can serve their country and community.  Let's not forget that our founding fathers were people who were possessed of special skills (pilots, radio operators, etc), but were for medical, age, or other reasons ineligible for service in the Army Air Corps.

You and I have communicated through this board on a few other issues where you were soliciting advice on a certain subject.  Would you have given any less credence or substance to my advice if my rank was listed as "Grand Poo-bah" instead of Major?

The _only_ real purpose of rank in the senior program is that it shows a certain amount of experience in the program, that the person has been a member at least 5-6 years, or came in with a special or mission related skill.

It just is not possible to compare a CAP Major to an Air Force Major (or any rank for that matter).  An AF major has been through one of the officer Ascension programs (ROTC, OTS or the Blue Zoo), ASBOC (or it's equivalent-help me out here folks), specialty training, and squadron officer's school.  They are all college educated (and in some pretty heavy programs), and willing to sign off a certain amount of time for the privilege of being there.

I've been through Level I, SLS, ECI  13/COP, and CLC.  I became a major at a time where most AF captains should be at about the halfway point of time-in service for promotion.  And I was a very senior captain (12 plus years) when I was finally able to make it to a CLC.  I'm a high school graduate with vocational training (EMT school) after.  The only college credits I have are what CCAF (or whatever it's called now) granted me for taking the CAP scanner and observer courses and ECI 13.  And I can leave it all behind tomorrow if I wanted to.

I never once tried to pass myself off as an Air Force major.  However, I am proud to say that I am a major in CAP, and that I did everything required (and then some) to earn the right to wear those golden oak leaves.

Also, just for the record (and anyone from CS will tell you), I'm one of those so-called second class members because I can't wear the AF style uniforms.  However, anyone who has ever seen me will tell you that I put just as much pride into the uniforms I do wear as anyone else.
Report to moderator   Logged

Slim
abysmal
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 519

« Reply #28 on: May 26, 2005, 03:47:20 PM »

Grand-Poo-Bah Freytag:

Lots of interesting thoughts in your post.

So, your concerned that we might create a "2nd Class" CAP senior member.
Question...
Why is it that ALL of the military branches of the US Military have BOTH an enlisted corps and an officer corps?
Have you ever come across a senior NCO with an infereority complex?
I certainly didn't in division.
The senior NCOs ran the place.
Do we really need every adult member of CAP to be an officer, and at that a SENIOR grade officer?

Something tells me we could use a whole lot more WARRENT officers and a lot less Majors and Cols.
But in the same breath we have all this rank and nothing to do with it.
But I digress.

My whole point, (and remember I am NOT advocating ANY changes, just fielding a discussion about why the USAF is none to happy with us,) is that I would very much like to enjoy some additional benefits that previsouly came along with being a member of the Armed Forces. And that in order to obtain those aditional benefits I would be quite happy to be held fully accountable, NOT something members of CAP are currently doing.

And if your going to wear the "Bowling Shirt" then were it WELL and make it look as sharp as possible!
Report to moderator   Logged
2LT Christopher M. Parrett
Deputy Commander of Cadets, Cadet Programs Officer
London Bridge Composite Squadron 501
SWR-AZ-112,  Lake Havasu City, Arizona
dwb
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,347

« Reply #29 on: May 26, 2005, 04:47:58 PM »

Re: SF 86

In addition to the privacy issues, there is a substantial cost associated with the investigation.  And it's overkill.  I want to know if new senior members have a substantive criminal history.  Beyond that, it's really not any of CAP's business, and it's not any of mine, either.

Considering the missions we perform, it's also totally unnecessary.  And it would add months (years?) to the time between application for membership and being considered a "full" member.

SF 86s for CAP are bad for many, many reasons.  I could entertain the argument that Counterdrug aircrews should have an additional background check, but that's about it.

Re: Uniforms/Rank

I choose to wear the aviator shirt combination, even though I meet USAF weight and grooming standards.  I don't think we should force senior members into a grade structure based on their body type.  Smacks of discrimination to me.

"oh, Mr. Fatbody, you'll be in the fat suit with the fat ranks.  Welcome to CAP!"

Yeah, right.  ::)

In fact, I could argue that all senior members should be in the CAP-distinctive uniform, because everyone can wear it and it would make us actually "uniform".
Report to moderator   Logged
arajca
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,357

« Reply #30 on: May 26, 2005, 04:52:47 PM »

On the SF 86, CAP counter drug personnel go through a federal background check and training. I don't know if it is an SF 86 or whatever.
Report to moderator   Logged
pixelwonk
Alt-F4 pilot
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,099

« Reply #31 on: May 26, 2005, 05:06:30 PM »

I've submitted to the US Customs and DEA checks and they're not even close compared to the SF86 (which is a form, by the way.  a long, long, form)  But they do the job.

With regards to the cost, the CG will/have spent 5 Million on ankle-grabbing background checks for its members who are not doing anything different than what they were last year.

In all fairness, you don't have to go through the "ankle grabber" to simply be a member.  Persons opting to provide "support" duties, ie: administration, public affairs, teach boating classes, etc... can submit to a fingerprint and felony check.  not unlike what we do in CAP.

edit: Addendum...  I am aware of one prospective Auxie who has waited over six months to become a member of the Coast Gaurd Auxiliary.  And that was with the  Fingerprint check, not the SF86. When comparing that to our organization, in that time, the average S'member would have passed the background, went through level one, gotten basic ES rated, started their specialty track and be looking at a promotion soon.

Or at least I hope they would've.  Perhaps my glasses are slightly rose-tinted.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2005, 05:13:44 PM by tedda » Report to moderator   Logged
MIKE
Super Moderator

Posts: 5,461
Unit: LANTAREA

« Reply #32 on: May 26, 2005, 05:49:58 PM »

In all fairness, you don't have to go through the "ankle grabber" to simply be a member.  Persons opting to provide "support" duties, ie: administration, public affairs, teach boating classes, etc... can submit to a fingerprint and felony check.  not unlike what we do in CAP.

edit: Addendum...  I am aware of one prospective Auxie who has waited over six months to become a member of the Coast Gaurd Auxiliary.  And that was with the  Fingerprint check, not the SF86. When comparing that to our organization, in that time, the average S'member would have passed the background, went through level one, gotten basic ES rated, started their specialty track and be looking at a promotion soon.

As a prospective Auxie, I was gonna PM you about this because that was the impression I was getting based on the info I had seen... So thank you for answering my question.  :)

I suspect I could get involved with Ops at some point, but it's nice to know that I can at least get my foot in the door and get started without going through the PSI and the SF86.  Seems like the Flotilla I'm at is mostly involved with RBS and VSC's, but that could change in future.

Yeah, I read the New Member Reference Guide a few days ago.  ;)
Report to moderator   Logged
Mike Johnston
dwb
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,347

« Reply #33 on: May 26, 2005, 06:08:11 PM »

On the SF 86, CAP counter drug personnel go through a federal background check and training. I don't know if it is an SF 86 or whatever.

It's not.  They probably do some type of national agency / local agency check.  By the looks of the CAPF 83, the DEA is the adjudicating agency, so it might be a check similar to what law enforcement personnel have to go through.

The SF 86 is to obtain a security clearance, which is a much more rigorous investigation, even for Secret.  The SSBI for Top Secret probes every aspect of your life for the past 10 years.
Report to moderator   Logged
pixelwonk
Alt-F4 pilot
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,099

« Reply #34 on: May 26, 2005, 06:29:08 PM »


The SF 86 is to obtain a security clearance, which is a much more rigorous investigation, even for Secret.  The SSBI for Top Secret probes every aspect of your life for the past 10 years.

The interesting thing that you probably know but others might not is that it really doesn't grant you a secret clearance.  It only determines your eligibility for one.  A secret clearance has to be requested by the Active Duty Coast Guard and is hardly necessary for a large majority of people involved in the Aux.  The small remainder being Auxie Auggies, those Auxilirists who augment the active duty coast guard.
Report to moderator   Logged
Slim
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 599

« Reply #35 on: May 31, 2005, 05:42:41 AM »

Grand-Poo-Bah Freytag:

Lots of interesting thoughts in your post.

So, your concerned that we might create a "2nd Class" CAP senior member.

There is no concern.  It is a fact that any of us who can't wear the AF style uniform are looked down upon by both peers an subordinates.  I had a C/Maj ask me once (while wearing the blue utility uniform) if I had just escaped from NASA.  He, and the other cadets who witnessed our little discussion about it, will never do so again.  We're looked down upon by violating regs and wearing AF style uniforms, and we're looked down upon because we do the right thing and wear the uniforms we're supposed to.

Quote
Question...
Why is it that ALL of the military branches of the US Military have BOTH an enlisted corps and an officer corps?
Have you ever come across a senior NCO with an infereority complex?
I certainly didn't in division.
The senior NCOs ran the place.
Do we really need every adult member of CAP to be an officer, and at that a SENIOR grade officer?

Something tells me we could use a whole lot more WARRENT officers and a lot less Majors and Cols.
But in the same breath we have all this rank and nothing to do with it.
But I digress.

I've got a pretty good idea of how things work in the military, despite the fact that I never spent a day in it.  Do I think we could have more warrants and NCOs?  Yeah, probably, but this is the system we have now.  And, there would be just as much outrage from the warrant officers or NCOs of the world if we told our members that you had to be a warrant officer or NCO if you don't meet weight/grooming standards.  Another double edged sword, we're screwed no matter what we do.  And then, we're denying some of our most dedicated members the privledge of command because they can't be an officer.  The only way to do this is to create a separate rank system, which then further increases the separation among those who can and those who can't/won't wear the AF uniform.

Quote
My whole point, (and remember I am NOT advocating ANY changes, just fielding a discussion about why the USAF is none to happy with us,) is that I would very much like to enjoy some additional benefits that previsouly came along with being a member of the Armed Forces. And that in order to obtain those aditional benefits I would be quite happy to be held fully accountable, NOT something members of CAP are currently doing.

I'm all for it too.  And I'd gladly submit myself to that same level of accountability that you mention.  The Air Force has issues with this organization because of what a few higher ranking members may (or may not) have done.  I phrase it that way because I've never seen some of the issues that seem to be a problem elsewhere.  I miss the days when each wing had an active duty AF officer and NCO assigned as liaison officers.  We always had oversight from our parent service, and support was so much easier for us to get.

Quote
And if your going to wear the "Bowling Shirt" then were it WELL and make it look as sharp as possible!

I don't wear the golf shirt, but I am considering one (for certain activities).  I do wear the aviator shirt combo and the BFU/BUU.  And I will tell you that I put just as much time, effort, and pride into wearing those uniforms as I did when the AF style was an option for me.
Report to moderator   Logged

Slim
abysmal
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 519

« Reply #36 on: May 31, 2005, 06:31:35 PM »

I do wear the aviator shirt combo and the BFU/BUU.  And I will tell you that I put just as much time, effort, and pride into wearing those uniforms as I did when the AF style was an option for me.

Its amazing the difference that taking alittle extra time and effort makes on the final result...
Report to moderator   Logged
2LT Christopher M. Parrett
Deputy Commander of Cadets, Cadet Programs Officer
London Bridge Composite Squadron 501
SWR-AZ-112,  Lake Havasu City, Arizona
cmoore
Recruit

Posts: 34

« Reply #37 on: June 01, 2005, 02:10:37 AM »

Yeah, I read the New Member Reference Guide a few days ago.  ;)

Where does one find the New Member Reference Guide?  Is it online?  I've been considering the CGAUX and I'd like to learn more about it.
Report to moderator   Logged
1st Lt Chris Moore
Sacramento Composite Squadron 14
MIKE
Super Moderator

Posts: 5,461
Unit: LANTAREA

« Reply #38 on: June 01, 2005, 03:17:10 AM »

Yeah, I read the New Member Reference Guide a few days ago.  ;)

Where does one find the New Member Reference Guide?  Is it online?  I've been considering the CGAUX and I'd like to learn more about it.

Find it on this page.

Also check out the AuxMan.
Report to moderator   Logged
Mike Johnston
nfx500
Newbie

Posts: 3

« Reply #39 on: August 09, 2005, 12:54:05 AM »

A friend of mine who is a LtCol (as I am) had discussed demoting all field grade officers to captain and everyone else to first or second lieutenant, and adding some significant requirements for re-promotion.  I know it can't be done, but it would be interesting.  I've been a LtCol for 19 years (longer than most of the hierarchs have even BEEN in CAP), but I'd be willing to do that.

BTW, my sister recently retired as a USAF colonel and had no problem giving respect to CAP officers who deserved it.


jh

 
Report to moderator   Logged
LtCol John J. Higgins, Jr.

16 years a Sq Cmdr, 3 yrs a Group Cmdr, 2.5 years Wing Dir of CP, Other wing/reg staff positions

Currently taking a break
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All Send this topic Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: NEC Meeting, Air Force Control..
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.074 seconds with 26 queries.
click here to email me