File #1308: "National Board Minutes_2009_FEBb.pdf"

National Board Minutes_2009_FEBb.pdf

PDF Text

Text

Civil Air Patrol
National Board
Minutes

27-28 February 2009
Washington DC

27-28 February 2009
Contents
OPEN SESSION
Information Items
1.
2.

Agenda Process Procedures.......................................................Gen Courter....... 7
Election Procedures ....................................................................Gen Courter....... 8

Consent Agenda Items
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.

DA - Approval of the March 2008 National Board Minutes ........... Col Chazell..... 11
DP - Protecting Personally Identifiable Information ......................... Col Smith..... 12
DO - E-Services SET Qualification.................................................. Col Smith..... 14
DO - Removal of CAPR 60-11 ........................................................ Col Smith..... 17
HC - Change of Designation for the CAP Chaplain Service .......Col Woodard..... 18
ED - Professional Military Education Equivalency Time Limit ...... Col Chazell..... 20

Action Agenda Items
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.

DA – Test Control Officers ...........................................................Col Skrabut..... 22
DA – Confidentiality of Internet Email............................................Col Jensen..... 24
DP – Review Membership Waivers for Negative Criminal History . Col Herrin..... 26
DP – Criminal Background Check for Cadets over age of 18......... Col Herrin..... 28
DP – CAP Member Standardized Recognition Program .................Col Parris..... 31
DP – Request for Study of SSN Substitute ............................. Col Himebrook..... 33
DP – Equipment/Personnel Leaving the Wing ................................... Col Lee..... 35
DP – CAP Members Standardized Discipline Program ...................Col Parris..... 39
AE – AE Officer of the Year – Name Change.............................. Col Pearson..... 42
CP – Online Cadet Achievement Tests ......................................... Col Davies..... 44
HC – Ch. Services Training and Promotion Requirements ........Col Woodard..... 48
SE – Face-to-Face Safety Meeting Requirements ....................... Col Skrabut..... 51
LG – Annual Re-validation of Non-Expendable Issues................. Col Skrabut..... 54
DO – Deferring Discrepancies on the Discrepancy Log .......... Col Himebrook..... 56
DO – Flight Evaluation Grading Structure .......................................... Col Lee..... 62
DO – Transport Mission Pilot Rating ............................................... Col Smith..... 65
DO – Restricting Access to Nat. Interactive Personnel System ...... Col Smith..... 67
FM – Finance Committees .................................................................. Col Litt..... 69
JA – Amending CAP Constitution and Bylaws ...............................Col Britton..... 71
JA – Duties of National Board Members .......................................Col Jensen..... 73
JA – Procedures for Election of CAP/CC and CAP/CV .................Col Jensen..... 75

2

Uniform Agenda Items
25. Committee Report ........................................................................ Col Chazell..... 77
Uniform Agenda Consent Items
26a
26b.
26c.

Eaker Miniature Medal..................................................................Col Parris..... 78
National Color Guard Competition Miniature Medal .................. Col Chazell..... 79
Gray Epaulets for Females ........................................................... Col Smith..... 79

Uniform Agenda Action Items
27a.
27b.
27c.
27d.
27e.
27f.
27g.
27h.
27i.
27j.

Silver Braid on CAP Corporate Uniform ................................ Gen Chitwood..... 81
Air Force Lightweight Blue Jacket ............................................Col Guzman..... 82
CAP Astronaut Aeronautical Rating Designation and Badge........Col Parris..... 83
Commander’s Badge.....................................................................Col Miller..... 84
Flight Suit Grade Devices ....................................................... Col Davidson..... 85
Sweaters for Use with the Corporate Uniform ................................. Col Lee..... 86
Wear of Military Decorations and Badges on Corporate Uniforms .. Col Lee..... 88
Optional Shoulder Patches on BDU ........................................ Col Benckert..... 90
Additional Corporate Uniform Outerwear Items ............................. Col Saile..... 91
Change of Embroidery Insignia on AF-Style Uniforms ............ Col Moersch..... 93

Reports
28. Advisor and Staff Reports
a. Finance Committee................................................................... Col Weiss..... 95
b. Chaplain ........................................................................ Ch, Col Woodard..... 95
c. Senior Advisor, Support ........................................................Col Guimond..... 95
d. Senior Advisor, Operations ............................................... Lt Col Vazquez..... 95
e. CAP National Safety Officer..................................................... Col Letteer..... 95
f. CAP Inspector General ............................................................. Col Linker..... 95
g. Historian............................................................................. Col Blascovich..... 95
29. Old Business
a. CAP NCO Corps .......................................................................... Col Carr..... 96
b. National Staff Structure Pamphlet........................................... Col Chazell..... 97
c. Adverse Action Regulation........................................................ Col Herrin..... 99
30. New Business
a. IG to Review Complaints against the
National Commander ........................................................... Col Davidson... 101
b. Suspend Rules to allow Uniform Item action at
2009 Sumner National Board Meeting .......................................... Col Lee... 102
c. Safety Survey Corrective Action .............................................. Col Letteer... 102
Administrative Announcements .................................................................................. 103

3

ATTEST

OFFICIAL:

Barry S. Herrin
Colonel, CAP
National Legal Officer

Amy S. Courter
Major General, CAP
National Commander

4

CIVIL AIR PATROL
NATIONAL BOARD MEETING MINUTES
27-28 February 2009
Washington DC

OPEN SESSION
CALL TO ORDER ..................................................... Maj Gen Amy S. Courter, CAP
INVOCATION............................................................ Ch, Col Whitson B. Woodard, CAP
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ...................................... Col Russell E. Chazell, CAP
ROLL CALL............................................................... Mr. Don R. Rowland, HQ CAP/EX
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REMARKS........................ Mr. Don R. Rowland, HQ CAP/EX
CAP-USAF COMMANDER REMARKS..................... Col Russell D. Hodgkins, Jr., USAF
NATIONAL COMMANDER REMARKS..................... Maj Gen Amy S. Courter, CAP
SPECIAL GUEST REMARKS………………………….Maj Gen Amy S. Courter, CAP

NATIONAL BOARD
(As of 1 February 2009)

The National Board is comprised of the National Commander, National Vice Commander,
National Chief of Staff, National Finance Officer, National Legal Officer, National
Controller, National Inspector General, National Chief of Chaplains Services, Commander,
CAP-USAF, the 8 region commanders, and 52 wing commanders.
MIDDLE EAST REGION

NATIONAL OFFICERS
*Maj Gen Amy S. Courter, CAP
*Brig Reggie L. Chitwood, CAP
**Col Russell D. Hodgkins, Jr., USAF
*Col Russell E. Chazell CAP
*Col Fredric K. Weiss, CAP
*Col Barry S. Herrin, CAP
*Col William S. Charles, III, CAP
**Col James F. Linker, CAP
**Ch, Col Whitson B Woodard, CAP

Nat’l Commander
Nat’l Vice Commander
CAP-USAF Commander
Nat'l Chief of Staff
Nat'l Finance Officer
Nat'l Legal Officer
Nat'l Controller
Nat'l Inspector General
Chief Chap. Service

*Col Joseph R. Vazquez, CAP
Col Eugene L. Egry, III, CAP
Col Gerard W. Weiss, CAP
Col Jane E. Davies, CAP
Col Roy W. Douglass, CAP
Col Aurel E. Smith, CAP
Col Eric R. Litt, CAP
Col Rodney A. Moore, CAP

GREAT LAKES REGION

NORTHEAST REGION
*Col Robert Diduch, CAP
Col Peter Jensen, CAP
Col Christopher J. Hayden, CAP
Col David A. Belcher, CAP
Col Donald C. Davidson, CAP
Col Robert J. McCabe, CAP
Col Kenneth Andreu, CAP
Col Mark A. Lee, CAP
Col Anthony Gagliardi, CAP
Col Thomas P. Benckert Jr., CAP

Region Commander
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont

Region Commander
Delaware
Maryland
National Capital
North Carolina
South Carolina
Virginia
West Virginia

*Col Charles L. Carr, CAP
Col Gordon A. Larson, CAP
Col Warren M. Reeves, CAP
Col Henry L. Heaberlin, CAP
Col Michael A. Saile, CAP
Col David M. Winters, CAP
Col Donald J. Haffner, CAP

5

Region Commander
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin

ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION

SOUTHEAST REGION
*Col James M. Rushing, CAP
Lt Col David Boswell, CAP (Proxy)
Col Christian F. Moersch, III, CAP
Col James W. Hughes, CAP
Col Tillman C. Carroll, CAP
Col Rafael C. Roman, CAP
Col George B. Melton, CAP

*Col Donald G. Cortum, CAP
Col Edward D. Phelka, CAP
Col David A. Guzman, CAP
Col Herb Cahalen, CAP
Col Robert M. Bost, CAP
Col Stanley A. Skrabut, CAP

Region Commander
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Mississippi
Puerto Rico
Tennessee

PACIFIC REGION

NORTH CENTRAL REGION
*Col Steven W. Kuddes, CAP
Col Ronald S. Scheitzach, CAP
Col Regena M. Aye, CAP
Col Thomas B. Theis, CAP
Col John A. Mais, CAP
Col Robert K. Todd, CAP
Col Karl R. Altenburg, CAP
Col Michael A. Beason, CAP

Region Commander
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming

*Col Ernest C. Pearson, CAP
Col Carl L. Brown, CAP
Col Kenneth W. Parris, CAP
Col Roger M. Caires, CAP (Interim)
Col Ralph L. Miller, CAP
Col Brian L. Bishop, CAP
Col David E. Maxwell, CAP

Region Commander
Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota

Region Commander
Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington

SOUTHWEST REGION
*Col Andre B. Davis, CAP (Proxy)
Col John M. Eggen, CAP
Col Robert B. Britton, CAP
Lt Col Amos Plante, CAP (Proxy)
Col Richard F. Himebrook, CAP
Col Robert H. Castle, CAP
Col Joe R. Smith, CAP

Region Commander
Arizona
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas

*Voting Members of National Executive Committee - 14
** Non voting members of National Board - 3

CORPORATE TEAM
Mr. Don R. Rowland
Mr. Johnny Dean
Ms. Susan Easter
Mr. Marc Huchette
Mr. Larry Kauffman
Mr. Jim Mallett
Mr. Rafael Robles
Mr. John A. Salvador
Mr. Gary Schneider

Executive Director
Director, Plans & Requirements
Chief Financial Officer
Director, Public Awareness & Membership Development
Assistant to Executive Director for Fleet Management
Director, Educational Programs
General Counsel
Director, Missions
Director, Logistics & Mission Resources

6

February 2009 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 1
Author: Gen Courter

Information
SUBJECT: Agenda Process Procedures
CAP/CC – Maj Gen Courter
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:

In order to provide the best possible information and consideration of agenda items to
come before a CAP body, it is imperative that schedules and processes are adhered to
in the development of the agenda. Attached is a CAP diagram document: the “Civil Air
Patrol Meeting Agenda Responsibility Matrix,” outlining the steps and responsibilities for
developing the agenda. This is not a new process and should be recognizable to the
members of the board. This Matrix allows the members in the field more transparency
of the agenda development.
This process we have been using is inclusive, allowing for the flow of information that
brings the agenda from its beginning: ideas coming from anywhere in CAP, to the
culmination: items on which boards deliberate and consider action.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
None – informational only.

7

February 2009 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 2

Author: None

Information

SUBJECT: National Commander and Vice Commander
Election Procedures
CAP/CC – Maj Gen Courter
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:

One of the most important duties of the National Board is to elect the National
Commander every three years and to elect the National Vice Commander every year,
as the leaders represent the needs of the members of CAP on a daily basis. Therefore,
CAP’s future is determined by those elections. The credibility of the organization to the
membership and the outside world are similarly vested in those elections.
Section 16 of the CAP Constitution and Bylaws states that candidates for the office of
National Commander or National Vice Commander shall file a request for consideration
with the Executive Director’s office outlining their experience, qualifications, platforms
and proposals if elected. These requests must be filed not later than 90 days prior to
the general membership National Board meeting at which the election is held. There
are no further requirements for how the actual election process is handled other than
the statement in Section 13, paragraph 13.4, that voting for the National Commander
and Vice Commander will be conducted in that order by written, secret ballot.
At this time, the procedures in place are not enough to ensure a repeatable best
practice outcome of this significant duty of the National Board. It is important that all
election procedures be predictable and transparent to the membership and the
members of the National Board. It is important that as the organization matures, it
develops more defined processes for the elections as well as the campaigns leading up
to those elections.
These issues may be addressed by the Public Trust Task Force (PTTF). The PTTF is
being created as a think-tank to consider issues that bear upon the Public Trust, such
as the election of the top leadership, and to make recommendations to the National
Commander regarding those issues. The PTTF will make reports to the National Board,
as do other task forces. Members with substantive corporate governance experience
are being selected to serve on this task force.
Some of the specific components of election procedure that the Task Force will study
are:


Considering a change to the filing deadline for candidates. The current filing
deadline of 90 days to the Summer National Board meeting may make for a
longer than necessary campaign season, and may not necessarily allow
individuals enough time to consider their interest in running for office. The
question is whether moving this deadline will increase filed intentions and reduce
the number of nominations from the floor.



Requiring Endorsement of Nominees Made from the Floor and an Explanation
Why the Nominee Did Not File by the Deadline. Nominations from the floor can
8

February 2009 National Board Minutes
be disruptive to the election process and are not fair to those candidates who
filed timely self-nominations and participated in an election campaign. By
requiring this change, candidates nominated from the floor would be required to
provide the same information as those candidates who file by the deadline,
including a biography, goals, vision, and other appropriate campaign materials to
the Board at that time. The question of whether elections with floor nominated
candidates should be deferred to the next business day in order to allow the
National Board to review submitted campaign materials before voting occurs will
also be considered.


During the 10 minute Q&A sessions, whether the right that sitting NB members
have to question candidates for office will be extended to all duly nominated
candidates, regardless of their membership on the NB. Allowing both members
of the National Board and all candidates for the position an opportunity to explore
the goals, values, platforms, experience, and motivation of those candidates
running should enhance the process and provides the electorate, as well as the
membership at-large, a comprehensive view of the candidates. The task force
will consider whether it would be appropriate to extend time if questioners remain
after the ten minute limit, and other ways to increase transparency.



In the case of the National Vice Commander election, whether the incumbent
National Commander or, when a CC is elected, the National Commander-Elect,
may or should speak concerning the imminent CV election. As the CC and the
CV must work well together as a team, the Task Force will consider whether it is
appropriate for the CC to comment on the candidates and the CC’s sense of the
partnership that is being created. During this past election cycle, I was warned
not to get involved with the CV election, and while I thought this was unhealthy
for the organization, I heeded the warning. Yet as I had worked in the past with
the candidates for CV, my input should have been considered, especially related
to the potential successful collaboration as a team. The Task Force will consider
the process of Commanders at all other levels selecting their own Vice or Deputy
Commanders, and consider the applicability and reasonableness of the CAP/CC
at least having a voice in the CAP/CV election process. Codifying practices of
comment and response from the National Commander or National CommanderElect will consider whether the command vision of the National Commander will
be publicly heard and considered before the vote is taken.



Whether declared candidates that are not sitting members of the National Board
may address the Board, upon recognition of the Chair, without objection by any
member of the Board. Candidates not currently members of the National Board
need to be afforded the same access to the floor enjoyed by those candidates
that are sitting members of the Board. The Task Force will consider whether this
provision provides fair access during the election process.



Whether Sanctions Can Be Imposed On Those Candidates Who Engage in
Unethical Conduct. Elections, and the campaigns preceding them, should be a
fair and ethical process that exemplifies CAP’s core values. The Task Force will
9

February 2009 National Board Minutes
consider the question of whether candidates or other members campaigning for
a candidate that do not conduct themselves in an exemplary manner should
face consequences for their actions, in the same manner they would for any
other unethical actions as CAP members. The National Board could be
responsible for notifying, investigating and considering any behaviors and/or
sanctions.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
No action is required as this agenda item is purely informational, but input would be
welcomed. Similarly, volunteers interested in joining the PTTF should provide a written
brief statement of interest to the CAP/CC. A cross-functional team with diverse ideas is
being sought. Election processes and other recommendations made by the PTTF may
later become agenda items for consideration by the National Board, and board member
inclusion on the task force is imperative.

NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
Information only. No action. Gen Courter noted that this is a follow-on from the Nov 08
NEC meeting. This item gives National Board members an opportunity to consider the
information as well as an opportunity to join the Public Trust Task Force (PTTF).

10

February 2009 National Board Minutes

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 3a

DA

Action

SUBJECT: Approval of the August 2008 National Board Minutes
CAP/CS – Col Chazell

Author: None

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
The minutes of the August 2008 National Board meeting were distributed in draft form.
This allowed the National Board members a chance to review the minutes for any
discrepancies.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approves the August 2008 National Board Meeting minutes.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
None.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
None.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur as drafted.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
None.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
None
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL BENCKERT/VT MOVED and COL JENSEN/CT seconded the PROPOSED
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Remove the word ‘DRAFT” from the August 2008 National
Board minutes.

11

February 2009 National Board Minutes

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 3b

DP

Action

SUBJECT: Protecting Personally Identifiable Information
TX Wg/CC – Col Smith

Author: Col Smith

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
CAPR 50-4 requires security precautions to safeguard CAP Tests but CAPR 10-2
currently does not specify security precautions for storage of CAP officer and cadet
personnel files. As these records contain personally identifiable information (PII), it is
imperative they be secured for protection against identity theft. Examples of PII include
social security number, date of birth, and driver’s license number. The definition of PII
may vary from State to State. Since many CAP units meet in buildings shared by other
organizations or open to the public, restricting access to our members’ PII is an
essential precaution.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approves that personnel records containing personally
identifiable information be secured in a similar manner to CAP tests.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Minimal.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur with Senior Advisor - Support comments.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
[Sr Advisor-Support] Concur. This should be included in both CAPR 10-2 and CAPR
39-2.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 10-2, Files Maintenance and Records Disposition
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL SMITH/TX MOVED and COL RUSHING/SER seconded the PROPOSED
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.

12

February 2009 National Board Minutes
COL MILLER/NV MOVED TO AMEND and COL PARRIS/CA seconded the
amendment to strike the last seven words of the motion.

THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED.
THE AMENDED MOTION CARRIED.
NOTE: The amended motion reads:
“That the National Board approves that personnel records containing personally
identifiable information be secured.”
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Implementation of policy, notification to the field, and change to
CAPR 10-2 and CAPR 39-2. NOTE: There was a request that all members be
reminded to keep lab-top computers that contain personnel records secure. In the
formulation of regulations thought needs to be given to safeguarding all aspects of
personnel information—electronic, paper, computer—and how the information is to
used.

13

February 2009 National Board Minutes

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 3c
Author: Col Smith

DO

Action

SUBJECT: E-Services SET Qualification
TX Wg/CC – Col Smith
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:

The Skills Evaluator Training (SET) qualification is of limited utility in identifying qualified
supervisors in Ops Qual/E-Services because there is no validation and no control of this
credential. A new CAP officer or cadet can take the CAP Test 116 immediately followed
by the online 10 question SET exam and have no specialty qualifications on their 101
card other than GES and SET. There is no validation by the chain of command of the
SET rating. It is automatically added to the 101 card after passing the brief open book
exam.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board directs that the SET credential be validated by the unit
commander, group commander (if applicable), and wing commander as any other
Emergency Services specialty so it is useful in identifying those individuals who are
qualified evaluators of emergency services specialties.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Minimal.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur. Only minor programming changes are required to allow new SET process in
OPS-Quals. This will be included in the new CAPR 60-3.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
[Sr Advisor-Support] No objection if this is the desire of the Board. Funding impact will
be minimal.
The National Staff agrees with the proposed concept. However, it is recommended that
the action be amended to also require that the following criteria be met before an
individual is permitted to evaluate emergency services specialties:
1. The member must complete the current emergency services Skills Evaluator
Training (SET)
2. The member must hold the specialty achievement in which they are to
evaluate and have held this qualification for a minimum of 1 year.
14

February 2009 National Board Minutes
3. That they be approved by their wing commander or designee to serve in each
specialty they are to evaluate.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 60-3, CAP Emergency Services Training and Operational Missions.
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL SMITH/TX MOVED and COL CASTLE/OK seconded the PROPOSED
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.
COL BELCHER/MA MOVED to amend and COL McCABE/NJ seconded the
amendment to also require that the following criteria be met before an individual
is permitted to evaluate emergency services specialties:
1. The member must complete the current emergency services Skills
Evaluator Training (SET).
2. The member must hold the specialty achievement in which they are to
evaluate and have held this qualification for a minimum of 1 year.
3. That they be approved by their wing commander or designee to serve in
each specialty they are to evaluate.

THE AMENDMENT CARRIED.
COL BISHOP/OR MOVED TO AMEND and COL BROWN/AK seconded the
amendment to correct a word in the first line of the motion by striking the word
“validated” and replacing with the word “approved.”

THE AMENDMENT CARRIED.
COL MILLER/NV MOVED TO AMEND and COL CHAZEL/CS seconded the
amendment to add the words “and/or designee” after the words “wing
commander” in the second line of the motion.

THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (37 yes).
THE AMENDED MOTION CARRIED.
NOTE: The amended motion reads:
“That the National Board directs that the Skills Evaluator Training (SET)
credential be approved by the unit commander, group commander (if applicable),
and wing commander, and/or designee, as any other Emergency Services
specialty so it is useful in identifying those individuals who are qualified
15

February 2009 National Board Minutes
evaluators of emergency services specialties. Also establish a requirement that
the following criteria be met before an individual is permitted to evaluate
emergency services specialties:
1. The member must complete the current emergency services SET.
2. The member must hold the specialty achievement in which they are to
evaluate and have held this qualification for a minimum of 1 year.
3. That they be approved by their wing commander or designee to serve in
each specialty they are to evaluate.”
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Implementation of policy, notification to the field, and change to
CAPR 60-3, CAP Emergency Services Training and Operational Missions.

16

February 2009 National Board Minutes

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 3d
Author: Col Smith

DO

Action

SUBJECT: Removal of CAPR 60-11
TX Wg/CC – Col Smith
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:

CAPR 60-11 describes a reimbursement process for flight clinics that no longer exists,
yet still requires a 1.0 hour restriction on pilot continuation training on each pilot per
fiscal year that may not reflect wing training priorities to effectively utilize annual training
funds.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board directs that CAPR 60-11 be rescinded.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
None.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
[Sr Advisor-Ops] Concur. Senior Advisor Operations recommends that the CAPR 6011 be rescinded since other training funding and programs adequately address pilot
training. The FAA Wings program can be a part of the any internally generated training
program whether funded or unfunded
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 60-11, Pilot Continuation Training Program
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL BENCKERT/VT MOVED and COL JENSEN/CT seconded the PROPOSED
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Rescission of CAPR 60-11
17

February 2009 National Board Minutes

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 3e

HC

Action

SUBJECT: Change of Designation for the CAP Chaplain Service
CAP/CCS – Ch, Col Woodard

Author: Col Woodard

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
Paragraph 1, a. of CAPR 265-1 states the following: “The CAP Chaplain Service was
organized with the guidance of the Air Force Chief of Chaplains in January 1950. Since
this time, as the Air Force’s Auxiliary, the CAP Chaplain Service has partnered with the
USAF Chaplain Service. Though separate organizations, the CAP Chaplain program
will be modeled after the USAF Chaplain Service, as stated in the current Statement of
Work between the CAP and the USAF.”
Recently, the USAF Chaplain Service has changed its name to the USAF Chaplain
Corps. This action brings the Air Force in line with the historic designation for chaplain
programs employed by all of the other branches of our armed forces. It is the desire of
the Air Force Chief of Chaplains that its Auxiliary CAP Chaplain Service take the same
action, thereby designating the CAP Chaplain Service as the CAP Chaplain Corps.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approves the designation of the CAP Chaplain Service as the
CAP Chaplain Corps. Designations shall be changed in conformance, i.e. Chief of CAP
Chaplain Services will become “Chief of the CAP Chaplain Corps,” Chaplain Service
Advisory Council will become “Chaplain Corps Advisory Council,” and etc.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
The funding impact is minimal. The CAP chaplain seal will change by replacing the
word “Service” with “Corps.” Publications may be changed whenever reprinting is
necessary. Since currently, most of the Chaplain publications (including CAPR 265-1
and all of the training manuals) are in revision in the normal rewriting cycle, there will be
no additional cost. Furthermore, the Air Force Chief of Chaplains has stated that
current publications, coins, and etc. are acceptable during the transition.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur. However, adequate time should be allowed as a transition period permitting
use of existing items to exhaust current supply. Other documents affected by this
change include CAPP 225, CAPP 265-2, CAPP 265-4, and CAPR 265-2.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
[Sr Advisor-Support] Concur.
18

February 2009 National Board Minutes
[NLO] I'm for whatever keeps our biggest client happy, particularly when our chaplain
"corps" has been so successful in integrating itself into USAF activities. So, for the
record, NLO concurs.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 265-1; CAPP 265-1; CAPP 221; CAPP 221A; CAPP221B; CAPP 221C; Chaplain
Service Personnel Directory. All of the aforementioned documents are in the process of
revision with or without this change and can be easily amended at this time. Other
regulations that will require minor revisions are CAPR 20-1; CAPR 35-5 (1.5c); CAPR
50-17 (6-7) Two of these, CAPR 35-5 and CAPR 50-17 are already effected by NB
action taken last year, so this proposal will have no significant impact.
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL BENCKERT/VT MOVED and COL JENSEN/CT seconded the PROPOSED
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Implementation of policy, notification to the field, and change to
regulations and pamphlets, as indicated.

19

February 2009 National Board Minutes

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 3f

ED

Action

SUBJECT: Professional Military Education Equivalency Time Limit
CAP/CS – Col Chazell

Author: Col Chazell

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
CAPR 50-17, (1 March 2003), Attachment 2, states that professional military education
(PME) must have been completed within the last 20 years in order for it to be used as
an equivalency for CAP professional development requirements. This requirement
should be removed for two reasons:
1) Education should not be considered perishable. If an officer completed the
course and can prove that completion, he/she should receive whatever
equivalencies are allowed under CAPR 50-17, regardless of when that education
was completed. This requirement is analogous to saying that an academic degree
is no longer deemed valid 20 years after completion. This seems to be an arbitrary
requirement that doesn't make sense.
2) The 20 year requirement as shown in CAPR 50-17 does not appear to be valid.
The only place in the regulation where this requirement appears is as a header to
Attachment 2. Nowhere in the substantive language of the regulation is such a
requirement discussed. I do not believe that attachments can stand alone with
regulatory authority. Attachments are intended to serve as supporting material for
the substance of the regulation itself. Paragraph 1-1(d) clearly states that PME can
be used for equivalent completion of certain CAP professional development
requirements. No mention of the 20 year limitation is found in that paragraph or
any other paragraph in the substantive portions of the document.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approves amending CAPR 50-17 to remove all references to a
20 year time limit to request use of military PME as equivalencies for CAP professional
development program requirements and to allow such equivalencies, upon presentation
of proof of completion, regardless of the length of time elapsed since completion.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
The cost of revising and republishing the regulation.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur and if approved will make the appropriate changes to CAPR 50-17, Senior
Member Professional Development Program.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur.
20

February 2009 National Board Minutes
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
[Sr Advisor-Support] Concur.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 50-17, CAP Senior Member Professional Development Program
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL BENCKERT/VT MOVED and COL JENSEN/CT seconded the PROPOSED
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Implementation of policy, notification to the field, and change to
CAPR 50-17, CAP Senior Member Professional Development Program.

21

February 2009 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 4
Author: Col Skrabut

DA

Action

SUBJECT: Test Control Officers
WY Wg/CC – Col Skrabut
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:

CAPR 50-4, Test Administration and Security, paragraph 1-2a requires that each wing
and unit assign a test control officer.
As more and more exams are being placed on line, fewer and fewer units are
maintaining physical exams. What was once a necessity is no longer necessary. Units
that do not maintain physical copies of exams should not be required to fill a position
and generate unnecessary appointment letters.
In the event a physical test is required, the unit can either work out testing details with a
higher headquarters unit or properly appoint a testing control officer.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approves that only units maintaining tests require the
assignment of a test control officer.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
None.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur. However, Wing Commanders, through their Test Control Officers, should
ensure that subordinate units have a Test Control Officer before they forward any
exams.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur. However, units should give careful consideration to the difficulty involved with
testing at another unit before eliminating the TCO.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
[Sr Advisor-Support] The PD Advisor believes this idea is a good one, but may be
premature for many units. These units still have some ES testing to do, specialty tracks
still have tests, and it will make the AEPSM/Yeager difficult to take. Recommend
delaying implementation.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 50-4, Test Administration and Security
CAPR 50-17, CAP Senior Member Professional Development Program

22

February 2009 National Board Minutes
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL SKRABUT/WY MOVED and COL BEASON/SD seconded the proposed
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Implementation of policy, notification to the field, and change to
CAPR 50-4, Test Administration and Security, and CAPR 50-17, CAP Senior Member
Professional Development Program.

23

February 2009 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 5
Author: Col Jensen

DA

Action

SUBJECT: Confidentiality of Internet Email
SWR/CC – Col Jensen
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:

E-mail has become a widely used means of communication and allows much increased
efficiency of routine operations. However, e-mail is subject to interception, inadvertent
or intentional forwarding, disclosure and “spoofing”. Use of e-mail for Civil Air Patrol
operations must take into consideration the inherent insecurity of e-mail, particularly
with regard to transmission of confidential or sensitive information.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board direct NHQ staff to insert the following language into CAPR
110-1 in the place determined most appropriate by the responsible CAP NHQ
directorate:
“Internet e-mail is inherently insecure. E-mail may be subject to inadvertent or
intentional disclosure or forwarding, interception or “spoofing”. E-mail shall ordinarily
not be used for confidential or sensitive information. Confidentiality disclaimers,
forwarding restrictions and the like shall not be depended upon to maintain the
confidentiality of sensitive CAP operational, corporate or other information.”
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Minimal
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Could be referred for further staffing; concur with Sr Advisor-Support comments. If
approved, this could be included as part of OPSEC Training.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
[Sr Advisor-Support] Recommend that if the National Board desires additional
regulatory guidance on the use of e-mails that this item be referred for further staffing to
resolve the issues described by the NLO and others which may occur.
[NLO] The regulation only applies to official CAP websites and internet operations, not
individuals within CAP using their private email accounts to send information.
Consequently, I'm not sure this change accomplishes what Col Jensen wants. I don't
think it's possible to do corporate business in the modern era without email, and
disclaimers are used routinely for this purpose. There is a lot of developing law on the
24

February 2009 National Board Minutes
effectiveness of these disclaimers in litigation and preserving the attorney-client
privilege, but it's still not clear what the overall outcome will be.
To what end is the amendment directed? Will there be disciplinary consequences? If
CAP wants to provide a secure web portal for official business, we could do that, but at
what cost? My law firm requires official business to be conducted thru our servers and
email, so that we don't import viruses or other banned software. If CAP does that, that
would be great.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 110-1, Internet Operations
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL DAVIS/SWR (PROXY) MOVED and COL BRITTON/AR seconded the
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.
COL WINTERS/OH MOVED TO POSTPONE and COL JENSEN/CT seconded the
postponement to return to all staff for further study.

THE MOTION TO POSTPONE CARRIED.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: All staff to study and bring the motion back with more detail of
terms and conditions that are challenging CAP today. Include in August 2009 National
Board agenda.

25

February 2009 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 6

Author: Col Herrin

DP

Action

SUBJECT: Review of Membership Waivers for
Unfavorable Criminal History Information
CAP/NLO – Col Herrin
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:

The CAP Membership Regulation, CAPR 39-2, paras. 3-2.d.1 and 3-2.d.2, permits the
Executive Director or the National Commander to allow an individual to join Civil Air
Patrol by granting a waiver should that individual have been convicted of a felony or
have in his or her criminal background “a pattern of arrests and/or convictions including
but not limited to sex offenses, child abuse, DUI, dishonesty and violence.” There is
currently no oversight of or transparency for these critically important decisions.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approves:
(1) a change to CAPR 39-2 removing the ability of the National Commander and
the Executive Director to grant membership waivers for individuals who have
negative criminal history information that would otherwise render the applicant
unsuitable for CAP membership unless the application, along with all available
confidential FBI reports and supporting documentation has been reviewed by the
Membership Action Review Board, and the MARB concurs with the proposed
waiver by majority vote.
(2) That CAPR 35-8 be changed to require the MARB to review and act upon
requests for waivers submitted by the National Commander and the Executive
Director. Unless waived by the applicant, all criminal history information and
supporting documentation will remain confidential and may only be disclosed, upon
inquiry, to the National Executive Committee and/or National Board in closed
session, or to the Board of Governors under such conditions as they direct.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Minimal.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
NHQ does not recommend approval of this item,
NHQ currently has in place effective oversight for these critically important decisions
that requires review and approval by DP, GC and EX.
MARB has limited jurisdiction and the proposed requirement exceeds the original
purpose and function of the MARB.

26

February 2009 National Board Minutes
The agreement executed between CAP and the FBI prohibits the dissemination of the
confidential report information to non-authorized persons and hence, transparency is a
non- issue. Also, confidentiality of report is referred to in CAPR 39-2, paragraph 3-3 a.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Do not concur. CAP-USAF agrees with the NHQ comments
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
[CAP/CC] Non-Concur. The process should be that the EX has the sole discretion to
accept or decline waivers requests for unfavorable criminal history. The EX, in
conjunction with the GC, would make the final decisions, and if the CAP/CC wants to
provide input, then it could be considered. The EX, under the current regulation, can
make the determination without any volunteer, and this is acceptable. However, as it
stands today, the CAP/CC, under the regulation, can make the determination without
the EX. If any change to this is made, I think that the CAP/CC should not have authority
without concurrence of the EX, to make waivers in these situations. The MARB should
not have to be invoked for the approximately 500 times per year a request of this type is
made.
[Sr Advisor-Support] This would require a change in the MARB responsibilities in the
Constitution and Bylaws.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 35-8, Membership Action Review Board
CAPR 39-2, Civil Air Patrol Membership
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
This agenda item was withdrawn. Col Herrin/NLO explained that currently there is no
process by which a person who would technically be denied membership to have to ask
for a waiver. There is a process that is undertaken to evaluate a person who might be
given a waiver, but there is no process by which a person has to ask to be considered if
they are otherwise not going to be allowed to be a member. The National Legal Officer
and Executive Director will work on rewriting portions of the regulation that make the
waiver process more transparent and would require a member whose membership is
proposed not to be granted to have to apply for a waiver through channels so that they
have a wing or region advocate for making them a member, rather than have that be a
function solely of the staff. In that way, a corporate officer has to take responsibility for
a person who is asking for a waiver from membership conditions.

27

February 2009 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 7

DP

Action

SUBJECT: Requirement for Criminal Background Check for
Cadets over the age of 18 Years
Author: Col Herrin
CAP/NLO – Col Herrin
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
CAP cadets over the age of 18 often assume leadership positions within the cadet
program and also serve as mentors to younger cadets. While the CAP Cadet
Protection Policy, requires that all cadets reaching the age of 18 must complete Cadet
Protection Program Training, there is no corresponding obligation for such cadets to
pass a criminal background check as we require of all other persons over the age of
majority, including senior members under the age of 21 who are married or enlisted in
the active duty armed forces and are therefore ineligible to continue as cadet members.
Due to the legally confidential nature of juvenile court records, young adults typically
receive a “clean slate” on their 18th birthday; therefore criminal history checks are
unlikely to provide meaningful information much before a person’s 19th birthday.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approves:
(1) changes to CAPR 52-10 and CAPR 39-2 requiring cadets over the age of 18 to
submit to a criminal background check on or before their 19th birthday in the same
manner as cadets converting to senior membership and
(2) a change to CAPR 35-3 requiring the termination of membership of any cadet
who has been convicted of any offense (or has suffered a pattern of arrests) that
would disqualify such cadet from senior membership in CAP as described in CAPR
39-2, paragraph 3-2, and subject to same waiver procedures currently in effect for
senior members. Cadets will not be charged for any of the costs associated with a
background check.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
The cost to process additional criminal background checks for subject cadets.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
NHQ does not recommend approval of agenda item.
The proposed agenda item would impact and require major changes to additional
regulations and revive arguments and discussions regarding the suitability of cadets
between the ages of 18 and 21 years of age. Currently, there are 2630 Cadets that fall
into this category.

28

February 2009 National Board Minutes
The cost of confidential FBI reports would escalate ($45,367.50) if they are performed
free of charge and due to the young age of the cadet, past experience has shown that 9
times out of 10 no data appears for subjects in that age range.
A suspension trigger (flag) software devise would need to be created within the system
to monitor cadets in that age range.
At present there is no obligation to have such a background check; however we rely on
our senior leaders at local squadrons to oversee and be aware of cadet misconduct,
which has been effective.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
CAP-USAF does not concur. The expense of a background check that would be
unlikely to gain meaningful data does not seem warranted.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
[Sr Advisor-Support] Concur. Implementation of this item will require some time based
on modifications to the membership system.
[CAP/CC] Concur. While time-consuming, this will afford protection to our cadets, and
will deter cadets with unfavorable backgrounds to continue in the program, which may
put other cadets at risk.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 35-3, Membership Termination
CAPR 39-2 CAP Membership
CAPR 52-10, CAP Cadet Protection Policy
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL HERRIN/NLO MOVED and COL CORTUM/RMR seconded the PROPOSED
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.
COL WEISS/MD MOVED TO AMEND and COL HERRIN/NLO seconded the
amendment to strike paragraph (1) and strike the last sentence of paragraph (2) of
the motion.

THE AMENDMENT CARRIED.
THE AMENDED MOTION CARRIED.
NOTE: The amended motion reads:
“That the National Board approves a change to CAPR 35-3 requiring the
termination of membership of any cadet who has been convicted of any offense
29

February 2009 National Board Minutes
(or has suffered a pattern of arrests) that would disqualify such cadet from senior
membership in CAP as described in CAPR 39-2, paragraph 3-2 and subject to
same waiver procedures currently in effect for senior members.”
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Implementation of policy, notification to the field, and change to
CAPR 35-3, Membership Termination.

30

February 2009 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 8

DP

Action

SUBJECT: CAP Member Standardized Recognition Program
CA Wg/CC – Col Parris

Author: Col Parris

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
Existing CAP policy does not provide standardized guidance to commanders in how to
recognize exceptional performance. In dealing with exceptional performers, some
commanders may take a very liberal view in granting awards and other recognition
while other commanders apply more rigorous standards. Since awards and promotions
are the few tangible rewards commanders can offer members, a standardized approach
to ensuring recognition is granted when merited and not given in excess maintains the
empirical value of the awards, preventing their value from being diminished in the eyes
of the members throughout the organization.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approves the establishment of an ad hoc CAP Member
Recognition Policy Committee charged with the specific purpose to craft a standardized
nationwide CAP recognition policy. The committee shall seek to provide commanders
at all levels with recognition “benchmarks” to assist them in making appropriate
recommendations for awards and promotions.
The committee shall be appointed by the National Commander and be comprised of
members who have served as commanders, cadet program officers, legal officers and
personnel officers. A cadet representative may be appointed to this committee at the
discretion of the National Commander. The National Commander may appoint CAP
paid corporate staff to the committee with the concurrence of the Executive Director.
The number of members and constituency of the committee shall be at the National
Commander’s discretion.
The committee shall provide the National Board with an update on its progress in
completing the policy at each subsequent National Board meeting with the goal of
completing its task by the 2010 Summer National Board meeting. The committee shall
be deactivated once the policy has been completed and adopted by the National Board.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Estimated cost for approval of this action is negligible. Committee members can meet
via conference calls and online e-conferences, reducing the cost of meeting.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
If approved, NHQ will be glad to work with the established committee.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
No comment.
31

February 2009 National Board Minutes
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
[Sr Advisor-Support] The National Awards and Promotions Team has published and
given seminars (Summer National Board) on the preparation and justification of awards.
The Team is very willing to support any action that the National Board desires for full
member recognition, but is concerned that the commander’s prerogative not be
jeopardized.
[NLO] I do not endorse any restriction on the ability of commanders to reward
performance. The fact that some commanders are poor "paymasters" and some are
more liberal should not require a rigid approach to awards and recognition. Rather, the
fact that wing commanders and region commanders do not award their subordinates for
performance is a command issue that can be addressed by their commanders. If you
look at Air Force awards, our categories pretty much track theirs with only a couple of
exceptions: there is a "recognition ribbon" for people who have won national awards that
used to have only plaques or certificates, and there is an "airman of the year" award
ribbon. We might consider adopting those for CAP. I think the achievement award was
a great addition. We also should have different unit recognitions besides just the unit
citation and the NATCOM unit citation. If we have unit benchmarks for performance, we
should recognize those that exceed the benchmarks.
[CAP/CC] Concur with comments of the NLO and Sr. Advisor-Support – at this time,
commanders have the ability to provide recognition to reward performance and the
outcome of this task force should not jeopardize the commander’s prerogative. The
“pay” we give our members, the awards and recognition need not be too tightly
regulated.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 35-5, CAP Officer and NCO Appointments and Promotions
CAPR 39-3, Award of CAP Medals, Ribbons and Certificates
CAPR 52-16, Cadet Program Management
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION

This agenda item was withdrawn.

32

February 2009 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 9

DP

Action

SUBJECT: Request for Study of SSN Substitute
NM Wg/CC – Col Himebrook

Author: Col Himebrook

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
Currently prospective cadets, particularly those in schools participating in the School
Enrichment Program (SEP) program, who either do not have or do not wish to reveal
their Social Security Number (SSN) are not permitted to join CAP. Under the Privacy
Act, these individuals may not be asked their SSN or Green Card number. The
requirement for the SSN is in CAPR 39-2 para 1-6 and Attachment 2.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve for the National staff to work this issue, then discuss
their solution with the Air Force in hopes this results in allowing more youth to
participate in CAP.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Passage of this measure allowing more cadets joining will result in greater expenditures
for training materials. This additional cost should be more than offset by the additional
dues collected.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Non-concur as drafted. The Privacy Act does not apply to CAP and only binds Federal
Executive Branch Offices, such as the Department of Education. In addition, the Air
Force requires the SSN for cadet program participation (e.g. military “O” Flights, base
entry at base commander’s option, etc.). Also, whether the SSN is required or not,
individuals applying for cadet membership are still required to be citizens of the United
States or individuals legally admitted for residence.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
CAP-USAF does not concur. It is important that prospective cadets’ citizenship status
be determined in order to ensure compliance with the CAP Constitution and Bylaws,
and 36 USC. CAP-USAF also notes that CAP is not a “government agency” so the
Privacy Act does not apply:
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER USAGE
Section 7 of the Privacy Act (found at 5 U.S.C. § 552a note (Disclosure of Social
Security Number)) provides that:
"It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to
any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such
individual's refusal to disclose his social security account number." Sec. 7(a)(1).

33

February 2009 National Board Minutes
Additionally, requiring the SSN for membership and background check is a separate
consideration from how that number is used administratively in CAP programs and
subsequent concerns over “identity theft.” Questions of SSNs on CAP documents and
orders is a different consideration from using the SSN in the membership
application/screening process. The two distinct uses should be discussed separately.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
[Sr Advisor-Support] The use of the SSN on numerous CAP documents and orders is
an ongoing concern with the National Staff and NHQ. The SSN requirement was
removed from MSAs only last year with the assistance of CAP-USAF. The National
Staff will continue to work this issue with all concerned and will advise the Board on its
progress. If the SSN is removed from the membership system extensive modifications
will be required, and will take time to accomplish.
[NLO] In agreement with the study. However, the Privacy Act should not factor into this
as we make membership decisions based on our corporate standards, and we're not an
instrumentality of the Federal government for that purpose.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 39-2, Civil Air Patrol Membership.
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL HIMEBROOK/NM MOVED and COL CARR/GLR seconded that the National
Board approve for the National staff to work a study of Social Security Number
substitute and then discuss their solution with the Air Force and Army JROTC in
hopes this results in allowing more youth to participate in CAP.

THE MOTION DID NOT PASS.

34

February 2009 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 10
SUBJECT:

DP

Action

Movement of Aircraft and Personnel outside the Wing

A. Authorization Wing Aircraft or Personnel Leaving the Wing
B. Authorization Wing Vehicles or Personnel Leaving the Wing
Author: Col Lee
PA Wg/CC – Col Lee
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
A. Currently, in the CAPR 60-1 there is a requirement that the wing or higher
commander authorize flights for wing aircraft that will be flying out of the wing’s
boundaries. Further, flights beyond international borders require N/DO approval.
Though it is assumed that the PIC will seek this authorization from his/her Wing
Commander based on past practice and previous versions of the 60-1, this is no longer
delineated. In addition, no regulatory guidance is provided if the wing’s asset is being
taken out of wing by a pilot from a different wing who may have received authorization
from his own wing commander but not that of the Wing Commander responsible for the
aircraft. In addition, no guidance is provided if that pilot is taking along crew members
or passengers from a different wing. Should an aircraft or wing member be leaving the
wing or region, the Wing Commander having primary responsibility for that aircraft,
asset or member, as well as the Region Commander should similarly be made aware of
the status of his/her assets and provide authorization.
B. Currently, in the CAPR 60-1 there is a requirement that the Wing Commander
authorize flights for wing aircraft that will be flying out of the wing. No similar regulation
provides guidance if corporate vehicles or personnel are leaving the wing. Should a
vehicle or wing member be leaving the wing or region, the Wing Commander/Wing
operations as well as the Region Commander should be aware of the status of its
assets and provide authorization.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
A. Proposed NB Action:
The National Board approves amending CAPR 60-1, 2-2. c. to include that, whenever
an aircraft and/or wing member are leaving the wing and/or region in which that asset or
personnel normally resides, that wing and/or region commander’s authorization is
required.
Amend 60-1 2-2. c. as follows:
Flight to destinations outside a wing’s boundaries requires the authorization of an IC or
CMD (during Supervised Missions), wing or higher commander unless permitted under
an approved MOU. Wing Commanders may authorize travel anywhere within his/her
Region or wings adjacent to the Wing. Region Commanders may authorize travel
anywhere within the United States. The member traveling must receive prior approval
from the wing commander who will request authorization from the region commander if
35

February 2009 National Board Minutes
necessary. Flight across an international border requires N/DO approval unless part of
an FAA IFR procedure to a US airport.
B. Proposed NB Action:
The National Board approve amending CAPR 77-1 (paragraph 6 and/or 7) to include
Wing and Region Commanders authorization as appropriate. This would be similar to
the guidance provided in CAPR 60-1 but adjusted for vehicles and/or Wing members
leaving the Wing and/or Region respectively.
Wing Commanders may authorize travel anywhere within his/her region or wings
adjacent the wing. Region Commanders may authorize travel anywhere within the
United States. The member traveling must receive prior approval from the wing
commander who will request authorization from the region commander if necessary.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Funding impact will be negligible. The writing of the paragraph and insertion into the
regulation would be the extent of the impact.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
A. Concur.
B. NHQ has no objection to this proposal as it applies to vehicle movement and will
amend CAPR 77-1 to reflect the proposed guidance, if approved.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Do not concur as presented. This policy would have the unintended consequence of
limiting an Incident Commander’s ability to effectively respond in a “real-world” mission
that occurs in a border area and would negate the inherent flexibility of CAP aircraft.
Although we understand that there should be limits to cross border flights during routine
training missions, adopting a wide ranging policy requiring extensive approval for any
cross border flight would not be advisable.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
A. Comments
[Senior Advisor-Operations] Non-concur. The IC or someone with authority must
authorize the flight. We operate many missions with mixed crews and across
wing/region boundaries. With all missions listed in WIMRS and the NOC fully aware of
all missions in progress with a list of the aircraft and crew on board, we have a good
system to keep track of where our specific aircraft is operating and what crewmembers
are on board. If a Wing Commander feels that a specific policy is needed to address a
need unique to that Wing’s operation, then they have the authority to establish a
supplement or Wing policy to address that issue.
36

February 2009 National Board Minutes
[Ops Advisor] Non-concur. The IC or Wing/Region CC is in charge of the CAP
resource, the NOC knows where the aircraft is stationed for missions, there does not
seem to be any reason to further restrict command and control at this time. The flight
release program fills any gaps.
[Stan/Eval Advisor] I don’t see a reason to change or amend the 60-1 as well. This is
introducing limits to the Wing and Region Commanders. One size does not fit all.
Wings and Regions still retain the authority to publish supplements that provide out of
state guidance. For example, this proposal may hamper operations between smaller
wings in the north eastern states but be a viable option for those larger wings out west.
B. Comments
[Sr Advisor-Support]
If the Board implements vehicle and personnel travel
requirements, we suggest that the guidelines be the same as those established for
aircraft movement out of the Wing for the sake of uniformity. The new CAPR 60-1
streamlined this procedure.
[NLO] I have concern about "personnel authorizations" as opposed to resource
movement authorizations. We are currently working on a notification-based system that
would advise a border state or region commander of the movement of personnel into his
or her area of responsibility, but does not involve the authorization or approval of travel
or a particular activity. If we select an approval system for personnel movement and
activity, we will have to gather a lot of information, such as: have the parents of an
underage cadet approved participation, are POVs being used and, if so, what insurance
is carried, do all drivers have CAP licenses with current MVRs on file, what's going to be
done at the activity and is it consistent with CAP regulations, etc., etc., much like "tour
permits" used with the BSA. What consequences will attach if this approval is not
obtained? Will there be an argument that the senior members are personally liable if
something bad happens? Will CAP be liable under negligence per se standard for
failure to comply with its own internal rules? I can't see an upside to approval of
personnel actions.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 60-1, CAP Flight Management
CAPR 77-1, Operation and Maintenance of CAP Vehicles
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
The agenda item was divided into two parts:

A. Authorization Wing Aircraft or Personnel Leaving the Wing
COL LEE/PA MOVED and COL CORTUM/RMR seconded the PROPOSED
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.
37

February 2009 National Board Minutes
COL HERRIN/NLO MOVED TO AMEND and COL PHELKA/CO seconded the
amendment to change the motion to read: “That the National Board approves
amending CAPR 60-1, 2-2. c. to include that, whenever an aircraft and/or wing
member are leaving the wing and/or region in which that asset or personnel
normally resides, that the wing and/or region commander is notified.”
B. Authorization Wing Vehicles or Personnel Leaving the Wing
After considerable discussion, this agenda item was tabled until later in the
session to allow the board to work on the amended changes.

Later in the meeting, this agenda item was withdrawn.

38

February 2009 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 11

DP

Action

SUBJECT: CAP Member Standardized Discipline Program
CA Wg/CC – Col Parris

Author: Col Parris

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
Existing CAP policy does not provide standardized guidance to commanders in how to
correct substandard performance or address misconduct. Previously, CAP published
the “Adverse Membership Actions Handbook” which was nothing more than a
consolidation of regulations pertaining to adverse membership actions. The handbook
provided commanders no guidance in how to develop and implement a discipline
program.
Most public and private organizations have adopted standardized progressive discipline
policies to address poor member or employee performance and misconduct. The
purpose of “progressive discipline” is to offer the poor performer or miscreant an
opportunity to rehabilitate. Rehabilitation conserves a volunteer organization’s most
precious resource, its volunteers. It avoids the use of membership termination as the
first course of action for all disciplinary matters. An effective and fair progressive
discipline program has also been proven to reduce complaints and minimizes exposure
to litigation should it be necessary to take an adverse action against a member for
substandard performance or misconduct.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approves the establishment of an ad hoc CAP Member
Discipline Policy Committee charged with the specific purpose to craft a standardized
nationwide CAP discipline policy. The committee shall adopt “progressive discipline” as
the foundation of any policy it develops.
The committee shall be appointed by the National Commander and be comprised of
members who have served as commanders, inspectors general, legal officers and
personnel officers. The National Commander may appoint CAP paid corporate staff to
the committee with the concurrence of the Executive Director. The number of members
and constituency of the committee shall be at the National Commander’s discretion.
The committee shall provide the National Board with an update on its progress in
completing the policy at each subsequent National Board meeting with the goal of
completing its task by the 2010 Summer National Board meeting. The committee shall
be disestablished once the policy has been completed and adopted by the National
Board.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Estimated cost for approval of this action is negligible. Committee members can meet
via conference calls and online e-conferences, reducing the cost of meeting.

39

February 2009 National Board Minutes
Considerable cost savings from litigation may be realized with the implementation of a
sound standardized discipline policy.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Defer to the National Commander’s prerogative to establish a committee and will be
happy to assist in any way.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
None.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
[NLO] We need a progressive discipline policy; however it should be undertaken as a
revision of the membership termination regulation. All member discipline should be in
one regulation. Also, the member discipline process must mandate the intervention and
review (not endorsement) by legal officers of any proposed member termination action
and must mandate the involvement by legal officers at any termination hearing and
appellate review panel. Finally, any review of member discipline policies and
procedures needs to critically examine and overhaul the ability of subordinates to bring
IG complaints against commanders for discretionary command decisions (termination of
membership has a robust review procedure already). Of course, if there is credible
evidence of fraud, waste or abuse, those can be investigated through the IG process,
but the actions of a commander qua commander (i.e., within the discretionary boundary
of his or her command authority as prescribed in CAP C&B or regulations) should be
solely a command matter for the next highest command echelon.
[Sr Advisor-Support] The Support Team will assist the National Commander and any
committee in this matter.

REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 35-1, Assignment and Duty Status
CAPR 35-3, Membership Termination
CAPR 35-5, CAP Officer and NCO Appointments and Promotions
CAPR 35-8, Membership Action Review Board
CAPR 35-10, Ethics Policy
CAPR 36-1, CAP Nondiscrimination Policy
CAPR 36-2, Complaints Under the CAP Nondiscrimination Policy
CAPR 39-2, Civil Air Patrol Membership
CAPR 52-10, CAP Cadet Protection Policy
CAPR 52-16, Cadet Program Management
CAPR 62-1, CAP Safety Responsibilities and Procedures
CAPR 62-2, Mishap Reporting and Investigation
CAPR 67-1, CAP Property Regulation
40

February 2009 National Board Minutes
CAPR 112-9, Claims, Demands, and Legal Actions for or Against the CAP, USAF & US
CAPR 112-10, Indemnification
CAPR 123-1, The CAP Inspector General Program
CAPR 123-2, Complaints
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL PARRIS/CA MOVED and COL SAILE/MI seconded the PROPOSED NATIONAL
BOARD ACTION.
COL HERRIN/NLO MOVED TO POSTPONE INDEFINITELY and COL WINTERS/OH
seconded the postponement until other on-going disciplinary actions (Adverse
Personnel Actions) can be evaluated.

THE MOTION TO POSTPONE INDEFINIELY CARRIED.

41

February 2009 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 12

AE

Action

SUBJECT: AE Officer of the Year – Name Change
PCR/CC – Col Pearson

Author: Col Pearson

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
The recent additions to the national awards were nearly all named in memory of well
known CAP members with the exception of the Aerospace Education Officer of the
Year. Pacific Region is requesting consideration of naming that award in memory of Lt
Col Jule Zumwalt.
Lt Col Zumwalt served for many years in a wide variety of AE positions at California
Wing, Pacific Region, Pacific Liaison Region, National Headquarters CAP and CAPUSAF. She was instrumental in expanding the AE program and fostering recognizing
the outstanding efforts of local AE officers. She emphasized the co-ordination of our AE
program with local schools and the recruiting of teachers into CAP. She established an
annual Pacific Region Aerospace Education Conference for teachers and was an
enthusiastic supporter of the National Congress on Aerospace Education (NCASE).
Upon her retirement from CAP-USAF service, she moved to Seattle and became
affiliated with the Boeing Museum of Flight as Program Manager for educational
programs. Lt Col Zumwalt established many innovative programs for school groups of
every level. Among these was a space shuttle simulation that included both mission
control and orbiter functions with students interacting between the functions. In addition
she provided many opportunities for teachers to gain aerospace knowledge and
experience to share with their students.
Lt Col Zumwalt remained active in CAP, serving as Pacific Region DAE until her
untimely passing. It would be extremely fitting to recognize her supreme contributions
to our organization by naming this award in her memory.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approves naming the recently approved Aerospace Education
Officer of the Year ward after Lt Col Jule Zumwalt.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
None.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Non-concur as drafted. In agreement with the Aerospace Education Advisor comments.
In lieu of consideration of a single individual at this Board, recommend opening it up for
competition.

42

February 2009 National Board Minutes
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
No comment.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
[Sr Advisor-Support and AE Advisor] Non-concur. Recommend that this award not be
renamed at this time, and if the Board does desire to rename the award, recommend
that a team of CAP AE officers review all possible candidates, and make
recommendations to the Board for action.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 39-3, Award of CAP Medals, Ribbons, and Certificates
CAPR 280-2, Civil Air Patrol Aerospace Education Mission
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL PEARSON/PCR MOVED and COL MILLER/NV seconded the PROPOSED
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.
COL JENSEN/CT MOVED TO AMEND and COL WEISS/NFO seconded the
amendment to strike the words “after Lt Col Jule Zumwalt,” and open up the
naming for competition.

THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED.
THE AMENDED MOTION CARRIED.
NOTE: The amended motion as restated by the chair reads:
“That the National Board approves naming the recently approved Aerospace
Education Officer of the Year Award and opening the selection to all potential
wing and region candidates.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Referral to the Aerospace Education area to have a committee
determine the nominee from the information submitted to them. Include in the August
2009 National Board Agenda.

43

February 2009 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 13
Author: Col Davies

CP

Action

SUBJECT: Online Cadet Achievement Tests
NATCAP/CC – Col Davies
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:

You’re a motivated cadet, eager to advance in the Cadet Program. Tonight you are to
complete an achievement test as you race a fellow cadet toward promotion.
Unfortunately, your teachers assign lots of homework. Will you put school first and
sacrifice your chance to promote this month in CAP?
With today’s youth busier than ever, why do we put our cadets in such a dilemma?
This proposal calls for making cadet achievement tests available online. Some of the
benefits of this idea include:







Cadets will be able to test at a time and place of their convenience
Squadrons will gain about 1 hour per month to put toward other activities
Software will ensure cadets take the right test
Cadets will immediately receive their test scores and feedback on missed questions
Test scores will automatically flow into the Cadet Promotions Application, thereby
reducing paperwork for the squadron
National Headquarters will be able to update tests better, faster, and cheaper

When this idea was initially shared within the cadet community, some leaders
expressed reservations about online tests because of (A) the possibility of cheating and
(B) the potential for online tests to diminish the value of cadet grade. This proposal
responds to those concerns as follows:
(A) The Integrity Issue. With randomized test questions, the number of test
versions is nearly unlimited, making it harder to game the tests. (Presently, there is
just one version of each test.) Also, test integrity will be supported by introducing
an honor statement (below) and keeping the milestone exams closed-book as a
safety valve. Finally, the online tests can be constructed so that they are more
intellectually challenging than they are now, and the passing score would increase
from 70% to 80%.
(B) The Promotion Standards Issue. Many in the cadet community have
complained that too often we’ve produced cadets who are book-smart but lack
genuine leadership skill. By putting tests online, we still evaluate cadets’ academic
knowledge, but leadership performance becomes the bigger factor in the
promotion equation, with the “Leadership Expectations” of CAPR 52-16, Figure 22, serving as guidelines.

44

February 2009 National Board Minutes
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board authorizes National Headquarters to develop a system for
administering cadet achievement tests online and to update CAPR 52-16, Cadet
Program Management, and CAPR 50-4, Test Administration & Security, to reflect the
testing protocols outlined below.
a. Format. Cadets may attempt online achievement tests at a time and place of their
choosing (i.e.: at home). Each test will have 25 questions, to be drawn at random
from a larger test bank. Cadets will have 30 minutes to complete each test. The
passing score will be 80%.
b. Access. The test software will grant cadets access only to those tests the cadet is
ordinarily eligible for (see CAPR 52-16, 2-2b). Cadets may not “bank” tests or test
beyond their next achievement.
c. Honor Statement: Before accessing the test, the software will prompt cadets to
indicate that they will abide by the following Honor Statement:
I certify that I am Cadet (Name). I will complete the following Cadet Achievement
Test on my own, without help from another person. My only resource for this openbook test will be my cadet textbooks and class notes. [By clicking below,] I reaffirm
my commitment to our Core Value of Integrity.
d. Feedback. Cadets will see their test scores instantly. The test software will also
provide cadets and their unit commanders and testing officers with meaningful
feedback about the questions answered incorrectly.
e. Re-Testing. Cadets who fail a test must wait at least 7 days before reattempting the
test online. Further, the test software will lock-out cadets who fail a test twice,
prompting those cadets to see their local leaders for mentoring, before a senior
member restores the cadet’s testing privileges.
f. Special Accommodations. Testing officers may print hard copies of cadet
achievement tests and administer them in writing to those cadets who lack Internet
access. In such cases, the tests remain open-book and timed as described above.
Further, unit commanders may continue to grant oral testing to cadets who have
special educational needs (per CAPR 52-16, 2-2b).
g. Performance Tests. Some tests may include a performance section testing the
cadet’s ability to perform drill and ceremonies. Drill tests will be administered at the
squadron, under the supervision of a testing officer.
h. Milestone Award Exams. All cadet milestone award exams, except the Spaatz
Award Exam, will be locally controlled (not available online) and closed-book. The
Spaatz Award Exam is administered online, but is a timed, closed-book exam
controlled by CAP-USAF personnel.
45

February 2009 National Board Minutes
i.

Updating Records. The online test system will automatically update the cadet’s
records in the Cadet Promotions Application at e-Services, following each test
attempt.

Effective Date. The National Board authorizes National Headquarters to launch this
program concurrent with the publication of the new leadership curriculum, Learn to
Lead, Modules 1 & 2 (anticipated for late 2009).
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Opportunity cost of NHQ employees to develop software.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur. Now that the Cadet promotions are online we are moving toward online
testing. However, before we place these tests online we must revise the Leadership
volumes to make sure they comply with National academic standards and it will take
some time. There needs to be flexibility in the implementation time line.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Strongly concur. Testing procedures and administration should not unnecessarily
hinder the program or cadet advancement. It is possible to implement IT and policy
controls (as described in the proposed action), to prevent any meaningful compromise
to the test bank. Adjusting emphasis away from scholastic performance toward
evaluating behaviors consistent with leadership at the next level is a desirable goal and
this action aids that shift. Retaining proctored, closed book exams for the milestone
awards help reinforce appropriate rigor and quality control. Implementation will require
significant effort in the IT arena, written policy guidance, and the leadership challenge of
effecting the cultural change.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
[Sr Advisor-Support and CP Advisor] Concur.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 52-16, Cadet Program Management
CAPR 50-4, Test Administration & Security
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL DAVIES/NATCAP MOVED and COL JENSEN/CT seconded the PROPOSED
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

46

February 2009 National Board Minutes
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Implementation of policy, notification to the field, and change to
CAPR 52-16, Cadet Program Management and CAPR 50-4, Test Administration &
Security.

47

February 2009 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 14

HC

Action

SUBJECT: Chaplain Service Training and Promotion Requirements
CAP/CCS – Ch, Col Woodard

Author: Col Woodard

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
While undergoing periodic revision of CAPR 265-1, an area of proposed change was
brought forth suggesting NB action.
This concerns the matter of chaplain promotion through the senior member training
track. CAPR 35-5, Section E, 5-4, a, (3) states:
“CAP chaplains must complete CAPP 221 for all promotions after initial appointment.
CAPP 221A must be completed prior to promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.
Additional related training is encouraged but not required for promotion.”
This wording exposes an area of conflict with the ensuing development of the chaplain
training track in cooperation with Professional Development. CAPP 221 no longer
references the first phase of chaplain training, but only to the Chaplain Specialty Track
Guide. It is no longer a training course. In addition, chaplains are no longer to be
appointed with an implied Technician rating in the 221 specialty track. They must earn
the rating by completing CAPP 221A. Subsequently, the senior rating requires
completion of CAPP 221B; and the Master rating requires completion of CAPP 221C. It
is the unanimous recommendation of the Chaplain Service Advisory Council that CAPR
35-5 be amended to allow for the recent rewriting of the 221 Chaplain Service training
track.
In August, 2008, the NB wisely took action to discontinue the option for chaplains to
substitute the chaplain training track for completion of SLS and CLC in the senior
member training. The intention of that action was to put the Chaplain Service on the
same track as other senior members. Since the SLS and CLC can now be completed
online, there is no longer a need for the “chaplain exception.” This proposed action
simply completes that process, incorporating the already established senior member
training into the requirements for chaplain promotion on the same basis as any other
senior member.
The current wording of CAPR 35-5, Section, 5-4, a, (3) allows chaplains to obtain
promotion based solely on time in grade once they are initially appointed. The CSAC
has noted an alarming number of chaplains who have completed only Level One of the
senior training track, yet ascending to the grade of Lt. Col. Currently, no other elements
of the senior training requirements are applied to the chaplain. It is the conviction of the
CSAC that chaplains, in order to function effectively, should have the same
requirements and experience as any other senior member. Therefore, we have asked
that henceforth, chaplains be required to complete the same training requirements for
promotion. This, action is necessary to permit the inclusion of the senior member
training track into the promotion requirements for chaplains as outlined in the proposed
revision of CAPR 265-1.
48

February 2009 National Board Minutes
No changes are suggested for the grade extended to chaplains with their initial
appointment as provided in CAPR 35-5, Section E, 5-1; 5-3 a., (1); 5-3, a. (2).
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approves:
1. The revision of paragraph 5-4a(3) to say: CAP chaplains must complete the training
requirements outlined in CAPR 265-1 as well as the time-in-grade requirements outlined
in paragraph 1-8 of this regulation to be eligible for further promotion.
2. The deletion of CAPR 265-1 Section C, 11, a., b., and c., to be replaced by the
following (As submitted in the proposed amendment of CAPR 265-1):
“a. CAPP 221A. All chaplains must complete CAPP 221A, The CAP Chaplain.
Upon successful completion, chaplains will be awarded the 221 Specialty Track
with a technician specialty rating. This course no longer substitutes SLS.
b. CAPP 221B. All chaplains must complete CAPP 221B, Chaplains Helping
Chaplains–Specialty Track Study Guide to be awarded the senior specialty rating.
In addition, the appropriate time-in-grade requirements and completion of Level III
of senior member training to be eligible for promotion to major. This course is also
required for chaplains to serve as a group or wing chaplain and no longer
substitutes CLC.
c. CAPP 221C. All chaplains must complete CAPP 221C, Chaplains Inspiring
Chaplains, to be awarded the Master specialty rating In addition, the appropriate
time-in-grade requirements and completion of Level IV of senior member training
to be eligible for promotion to lieutenant colonel. This course is also required for
chaplains to serve as a region chaplain.”
This change to take effect on 1 April 2009. Chaplains who have completed the previous
221 and 221A will not be required to retake, 221A and 221B, but all existing chaplains
with the Master Chaplain rating will be expected to complete the new 221C.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
There is no appreciable funding impact. The amendment to CAPR 35-5 could be easily
accomplished with an Interim Change Letter until such time as the regulation is
reprinted. The Chaplain Service regulations and training materials are already under
revision and no impact is seen there.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
If the National Board decides to approve this item, highly recommend all current
chaplains be grandfathered. Discontinuation of 221 and 221A substituting for SLS and
CLC has resulted in several comments from the field expressing disapproval. By
requiring these professionals to complete the SM Specialty Track, this creates a high
49

February 2009 National Board Minutes
likelihood these negative reactions will continue and even increase. Advanced degrees
and professional experience are a strong basis for exemption from SM Specialty Track.
If this policy is approved, it will likely have a negative impact on the promotabilty of
chaplains.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
No comment.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
[Sr Advisor-Support] No objection, however, we note that this will have a substantial
impact on the promotion ability of some CAP Chaplains.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 35-5, CAP Officer and NCO Appointments and Promotions
CAPR 265-1, The CAP Chaplain Service
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
CH, COL, WOODARD MOVED and COL RUSHING/SER seconded the PROPOSED
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Implementation of policy, notification to the field, and change to
CAPR 35-5, CAP Officer and NCO Appointments and Promotions, and CAPR 265-1,
The CAP Chaplain Service.

50

February 2009 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 15

SE

Action

SUBJECT: Face-to-face Safety Meeting Requirement
WY Wg/CC – Col Skrabut

Author: Col Skrabut

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
CAPR 62-1, Civil Air Patrol Safety Responsibilities and Procedures, paragraph 3d
requires that members who miss the face-to-face safety meeting must attend at least
one face-to-face meeting per calendar quarter.
Research has shown that online training is as effective as face-to-face training. With
staff members who may not meet except for teleconferencing situations, this
requirement creates an undue burden for administrating the program.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approves that the face-to-face requirement be dropped from
CAPR 62-1, Civil Air Patrol Safety Responsibilities and Procedures.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Minimal.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Non-Concur, in agreement with CAP National Safety Officer's comments.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Non-concur. Incidents over the last year indicate safety culture is an area in need of
reinforcement, not compromise for convenience. As indicated by the NSO, there are
many possibilities for meeting this requirement.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
[CAP National Safety Officer] Non-Concur. CAPR 62-1 para 3d also states, “Members
who missed the face-to-face safety meeting will review the information presented at the
meeting before they participate in any CAP activity (including unit meetings). Rational
flexibility should be used to get the latest safety meeting information to those members
who miss the unit safety meeting…Due to the educational benefits gained from the
interaction during face-to-face meetings, each member must attend at least one face-toface meeting per calendar quarter.”
The benefits of face-to-face meetings mentioned in CAPR 62-1 are genuine. On-line
training, as referred to in this agenda item, is of the type used by CAP for the on-line
CAP Basic Safety Course or GA-8 Familiarization Course. It does not refer to reading
safety information in an e-mail or to receiving a safety briefing during a teleconference.
Additionally, while CAPR 62-1 requires members to attend at least one face-to-face
51

February 2009 National Board Minutes
meeting per calendar quarter, it does not specify where. Wing staff members of
geographically large wings can attend such meetings at wing headquarters or at a unit
in their local communities. The Safety Officer needs only track that the staff members
have, in fact, attended a face-to-face meeting once each quarter.
[CAP/CC] Non-concur with the proposal as written; in agreement with the reasons
stated by the NSO.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 62-1, Civil Air Patrol Safety Responsibilities and Procedures
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL SKRABUT/WY MOVED and COL CHAZELL/CS seconded the PROPOSED
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.
COL MILLER/NV MOVED TO AMEND and COL BRITTON/AR seconded the
amendment to additionally change CAPR 62-1, paragraph 3d, as reads “will
review” to read “will be encouraged to review,” and the last sentence deleted.
COL WEISS/NFO MOVED TO POSTPONE and COL CHARLES/NATCON seconded
the postponement to allow staffing.

THE MOTION TO POSTPONE DID NOT PASS.
THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED.
The Chair repeated the amended motion as follows:
“That the National Board approves that the face-to-face requirement be dropped
from CAPR 62-1, Civil Air Patrol Safety Responsibilities and Procedures, and
further that paragraph 3d. be amended to insert the words “be encouraged to”
between the words “will review,” and the last sentence deleted”.
This agenda item was tabled to allow further discussion until later in the meeting.
This agenda item was brought back from the table after the break.

THE AMENDED MOTION CARRIED.
NOTE: The amended motion reads:
“That the National Board approves that the face-to-face requirement be dropped
from CAPR 62-1, Civil Air Patrol Safety Responsibilities and Procedures, and
paragraph 3d. be further changed to read: “Members who missed the face-toface safety meeting will be encouraged to review the information presented at the
52

February 2009 National Board Minutes
meeting before they participate in any CAP activity (including unit meetings).
Rational flexibility should be used to get the latest safety meeting information to
those members who miss the unit safety meeting.”
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Implementation of policy, notification to the field, change to
CAPR 62-1, and instruction from the Chair that the National Headquarters staff develop
an on-line process and implementation guidelines for quarterly safety briefings to be
presented to the May NEC. Include in the May 2009 NEC agenda.

53

February 2009 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 16

LG

Action

SUBJECT: Annual Re-validation of Non-expendable Issues to Individuals
WY Wg/CC – Col Skrabut

Author: Col Skrabut

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
CAPR 100-2, Communications Equipment Management, paragraph 3-5b(2) requires
that on the anniversary date of the issuance each year, the designated officer, along
with the individual who physically has custody of the items, will review and validate all
applicable issuances of non-expendable communications equipment.
Requiring the designated officer to wait for a specific issuance date causes an
unnecessary administrative burden. There should be enough flexibility to allow inventory
control to be conducted during periods most suitable to the communications officer.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approves that the designated officer, along with the individual
who physically has custody of the items, will review and validate all applicable
issuances of non-expendable communications equipment on an annual basis.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Minimal.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
NHQ concurs with the proposal to validate non-expendable communications equipment
annually. NHQ further recommends that the timing of the validation of these issued
communication items occur with all other all CAP issued property during the last quarter
of each fiscal year.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur, however the net effect cannot lead to less accountability or less frequent
inventory. Without more careful wording, the effect of “annual basis” could lead to the
conclusion that a Jan 09 inventory followed by a Dec 10 inventory would be sufficient,
even though nearly 2 years had elapsed. CAP/LG’s suggestion to designate a quarter
gives reasonable flexibility while still meeting the intent of an annual inventory.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
Under review.

54

February 2009 National Board Minutes
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 100-2, Communications Equipment Management
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL SKRABUT/WY MOVED and COL VAZQUEZ/MER seconded the PROPOSED
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.
COL HERRIN/NLO MOVED TO AMEND and COL WEISS/NFO seconded the
amendment to add the phrase “during the last quarter of each fiscal year.”

THE AMENDMENT CARRIED.
THE AMENDED MOTION CARRIED.
NOTE: The amended motion reads:
“That the National Board approves that the designated officer, along with the
individual who physically has custody of the items, will review and validate all
applicable issuances of non-expendable communications equipment on an
annual basis during the last quarter of each fiscal year.”
With the passage of this agenda item, there was clarification that the NHQ is authorized
to move the inventory cycle for the review and validation of all other CAP-issued
property to the last quarter of each fiscal year.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Implementation of policy, notification to the field, and change
all applicable CAP regulations.

55

February 2009 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 17

DO

Action

SUBJECT: Deferring Discrepancies on the Discrepancy Log
NM Wg/CC – Col Himebrook

Author: Col Himebrook

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
The current Discrepancy Log in the Standard Aircraft Information File (AIF), depicted on
page 3, allows only for signing off a discrepancy as repaired. And once a discrepancy is
written up, the FAA locally (ABQ) has told us that the plane is grounded until something
is written up about the resolution.
However, for minor items, this takes the plane out of service until it is repaired, and
eliminates an otherwise available asset, as each little item must be fixed immediately.
Deferring some maintenance until the next 50 hour or 100 hour maintenance session
would be a lot more efficient (combining minor repairs is more cost efficient). The FARs
allow this, and the paperwork used by professional aviation companies allow for this as
well. I suggest we allow the Maintenance Officer to make this judgment call and also
change the form to allow deferments to be tracked properly.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approves that the Discrepancy Log be modified to allow the
capability of indicating that a discrepancy is being deferred to the next significant
maintenance event.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
This suggestion should require negligible funding, and could actually save money,
although the amount is difficult to quantify.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
NHQ supports this proposal and, if approved, the logistics and operations staff will work
together CAP members to develop criteria and determine appropriate documentation
procedures.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur. The proposed action is consistent with FAR Part 91.213 (d), but probably
requires additional guidance within CAP in order to standardize procedures.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
[Senior Advisor-Operations] The FAA is correct. Once something is written up, it must
be addressed. An item can be written up and if it is not an airworthy issue, carried as a
deferred item until the next maintenance period. i.e., 50/100/annual inspection or other
maintenance. The aircraft maintenance officer would be the logical person to determine
if a written up item could be deferred. Write-ups that are deferred would be
56

February 2009 National Board Minutes
noted in the A.I.F in the corrective action box in the discrepancy section. A sticker or
note stating what the deferred item is should be placed on the cover of the A.I.F. This
would be notice to the pilot that a deferred item is being carried on the aircraft. Once
the deferred item has been repaired, the sticker or note would be removed. It would be
a good procedure to have a required equipment list for each specific aircraft. The New
Cessna 182T G1000 has a section in the POH that covers all of this. It is called the K.
E. L., Kinds of Equipment List. It states what's installed, what must be working for IFR
Day, Night, VFR Day, and Night. This is a maintenance issue and should be worked
through the LG.
[NLO]
I. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
This agenda item proposes to defer aircraft discrepancies which are considered to be
“minor items” to the next scheduled maintenance. The basis for the proposed item is
that under current practice, an aircraft is grounded until the discrepancy is repaired.
The item recognizes that per the Federal Aviation Regulations (“FAR”s) an aircraft may
be operated with certain inoperable equipment under certain circumstances. Under the
proposal, the maintenance officer would be authorized to keep the aircraft in service
and defer the item to the next scheduled maintenance.
II. APPLICABLE LAW/REGULATION
Section 91.213 of the FAR’s provides as follows:
§ 91.213 Inoperative instruments and equipment.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may take off an
aircraft with inoperative instruments or equipment installed unless the following
conditions are met:
(1) An approved Minimum Equipment List exists for that aircraft.
(2) The aircraft has within it a letter of authorization, issued by the FAA Flight Standards
district office having jurisdiction over the area in which the operator is located,
authorizing operation of the aircraft under the Minimum Equipment List. The letter of
authorization maybe obtained by written request of the airworthiness certificate holder.
The Minimum Equipment List and the letter of authorization constitute a supplemental
type certificate for the aircraft.
(3) The approved Minimum Equipment List must—
(i) Be prepared in accordance with the limitations specified in paragraph (b) of this
section; and
(ii) Provide for the operation of the aircraft with the instruments and equipment in an
inoperable condition.
(4) The aircraft records available to the pilot must include an entry describing the
inoperable instruments and equipment.
57

February 2009 National Board Minutes
(5) The aircraft is operated under all applicable conditions and limitations contained in
the Minimum Equipment List and the letter authorizing the use of the list.
(b) The following instruments and equipment may not be included in a Minimum
Equipment List:
(1) Instruments and equipment that are either specifically or otherwise required by the
airworthiness requirements under which the aircraft is type certificated and which are
essential for safe operations under all operating conditions.
(2) Instruments and equipment required by an airworthiness directive to be in operable
condition unless the airworthiness directive provides otherwise.
(3) Instruments and equipment required for specific operations by this part.
(c) A person authorized to use an approved Minimum Equipment List issued for a
specific aircraft under subpart K of this part, part121, 125, or 135 of this chapter must
use that Minimum Equipment List to comply with the requirements in this section.
(d) Except for operations conducted in accordance with paragraph(a) or (c) of this
section, a person may takeoff an aircraft in operations conducted under this part with
inoperative instruments and equipment without an approved Minimum Equipment List
provided—
(1) The flight operation is conducted in a—
(i) Rotorcraft, non-turbine-powered airplane, glider, lighter-than-air aircraft, powered
parachute, or weight-shift-control aircraft, for which a master minimum equipment list
has not been developed; or
(ii) Small rotorcraft, no turbine-powered small airplane, glider, or lighter-than-air aircraft
for which a Master Minimum Equipment List has been developed; and
(2) The inoperative instruments and equipment are not—
(i) Part of the VFR-day type certification instruments and equipment prescribed in the
applicable airworthiness regulations under which the aircraft was type certificated;
(ii) Indicated as required on the aircraft's equipment list, or on the Kinds of Operations
Equipment List for the kind of flight operation being conducted;
(iii) Required by §91.205 or any other rule of this part for the specific kind of flight
operation being conducted; or
(iv) Required to be operational by an airworthiness directive; and
(3) The inoperative instruments and equipment are—

58

February 2009 National Board Minutes
(i) Removed from the aircraft, the cockpit control placarded, and the maintenance
recorded in accordance with §43.9 of this chapter; or
(ii) Deactivated and placarded “Inoperative.”
If deactivation of the inoperative
instrument or equipment involves maintenance, it must be accomplished and recorded
in accordance with part 43 of this chapter; and
(4) A determination is made by a pilot, who is certificated and appropriately rated under
part 61 of this chapter, or by a person, who is certificated and appropriately rated to
perform maintenance on the aircraft, that the inoperative instrument or equipment does
not constitute a hazard to the aircraft. An aircraft with inoperative instruments or
equipment as provided in paragraph (d) of this section is considered to be in a properly
altered condition acceptable to the Administrator.
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an aircraft with inoperable
instruments or equipment may be operated under a special flight permit issued in
accordance with §§21.197 and21.199 of this chapter.
The basic rule is that every piece of “installed” equipment must be operational before a
flight can be made. For instance, if an aircraft had three clocks and one did not work,
the flight could not be made. Although not necessary for flight, I conclude that CAPspecific equipment, such as CAP radios and DF gear are “installed” and are covered by
the basic rule. Other equipment, such as portable GPS units is not considered to be
“installed” and is not covered by the rule.
In order to ameliorate the harshness of the rule, the FAA developed the “minimum
equipment list” (“MEL”). This is a misnomer because the MEL is actually a list of what
may be broken not what must be working. The aircraft MEL must be approved by the
FAA. The FAA also provided an exemption to aircraft which do not have an approved
MEL.
Under subsection (d), a flight may be conducted in an aircraft with inoperative
equipment but without an MEL provided that the inoperative instruments and equipment
are not” part of the VFR-day type certification instruments and equipment prescribed in
the applicable airworthiness regulations…” or “indicated as required on the aircraft’s
equipment list or the Kinds of Operations Equipment List for the kind of flight operation
being conducted” or otherwise required by regulation. The inoperative equipment must
then either be removed from the aircraft or deactivated and placarded as “inoperative”
AND the pilot must make a determination that the aircraft can be safely operated.
For example, an airspeed indicator is required for day VFR operations (section 91.205)
sounder no circumstances may a flight be conducted without a working airspeed
indicator. However, a vertical speed indicator is not required, so a flight could be
conducted if the VSI were removed or deactivated and marked Inoperative.
However, operations conducted in other than day VFR conditions require additional
equipment. If an aircraft is to be operated at night, the aircraft’s position lighting must
be operational. There are also additional equipment requirements for IFR flight. While
59

February 2009 National Board Minutes
section 91.213 would appear to allow an aircraft with inoperable position lights to be
operated in day VFR flight, night flight would be prohibited.
Additionally subsection (d) (2) (ii) states that any equipment required by the aircraft
manufacturer in its aircraft equipment list or Kinds of Operations Equipment List must be
working. The G1000 equipped aircraft do have a Kinds of Operations Equipment List so
that list must be consulted. If for instance, both avionics cooling fans were inoperative,
the flight could not be conducted even though these items are not required by
section91.205 for VFR flight.
Finally, it should be noted that whenever equipment is installed in an aircraft, the
aircraft’s empty weight must be recalculated. When the installed equipment is removed,
the weight and balance of the aircraft must also be recalculated.
III. ANALYSIS
The proposal seeks to take advantage of the provisions in section 91.213 to allow flights
to be conducted with certain inoperative equipment which would decrease both
maintenance costs and aircraft down time. If the maintenance officer is considering
whether to defer the discrepancy to the next scheduled maintenance, the officer must
consider the following:
· Does 91.213 authorize the flight to be conducted with the inoperative equipment?
· Is the equipment required by 91.205?
· Is the equipment required by the manufacturer?
· Will the flight be conducted under other than day VFR conditions, and, if so, is the
equipment required for the operation in those conditions?
· Has the inoperable equipment been removed or deactivated and placarded?
· Has the aircraft weight been recalculated?
· Is the pilot satisfied that the flight can be conducted safely without the equipment?
There are three major concerns with the proposal: first, the maintenance officer has to
consult multiple sources to determine whether the discrepancy can be deferred and, the
analysis must be aircraft specific. Second, the process for removing or disabling and
placarding the equipment could be as time consuming as having the item fixed. Finally,
each pilot must be made aware of the discrepancy and make a determination of
whether the flight can be safely conducted.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the National Legal Officer would not recommend the
proposal in its current form which gives the maintenance officer unlimited discretion in
making the decision to defer the maintenance item. The National Legal Officer would
be receptive to a proposal which would include a required equipment list to be
developed. This should NOT be called an MEL nor should we ask for an FAA approved
MEL due to potential regulatory and enforcement problems. The list would be
developed for each type of aircraft, broken down by type of operation (day, night, VFR,
IFR) which would specify the items which, if inoperable (and removed or disabled and
placarded), would not prohibit the flight. Due to the wide variations in the fleet on the
type of equipment installed, the list may have to be aircraft specific, especially aircraft
60

February 2009 National Board Minutes
with have equipment lists or Kinds of Operations Equipment Lists, like the G1000
aircraft. Finally, there could be a category which would allow a flight to be made for
maintenance purposes so the flight would be limited to repositioning for maintenance.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 66-1, CAP Aircraft Maintenance Management
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL HIMEBROOK/NM MOVED and COL BENCKERT/VT seconded the PROPOSED
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.
COL MOERSCH/FL MOVED TO TABLE and COL LARSON/IL seconded the motion
to table so that all the issues raised in discussion could be resolved in a refined
proposed National Board action and brought back later in the meeting.

THE MOTION TO TABLE CARRIED.
Later in the meeting, this agenda item was brought back from the table.
COL MOERSCH/FL MOVED TO POSTPONE and COL LARSON/IL seconded the
postponement to refer it to staff.

THE MOTION TO POSTPONE CARRIED.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Referral to staff and inclusion in the 2009 Summer National
Board meeting agenda.

61

February 2009 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 18

Author: Col Lee

DO

Action

SUBJECT: Change to CAPR 60-1 and CAPF 5
Change flight evaluation grading structure from the
current two-grade to a three-grade structure
PA Wg/CC – Col Lee
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:

The current two-grade structure, satisfactory or unsatisfactory (S or U) allows little
latitude in evaluating the strength of a pilot’s qualification or performing trend analysis.
It is simply pass-fail. Although, pilots meet the minimum requirements, it is very hard
except in the most flagrant circumstances to tell a fellow aviator that their skills are at
the low end of the scale. The current system does not allow Check pilots to recognize
superior achievement. The National Trend Analysis Data shows an extremely low
failure rate. Changing the Form 5 grading structure to allow recording levels of
performance above passing will provide better information for safety and training
purposes.
Aviators are receptive to providing and receiving advice, guidance and mentoring. In
addition to the grade of Satisfactory, the option of additional grades of “S+1” –
Satisfactory with Meritorious performance and S+2 - Satisfactory with Exceptional
performance will provide feedback and the opportunity to discuss how to achieve
superior performance. This change will give us a valuable tool to strengthen the safety
of our flying force and will foster realistic, objective evaluations from our check pilots.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
A. The National Board approve the following change to CAPF 5/5G:
1. Change first 3 lines of header to read:
CAP PILOT FLIGHT EVALUATION
MEMBERS NAME
CAPID

DATE OF CHECK:
CHARTER
ACFT
MAKE
NO.
MODEL

&

GRADE: S+2
S+1
S
U
Commensurate changes in the form’s instructions would be required to match the
grading structure.
The follow grading matrix is designed to assist check pilots in determining grades:
GRADING MATRIX
PERFORMANCE
S+2 Performs the maneuver
correctly, smoothly and
anticipates requirements

KNOWLEDGE
SAFETY
Knowledgeable of all Never jeopardized
aspects
of
the
maneuver, the theory
and
anticipates
alternatives
62

February 2009 National Board Minutes
S+1 Performs the maneuver Knowledgeable of all Never jeopardized
correctly and smoothly
aspects
of
the
maneuver
and
a
practical knowledge
of the theory, plans
ahead
S
Performs the maneuver Knowledgeable of all Never jeopardized
correctly
whenever aspects
of
the
required
maneuver
U
Cannot
perform
the Obvious knowledge In doubt
maneuver correctly
deficiency
present
detrimental to task

B. The National Board approve the following change to CAPR 60-1:
Change paragraph 3-9a-c. regarding trend analysis to read:
a. The number of CAPF 5 evaluations administered with the letter grade by area.
b. The number of CAPF 5G evaluations administered with the letter grade by area.
c. The number of CAPF 91 evaluations administered with the letter grade by area.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Cost of reprint of subject regulation and forms to be determined.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Non-concur. In agreement with the Senior Advisor for Operations.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Do not concur; agree with Senior Operations Advisor comments. The goal of improving
the evaluation system to enhance safety and incentivize greater proficiency is a
desirable objective, but perhaps it could be achieved through other methods, such as
including a three level system in the Form 91 check.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
[NLO] Concurs, subject to ongoing evaluation of the evaluation process.
[Sr Advisor-Ops] Non-concur. The FAA Practical test Standards (PTS) are very
specific in the task requirements and pilot skills required for pilot qualifications and
proficiency tests. CAP tests all pilots on their annual proficiency checks (CAPF 5) to
these standards. The PTS uses the Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory Standards to grade
the performance of a pilot. The FAA defines the criteria that a pilot must meet or fail to
63

February 2009 National Board Minutes
meet to get a Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory Performance grading. The criteria also
include a section on pilot judgment, competency and the pilot’s ability to “demonstrate
mastery of the aircraft with the successful outcome of each task performed never
seriously in doubt.” We use the same standards in CAP which allows the check pilot to
not only determine if the pilot can meet the altitude, heading and other specific
requirements of the task but also demonstrate that he/she meets the other requirements
of pilot judgment, etc. These standards are universally used throughout the entire
aviation world in evaluating pilot skills. Adopting any other standard provides no value
to Civil Air Patrol, and would potentially open up our flight operations to potential liability
issues if a pilot were to have a mishap or accident after being graded as needing
additional training under the proposed agenda item.
The Senior Advisor for Operations, The Operations Advisor, Col. Walt Schamel, a
former FAA Operations Examiner, and The Glider Operations Team Leader, LTC
William Crielly, a former USAF Stand/Eval Officer for over 20 years, all are in
agreement that there is no need or justification to change our current grading system for
evaluating pilot performance and do not support the proposed agenda item.
[Sr Advisor-Support] The funding impact will undoubtedly be far greater than
“negligible, reprint…” If approved, there will be substantial IT changes to the Ops Qual
and ES reports.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 60-1, CAP Flight Management
CAPF 5/5G, CAP Flight Evaluation
CAPF 91, CAP Mission Pilot Checkout

NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL LEE/PA MOVED and COL ANDREU/NY seconded the PROPOSED NATIONAL
BOARD ACTION.
COL CHAZELL/CS MOVED that the National Board go into Executive Session for
the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding this agenda item.
Action on Agenda 18 continued when the National Board returned in Open
Session.

THE MOTION DID NOT PASS.

64

February 2009 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 19
Author: Col Smith

DO

Action

SUBJECT: Transport Mission Pilot Rating
TX Wg/CC – Col Smith
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:

The Transport Mission Pilot (TMP) rating does not expire after initial validation.
Therefore it is possible for a non-current pilot, sometimes expired for years, to still be
listed as a TMP in Ops Qual. This requires an additional manual cross check of the
VFR Pilot listing to ensure the TMP is actually available to function in this capacity.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board directs that the TMP credential expire when CAP pilot status of
the member expires.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
None.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
NHQ can support either position. If approved, it would require a minor programming
change.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Do not concur. CAP-USAF agrees with comments below.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
[Senior Advisor- Operations] Non-concur. The FRO Support report lists all qualified
and current pilots including Transport Mission Pilots. A Transport Mission Pilot whose
CAP pilot qualifications have expired will be shown on this report. The report is updated
on a daily basis. There is no benefit to linking up a TMP qualification to another data
base or eServices listing.
[Sr Advisor-Support and IT Advisor] Non-concur. The Flight Release Support Report
was developed to ensure only fully qualified pilots are released for CAP flight operations
including TMPs. If this agenda item is approved, it would require a fully reentry,
validation, and approval chain if the pilot, for example, was late in renewing his/her
medical certificate. We also note that the same condition pertains to Mission Pilots,
Check Pilots, etc. If they do not meet all of the requirements they are dropped from the
FRO Support Report—but immediately reinstated when all requirements are again
satisfied.

65

February 2009 National Board Minutes
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 60-1, CAP Flight Management.
CAPR 60-3, CAP Emergency Services Training and Operational Missions.
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL SMITH/TX MOVED and COL CASTLE/OK seconded the PROPOSED
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.

THE MOTION DID NOT PASS.

66

February 2009 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 20

DO

Action

SUBJECT: Restricting Access to National Interactive
Personnel System in E-Services
Author: Col Smith
TX Wg/CC – Col Smith
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
The November 2007 NEC restricted access to the National Interactive Personnel
System in E-Services because of concerns over sensitive information being abused. A
consequence of this action is a lack of ability to verify Emergency Services credentials
of other Wing members. This is a particular problem when trying to confirm that all
tasks and missions on an ES Specialty SQTR were certified by qualified supervisors.
Although the NEC allowed Incident Commander 1 and 2 personnel to retain access to
the operations qualification module, this is not sufficient to allow verification of
credentials of qualified supervisors who are not in the parent wing. If the staff member
or wing commander approving initial ES qualifications is not an IC1 or IC2 and therefore
cannot identify the CAPID of a listed qualified supervisor on the SQTR, they are
required to disapprove the specialty or go to extraordinary lengths to verify the
credentials of an unknown CAPID. In many Regions, we are emphasizing multi-wing
exercises where qualified supervisors from another wing may provide instruction and
validation of accomplishment of ES tasks. Additionally, it is not possible to identify the
qualifications of instructors at NESA, Blue Beret, Hawk Mountain, and other NCSA’s
who provide training and certification of tasks of CAP personnel from all over the Nation.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approves that additional wing personnel involved in the
validation of Emergency Services credentials have access to view operations
qualification data.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
None.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
If approved, this capability can be accommodated within eServices with minimal
additional development cost.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur.

67

February 2009 National Board Minutes
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
[Sr Advisor-Support] One of the goals of E-Services is to provide quick and easily
accessible information necessary to accomplish the missions of CAP. In order for the
NHQ and Staff IT Team to meet this goal it is critical that they are provided a
comprehensive list of the mission data necessary. The necessary adjustments to the
programming and or reports can—and will--then be made. We believe that this is an
ongoing process, and should not necessarily require an Agenda Item.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
To be determined.
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL SMITH/TX MOVED and COL CARR/GLR seconded the PROPOSED
NATIONAL BOARD action.
COL Litt/VI MOVED TO TABLE and COL JENSEN/CT seconded the tabling motion
for further study.

THE MOTION TO TABLE CARRIED.
Later in the meeting this agenda item was withdrawn.

68

February 2009 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 21
Author: Col Litt

FM

Action

SUBJECT: Finance Committees
VA Wg/CC – Col Litt
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:

The National Executive Committee at its November 2008 meeting received the report of
the National Finance Committee. In this report the Finance Committee recommended
that once a commander appointed a member to a Finance Committee that member
could not be removed except by action of the next higher commander. This
recommendation was proposed to be made a regulation in the next change to CAPR
173-2, Financial Procedures for Regions and Wing. The reasons given for this change
were to protect Finance Committee members from adverse action in the case they
disagreed with the commander on a finance issue and to allow the independence of
Finance Committees in protecting against fraud, waste or abuse.
Commanders in order to function are currently allowed to appoint and remove members
from any committee under that commander’s jurisdiction. If there is a question of action
or discipline against a member of a committee that the committee member feels is
unjustified or if the commander takes an action that a member of any committee feels is
incorrect or improper, the proper venue for redress is the Inspector General. Any
member of a Wing or Region has access to an IG at any level.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
The National Board directs that CAP financial regulations contain no provision limiting a
Region or Wing Commander’s authority to make changes to finance committee
membership at any time.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Minimal.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Non-concur with the proposed actions; agree with the NFO comments.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Non-concur. Independence of finance committee members is critical to their role and is
necessary to ensure an unqualified financial audit. Additionally, it is a safeguard that
protects both the commander and the corporation, as well as, enhances the
transparency of the organization and promotes public trust.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
[NFO] The item in the proposed new CAPR 173-1 regarding the "independence of unit
finance committees" is in response to our independent auditors finding regarding proper
69

February 2009 National Board Minutes
transparency in handling of corporate funds at all levels. The NEC agreed the phrase
"with the concurrence of the next level of command" is the best way to handle this
finding. The auditors have agreed to the wording. Removing this phrase may
jeopardize our "unqualified audit" opinion. The BOG has endorsed the auditor’s report
and the NEC's decision. If the NB changes the regulation, the BOG may mandate the
auditor's original wording.
[NC] To reverse what the finance committee recommended in this instance is a bad
move. There were many factors that went into the finance committee making the
recommendation in the first place, including the fact that our auditors recommended
protections for members of finance committees. While important to the organization,
other wing and region level committees do not have the potential for fraud as we do in
the finance world.
[CAP/CC] At the national level, the commander is only allowed observer status of the
finance committee. This independence of the committee from the commander is proper
and creates the best oversight of the expenditures. A change in National Finance
Committee membership is very visible and done with concurrence of staff and
volunteers. I understand the need for the commander to be involved in the finance
committee at lower echelons to explain the commander’s vision and needs. However, I
disagree with the proposed board action, in that it could create a situation in which
finance committee members (at echelons below National) may hesitate to bring up
issues for fear of loss of position on the committee. While I agree with the desire to be
able to select good members and change them as needed, I must Non-concur with the
proposed national board action.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 173-2, Financial Procedures for CAP Regions and Wings
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
This agenda item was withdrawn by Col Litt with a stated intent to resubmit it for
the Summer National Board.

70

February 2009 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 22

JA

Action

SUBJECT: Amending CAP Constitution and Bylaws
AR Wg/CC - Col Britton

Author: Col Britton

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
The National Board (NB) is the duly appointed corporate board of Civil Air Patrol and
represents all of Civil Air Patrol with representation of the members by Wing
Commanders. While the National Executive Committee (NEC) holds certain exclusive
powers, the NEC is also empowered with most of the powers of the NB when the NB is
not in session. It is appropriate that the NEC exercise the duties of the NB only in
situations where NB action is not practical, such as in time-critical matters, Safety, and
Air Force mandated issues. In addition, the NB should have the opportunity to review
and amend the actions of the NEC when the NEC acts in lieu of the NB.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board requests the CAP Board of Governors to amend the
Constitution and Bylaws to include a stipulation requiring any actions taken by the
National Executive Committee (NEC) which are not exclusive powers of the NEC, be
addressed prior to the next scheduled National Board meeting. Further, any such
action(s) taken by the NEC shall be reported to the National Board and be brought to
the floor for review or reconsideration by a majority vote of the National Board.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Minimal.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Non-concur. Subject matter is already covered by CAP Constitution and Bylaws
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
No comment.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
[NLO] NLO does not concur. This authority currently exists. Any policy decision of the
NEC can be overturned by the NB at a subsequent meeting. We've seen this with
uniform and other items. However, if a referral to the C&B Committee is required, I
agree with that referral.

71

February 2009 National Board Minutes
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAP Constitution and Bylaws.

NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
This agenda item was withdrawn by Col Britton/AR. He said this decision was
made after consulting with colleagues this week.

72

February 2009 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 23
Author: Col Jensen

JA

Action

SUBJECT: Duties of National Board Members
SWR/CC – Col Jensen
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:

National Board members hold a fiduciary duty to Civil Air Patrol. Potential conflicts arise
in that National Board members have an individual and independent duty to the
corporation as board members but are also subject to a military-style command
structure. This may be of particular concern when a National Board member
determines that he/she should, in fulfilling their duty as a National Board member,
oppose a board item of an officer senior to them in the chain of command. In addition,
Wing Commanders in their probationary period currently may be removed for any
reason or no reason, and have limited or no protection against removal because of
speech or vote as a board member in opposition to a board item of an officer senior to
them in the chain of command.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
1. That the National Board requests the Board of Governors to amend Article X of the
Civil Air Patrol Constitution to reflect that all members of the National Board have the
prerogative of speaking to business matters of the National Board and have the
prerogative and duty to vote in the manner they have determined is in the best interest
of the corporation.
2. That the National Board requests the Board of Governors to amend Article XIV
section g. of the Civil Air Patrol Constitution to state that Wing Commanders in the
probationary period shall not be subject to removal because of their speech or vote
regarding business matters of the National Board.
3. That the National Board request the Board of Governors to amend Civil Air Patrol
Bylaws section 13 by adding item 13.6 as follows:
13.6 Voting shall always be by secret ballot on matters proposing changes to CAP
Constitution and Bylaws.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Minimal.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
CAP Constitution Article XIV cross - references to Article XVI and provides a remedy for
an officer who is removed because of retaliation.
This item may be more properly suited as a proposal to amend CAPR 35-5 provisions
that relate to Wing Commanders.
73

February 2009 National Board Minutes
Alternative suggestion would be to refer to an AD hoc committee to study best options.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
No comment.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
[NLO] Concur as to parts 1 and 3; do not concur as to part 2. The MARB already has
jurisdiction to review cases of command misbehavior and this should come within its
established purview.
[CAP/CC] Non-concur with part 2 because it doesn’t fix the root problem and the
solution suggested could be easily worked around anyway. Overall, more input should
be sought before suggesting to the BoG to change the C&B in the 3 ways suggested by
the author of the item. The board might consider this a topic of the upcoming Wing
Commander’s Course, wherein the participants could put forth suggestions as a team,
and the National Board could then work with the suggestions to create a
recommendation to the BoG, if desired. Modifications requested to the Constitution and
Bylaws necessitate a deliberate process and research.

REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
Civil Air Patrol Constitution and Bylaws
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
This agenda item was withdrawn by Col Davis/SWR (PROXY) with intent to bring
back at a future meeting.

74

February 2009 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 24

JA

Action

SUBJECT: Procedures for Election of Commander and National Vice Commander
SWR/CC – Col Jensen

Author: Col Jensen

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
The Constitution and Bylaws of Civil Air Patrol give the powers of election of the
National Commander and the National Vice Commander to the National Board.
However, little published guidance exists regarding the procedures for election of the
National Commander and National Vice Commander. The procedures for election of
the National Commander and National Vice Commander should be determined by the
body responsible for election of these officers, the CAP National Board.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
1. That the National Board request the Board of Governors to amend the CAP
Constitution and Bylaws to establish that the National Board will serve as the advisor to
the Board of Governors on matters related to proposed Constitution and Bylaws
changes related to election of the National Commander and National Vice Commander,
and this duty shall not be deferred or delegated to any other body.
2. That the National Board request the Board of Governors to amend the CAP
Constitution and Bylaws to establish that matters pertaining to the creation or
modification of procedures for election of the National Commander and National Vice
Commander shall be an exclusive duty of the National Board and this duty shall not be
deferred or delegated to any other body.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Minimal.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
No comment.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
No comment.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
[NLO] Do not concur. Naming the NB as the exclusive entity for this decision is
meaningless as the BoG can do whatever it needs to do for CAP. Rather than leave
everything up in the air, we should present an agreed-upon solution. Therefore,
suggest that a special committee (containing at least one legal officer, one region cc,
and one wing cc - not too many folks) in conjunction with the C&B committee draft a
specific amendment to C&B for the NB to approve and recommend to the BoG for
inclusion in the C&B.
75

February 2009 National Board Minutes
[CAP/CC] On part 1, non-concur. The procedures for election of the National
Commander and National Vice Commander are determined by the body responsible for
election of these officers, the CAP National Board. The BoG currently looks to the
members of the National Board for those elections. It is imperative that the NB conduct
the filing, campaigning, vetting and elections well, and there is always room for
improvement. The NB should seek ways to improve the process, so that the BoG will
not have a need to ask the NB to do it differently from the powers invested in the NB
today.
On part 2, non-concur. An informational agenda item was brought to the NEC for the
purpose of discussing ideas openly to build a framework from which to seek input from
members of the NB prior to this Winter Board meeting. If the NB desires changes, then
it would seem that taking action to improve the processes would speak louder than
words asking for exclusive powers. Astute members of boards seek information from
those outside the board, as well as from those in the team. A committee that reports to
the NB would be in order. In this way, input could be sought from diversely experienced
backgrounds, and the National Board would be the body to take action, if desired. I
hope the members of the National Board will provide input on the committee
composition and details of how and when it would report back to the National Board,
versus passing this as written and sending an inappropriate and unnecessary message
to the BoG.

REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
Civil Air Patrol Constitution and Bylaws
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL DAVIS/SWR PROXY MOVED and COL WEISS/MD second the PROPOSED
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.
COL WINTERS/OH MOVED TO POSTPONE and COL CARR/GLR seconded the
postponement and refer to the Public Trust Task Force.

THE MOTION TO POSTPONE CARRIED.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Referral to the Public Trust Task Force.

76

February 2009 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 25
Author: None

Action
SUBJECT: Uniform Agenda Items
CAP/CS – Col Chazell
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:

Col Chazell will present the uniform items that are on the agenda for this meeting. They
will be divided into two sections. The first are items considered as Uniform Agenda
Consent Items – those that should require no discussion. The second are Uniform
Agenda Action Items that may generate discussion and debate.

Uniform Agenda Consent Items
26a.
26b.
26c.

Eaker Miniature Medal
National Color Guard Competition Miniature Medal
Gray Epaulets for Females

Uniform Agenda Action Items
27a.
27b.
27c.
27d.
27e.
27f.
27g.
27h.
27i.
27j.

Silver Braid CAP Corporate Uniform
Air Force Lightweight Blue Jacket
CAP Astronaut Aeronautical Rating Designation and Badge (Wings)
Commander’s Badge
Flight Suit Grade Devices
Sweaters for Use with the Corporate Uniform
Wear of Military Decorations and Mini Medals on Corporate Uniforms
Optional Shoulder Patches on BDU
Additional Corporate Uniform Outerwear Items
Change of Embroidery Insignia on AF-Style Uniforms

77

February 2009 National Board Minutes

UNIFORM AGENDA CONSENT ITEMS 26
Author: None

Action

SUBJECT: Uniform Committee Items
CAP/CS- Col Chazell

a. Eaker Miniature Medal: Col Ken Parris, CA/CC
The Gen Ira C. Eaker Award marks the completion of Phase IV of the Cadet
Program. Cadets must achieve this award before promotion to cadet lieutenant
colonel and be eligible to sit for the prestigious Gen Carl A. Spaatz Award
Examination. Presently, a miniature medal is authorized for all major senior
member and cadet milestone awards except for the Eaker Award, the second
highest milestone award of the CAP Cadet Program. As is appropriate, only a very
small fraction of cadets receive the Spaatz Award. Therefore, former cadets who
have completed all phases of the Cadet Program are unable to recognize this
achievement when wearing their mess dress uniform. Formerly, individuals
completing Phase IV were authorized to wear a silver star attachment on their
Amelia Earhart Award ribbon and miniature medal pendant. With the creation of
the Eaker Award ribbon and revision of CAPR 39-3, Award of CAP Medals, Ribbons
and Certificates, this recognition was eliminated. Without a miniature medal, these
former cadets are unable to fully recognize their cadet achievement when wearing
their mess dress uniform. The creation of a miniature medal to recognize Eaker
Award recipients would also continue to honor the legacy of Gen Ira C. Eaker, an
exceptional Air Force officer, airman, aerospace businessman, Aviation Hall of
Fame inductee and Congressional Gold Medal recipient.

Proposal: That the National Board approves the creation of a miniature medal for
the Gen Ira C. Eaker Award.

Advisor/Staff Comments: The Uniform Team concurs with this proposal. The
National Historian, in conjunction with the Awards Team, should be tasked with
developing the final version of the device.

NHQ Comments: Defer to the will of the Board. As a matter of information, only
senior members are authorized to wear the mess dress uniform. There are
approximately 900 members who would be eligible to wear this medal.

CAP-USAF Comments: Concur.

NB Action:
See below
78

February 2009 National Board Minutes
b. National Color Guard Competition Miniature Medal: Col Russ Chazell, CAP/CS
In 1996, the National Color Guard Competition (NCGC), coinciding with the National
Drill Team Competition (NDTC), was added to the National Cadet Competition
(NCC). The 2009 NCGC will be the fourteenth such competition. CAPR 39-3 (2
July 1998), paragraph 20(c) specifies that a ribbon, with appropriate devices, is
authorized for cadets, and some senior members (by NEC action in November
1998), that participate in the NCGC. A miniature medal is authorized for the NDTC
but not for the NCGC. A miniature medal for NCGC should be authorized. The
medal itself would be the same as that awarded for NDTC and would be attached to
the green and white ribbon currently authorized for NCGC.

Proposal: That the National Board approves a miniature medal for participation in
the National Color Guard Competition.

Advisor/Staff Comments: The Uniform Team concurs with this proposal; however
we wish to caution the board that the use would be minimal. Only Senior Members
are authorized wear of the mess dress uniform and few senior members have
actually earned the Color Guard ribbon.

NHQ Comments: In the interest of fairness to the participants of both the Drill
Competition and the Color Guard competition we concur with this item. However,
only senior members are authorized to wear the mess dress uniform and a
relatively small number of senior members will be eligible to wear this medal.

CAP-USAF Comments: No comment.

NB Action:
See below

c. Gray Epaulets for Females: Col J. Smith, TX/CC
Air Force style epaulets have different sizes for male versus female uniforms, yet
CAP gray epaulets have only one size. The larger “male” size does not fit or present
a professional appearance on some female uniforms.

Proposal: That the National Board directs Vanguard to procure “female” sized gray
CAP epaulets.

79

February 2009 National Board Minutes
Advisor/Staff Comments: [Sr Advisor-Support] This issue has been resolved.
Vanguard has agreed to produce the female epaulets.

NHQ Comments: Vanguard is willing to make the female epaulets and can start any
time.

CAP-USAF Comments: Concur.

NB Action:
COL CHAZELL/CS MOVED and BRIG GEN CHITWOOD/CV seconded that the
National Board approves Uniform Agenda Consent Items 26a., 26b., and 26c.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

80

February 2009 National Board Minutes

UNIFORM AGENDA ITEMS 27
Author: None

Action

SUBJECT: Uniform Committee Items
CAP/CS- Col Chazell

a. Silver Braid CAP Corporate Uniform: Brig Gen Chitwood, CAP/CV
The Civil Air Patrol Corporate Uniform is becoming increasingly popular with
members who do not wear the Air Force style uniform. However, many members
have indicated that the silver/gray braid on the sleeves of the Corporate service
coat, and the silver/gray hat band on the round service cap, are distracting and do
not compliment this uniform. Members feel that the standard blue braid in use on
the Air Force style service coat, and the black hat band on the Air Force style
service cap, are better suited and more feasible for the CAP Corporate Uniform.
In addition to being ostentatious, the single silver braid could be confused with the
insignia for the rank of Ensign in the USN, USCG or USCG Aux in this nauticalstyled uniform.

Proposal: That the National Board approves the removal of the silver/gray braid
on the sleeves of the CAP Corporate service coat, and replace them with the
standard blue braid used on the Air Force style uniform, and replace the silver hat
band the CAP Corporate service cap with the standard black hat band used on the
Air Force style service cap. To allow members sufficient time to replace the items,
the phase out date for wear of the silver/gray braid and hat band is 1 March 2010.

Advisor/Staff Comments: The Uniform Team concurs with the concept of removing
the silver braid; however there must be an assurance that we do not prescribe
something similar to any Armed Forces Uniform. Paragraph 1.3.4 of AFI 10-2701
reads in part “…CAP distinctive uniforms must be sufficiently different from U.S
Armed Forces uniforms so that confusion will not occur.” We see two current
possibilities: One is to remove the commissioning braid from all CAP corporate
uniforms and leave the area plain. The other concept is to develop, in concert with
CAP-USAF an alternate commissioning braid color for wear on the corporate
uniform.

NHQ Comments: Concur.

CAP-USAF Comments: No comment.

81

February 2009 National Board Minutes
NB Action:
BRIG GEN CHITWOOL/CV MOVED and COL REEVES/IN seconded the written
Proposal.
COL WEISS/NFO MOVED TO POSTPONE and COL CHARLES/NATCON seconded
the postponement of Agenda Items 27a. - 27j. and refer to the Uniform Process
Action Team. (NOTE: After establishment of the team and report to the National
Commander, the information will be brought to the National Board)

THE MOTION TO POSTPONE DID NOT PASS.
THE MOTION DID NOT PASS.
b. Air Force Lightweight Blue Jacket: Col Dave Guzman, ID/CC
The AF lightweight blue jacket is an optional item for senior members and cadets.
This jacket does not have a distinguishing optional emblem authorized for CAP
members which announces the wearer as a CAP member.

Proposal: That the National Board approves the optional placement, at CAP
member’s expense, of the Hap Arnold emblem for senior members as currently
authorized as an optional item for active USAF members. The addition of
“Auxiliary”, second line followed by a third line “Civil Air Patrol” would be mandatory.

Advisor/Staff Comments: The Uniform Team does not concur with this proposal as
written. Embroidery work would be a cost to the member and if made optional
would affect the uniformity. CAP distinctive insignia is worn on the epaulets now
and any further addition to the jacket would neither add nor subtract to make this
item more distinct. Further, the Hap Arnold insignia is not owned by CAP. The light
Blue Jacket is an AF authorized uniform item and any such embroidery work added
to this jacket could not be effective or worn until the Air Force has approved it.

NHQ Comments: This item will require USAF approval. If the Board approves,
CAP must ensure that the font, style and placement of embroidery meets Air Force
specifications.

CAP-USAF Comments: This would require Air Staff approval.

82

February 2009 National Board Minutes
NB Action:
COL GUZMAN/ID MOVED and COL DIDUCH/NER seconded the written Proposal.

THE MOTION DID NOT PASS.
c. CAP Astronaut Aeronautical Rating Designation and Badge (Wings): Col Ken
Parris, CA/CC
Space Shuttle mission STS-126 was an historic event for Civil Air Patrol. The
mission’s shuttle pilot, USAF Colonel Eric A. Boe, is a current CAP senior member,
former CAP cadet and Gen Carl A Spaatz Award recipient. His official NASA
biography proudly mentions his membership in CAP. Colonel Boe is the first former
CAP cadet to serve be designated an astronaut and credits his participation in CAP
as assisting him in fulfilling this goal. All branches of the US Armed Forces, NASA
and the FAA recognize attainment of the astronaut designation based upon
completion of specific requirements. This designation is further recognized by the
awarding of an astronaut badge. Astronaut badges are usually the service’s
aeronautical badge (wings) with the astronaut device (shooting star through a halo)
affixed. While only affecting one member at this time, it is appropriate for CAP to
recognize and honor Colonel Boe and all subsequent CAP members who attain the
astronaut designation by establishing the CAP Astronaut Rating and Badge. The
CAP Astronaut Badge shall be the appropriate level (command, senior or basic)
CAP Pilot Badge (for those members who are rated pilots) or the appropriate level
(master, senior or basic) CAP Observer Badge (for those members who are nonpilots) with the gold astronaut device (shooting star through a halo) affixed to the
center of the badge’s prop and triangle. If the member does not have or is not
eligible for a CAP aeronautical rating, the basic astronaut badge shall be awarded.
Because of the exclusive nature of the rating and badge, only the CAP National
Commander shall be authorized to grant the CAP Astronaut Aeronautical Rating
and Badge. The CAP Astronaut Badge shall be worn in lieu of any other CAP
aeronautical badge.

Proposal: That the National Board approve the creation of the CAP Astronaut
Aeronautical Rating and Badge (Wings) to be awarded under the authority of the
CAP National Commander to CAP members who have been designated an
Astronaut by a branch of the US Armed Forces or NASA or designated as a
Commercial Astronaut by the FAA. The CAP Astronaut Badge shall be the
appropriate level (command, senior or basic) CAP Pilot Badge (for those members
who are rated pilots) or the appropriate level (master, senior or basic) CAP
Observer Badge (for those members who are non-pilots) with the gold astronaut
device (shooting star through a halo) affixed to the center of the badge’s prop and
triangle.

83

February 2009 National Board Minutes
Advisor/Staff Comments: The Uniform Team does not concur with this proposal. If
there were more than a minimal use for this item then CAP could petition the
awarding agency for authorization for an astronaut to wear the wings already
awarded on their CAP corporate uniform.
[Sr Advisor-Support]
CAP badges have traditionally recognized CAP
accomplishments only. In addition, the military astronaut badge may be worn on
the CAP AF style uniform in accordance with current regulations.
[CAP/CC] Non-concur. Agree with the Sr. Advisor-support.

NHQ Comments: Defer to Uniform Team.

CAP-USAF Comments: Concur.

NB Action:
COL PARRIS/CA MOVED and COL McCABE/NJ seconded the written Proposal.

THE MOTION DID NOT PASS.
d. Commander’s Badge: Col Ralph Miller, NV/CC
The CAP Commander’s Badge is authorized for wear only by sitting commanders.
There is no way to identify former commanders. By contrast, USAF regulations
stipulate that the USAF Commander’s Badge be worn above the name tag when in
command of a unit, and that it be worn below the name tag upon completion of a
command.
Furthermore, CAPR 39-1 does not presently have a “sew-on”
Commander’s Badge for BDU and Field Uniforms. Once again, USAF does have
such an insignia.

Proposal: That the National Board approves a white on blue embroidered
Command Badge for wear on BDU and Field Uniforms, and that the National Board
approve former commanders to wear the command badge below the name tag as a
permanent award on service and field uniforms.

Advisor/Staff Comments: The Uniform Team concurs with this proposal subject to
the following verbiage:
The Civil Air Patrol’s Commander's Insignia is worn above the name tag when in
command of a squadron, group, wing, region, or national the insignia is worn below
the nametag upon completion of a similar command. To be eligible for permanent
84

February 2009 National Board Minutes
wear of the Civil Air Patrol Commander's Insignia, a CAP officer must hold
permanent assignment in a command position, normally befitting a First Lieutenant
or above for a period of not less than 180 days. Examples of such assignments
would include any: Squadron, Group, Wing, and Region as well as the National
Commander
The Uniform Team also recommends that if this is approved the Command Service
Award be removed from wear and authorization as this would constitute a double
award for the same thing.
Wear of the command insignia by former commanders would have to be
coordinated with the AF for placement on the AF authorized Uniform. As the AF
has a similar insignia and placement-- we do not see this as a major hurdle.

NHQ Comments: Vanguard is already in the processing of manufacturing a cloth
commanders badge. This badge is currently authorized for sitting unit and group
commanders so the change, if approved, would authorize any one who has ever
served as a unit or group commander to wear the badge.

CAP-USAF Comments: No comment.

NB Action:
COL MILLER/NV MOVED and COL HAYDEN/ME seconded the written Proposal.
This agenda item was divided into two parts:
Part I: That the National Board approves a white on blue embroidered Command
Badge for wear on BDU and Field Uniforms.

THE MOTION AS IT PERTAINS TO PART I CARRIED.
Part II: That the National Board approves former commanders to wear the
command badge below the name tag as a permanent award on service and field
uniforms.

THE MOTION AS IT PERTAINS TO PART II DID NOT PASS.
e. Flight Suit Grade Devices: Col Don Davidson, NH/CC
Vendors of uniform and insignia supplies have indicated that the “plastic encased”
rank devices used on Flight Suits by CAP are becoming very difficult to obtain as
the result of a reduction of manufacturing sources. In addition, these plastic

85

February 2009 National Board Minutes
insignia are less desired as they are a potential injury hazard in the event of an
aircraft fire.
Proposal: That the National Board approve the use of fabric insignia (Purple color)
for the CAP Air Force style “Green” and Nomex Flight Suits and fabric insignia
(Ultramarine Blue color) for the CAP Corporate flight suits. The current “plastic
encased” insignia would be unauthorized after 1 January 2010.

Advisor/Staff Comments: [Sr Advisor-Support] Non-concur. As noted below by the
Uniform Team, the supply of plastic encased insignia is not a problem. NHQ
worked diligently with Vanguard to find a new supplier of these insignia, and it
would not appear appropriate to discontinue their use immediately after the
insignias had been purchased at CAP’s request.
[Uniform Team] Non-concur. This proposal should be tabled or withdrawn.
Vanguard has assured CAP that there is not a supply problem with the plastic
encased rank insignia that has been approved and is worn by virtually all of the
aircrew members. Further a change to an AF authorized uniform would require AF
approval. Embroidered grade insignia is currently authorized for the CAP corporate
flight suit.

NHQ Comments: This item would require the approval of the USAF. Vanguard
does have a reliable manufacturer for the plastic insignia. Currently either plastic
encased or dark blue cloth insignia may be worn on the CAP dark blue Nomex flight
suit.

CAP-USAF Comments: Non-concur. Green fabric background insignia with blue
rank will not be approved because it too closely resembles the active-duty Air Force
rank. Additionally, Vanguard has informed CAP NHQ that they have a reliable
supplier of plastic rank.

NB Action:
This agenda item withdrawn by Col Davidson/NH.

f. Sweaters for Use with the Corporate Uniform: Col Mark Lee, PA/CC
The double breasted corporate uniform is designed to provide a military style
uniform for those members who choose not to wear the Air Force style uniform or
who may not meet the weight standards for the Air Force style uniform. In
designing this uniform Civil Air Patrol has adopted the black outer garments such as
the short windbreaker and longer double-breasted coat (Army style). For cooler
weather, inside cooler air conditioned environments and in the northern parts of the
86

February 2009 National Board Minutes
country, this uniformed has suffered from not having complete elements approved
to allow wear in all conditions as Air Force and Army uniforms, tested through time
already have. The approval of sweaters and gloves will help complete the
necessary elements.

Proposal: That the National Board authorizes the addition of the black V-neck,
wool pullover sweater with epilates (Army style) and a black cardigan sweater with
epilates (Army style), as both would be considered outer garments, metal grade
with “CAP” cutouts would be worn on the epaulets. Additionally black leather
gloves will be the only gloves authorized with all outer garments for the corporate,
military style uniform.

Advisor/Staff Comments: The Uniform Team recommends tabling this proposal
subject to further study. Otherwise, we do not concur with the proposal as written.
The only possible wear of either Army style sweater would require it be worn
without metal rank insignia. An alternative sweater is the authorized AF blue
sweater with gray epaulet rank insignia; however its use with a corporate uniform of
this type may require AF review.
Army Regulation 670-1 Wear and Appearance of the Army Uniform and
Insignia Paragraph 30–8. Wear of a uniform similar to the Army uniform,
reads in part:
b. According to section 773(b), title 10, United States Code (10 USC 773(b)), none
of the uniforms prescribed in paragraph a, above, may include insignia or grade the
same as or similar to those prescribed for officers of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or
Marine Corps.

NHQ Comments: Defer to the Uniform Team.

CAP-USAF Comments: No comment.

NB Action:
COL LEE/PA MOVED and COL JENSEN/CT seconded the written Proposal.
COL SAILE/MI MOVED TO AMEND and COL JENSEN/CT seconded the
amendment to remove the metal grade insignia and metal cutouts and substitute
the standard blue Air Force-style rank epaulet for the grade insignia.
COL PHELKA/CO MOVED TO POSTPONE and COL PARRIS/CA seconded the
postponement with a tasking from the National Board to the Uniform Team to
recommend to the board a comprehensive outer garment scenario for all
87

February 2009 National Board Minutes
corporate uniforms that the board may consider rather than doing it piece-meal—
one piece at a time—with a report back to the 2009 Summer National Board

THE MOTION TO POSTPONE CARRIED.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Staffing by the Uniform Team and inclusion in the August 2009
National Board agenda.

g. Wear of Military Decorations and Badges on Corporate Uniforms and Miniature
Medals on Corporate Service Coat When Worn with Black Bow Tie as a Mess
Dress Equivalent: Col Mark Lee, PA/CC
The present regulations for wear of military awards, badges, and decorations are
inconsistent between and among the various corporate style uniforms and the CAP
Air Force style uniforms. These rules should be standardized to provide for more
efficient and effective administration and to avoid confusion. The United States
Department of Veterans Affairs now endorses the wear of all classes of badges and
decorations on civilian clothing on National Holidays, at appropriate times, in
accordance with its “Veterans Pride Initiative.” A copy of the brochure and
information from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is attached. It is altogether
fitting and proper for Civil Air Patrol to permit veterans who have honorably served
our nation to wear those badges and all classes of decorations rightfully earned to
the same extent and in the same manner as they are worn on USAF style uniforms.
It is a compelling, visible reminder of “the pride and honor in the hearts of those
who have served” and who now continue to serve this nation as volunteers in CAP.
CAP Members who wear the Corporate Service Coat as an alternative to Mess
Dress Uniform presently wear ribbons with the coat. As it is an alternative to Mess
Dress, they should be permitted and encouraged to wear miniature medals with this
uniform. At present, CAPM 39-1 provides the following concerning wear of awards
and decorations:
5-2. When Awards and Decorations are worn. Ribbons are mandatory
with the USAF service dress and the semiformal uniforms. They are
optional with all other service uniforms and the aviator shirt. No military
awards or decorations may be worn on the aviator shirt. NOTE: All
ribbons and devices worn by senior members must fall below the top
notch of the collar on the service coat or the bottom tip of the collar of AFstyle shirts/blouses worn as outer garments. Miniature medals are
mandatory with the mess dress uniform (men and women). One miniature
medal may be worn on the semiformal blazer uniform.
6-7. US Military Badges. … US Military badges are not authorized for wear
on any of the CAP distinctive uniforms. At present, Air Force awards,
ribbons and decorations are prohibited from being worn on the CAP
corporate service dress coat.

88

February 2009 National Board Minutes
Proposal: The National Board approves the wear of military awards, decorations
and badges on corporate uniforms, consistent with and standardized with those
worn on USAF style uniforms, by amending CAPM 39-1:
5-2. When Awards and Decorations are worn. …Miniature medals are
mandatory with the mess dress uniform (men and women) and may be
worn in lieu of and in the same relative position as ribbons with the
Corporate Service Coat when worn with the bow tie as an alternative to
the mess dress uniform.
6-5. Description and Proper Placement on the Aviator Shirt with Epaulets.
… Ribbons, Aviation badges and additional badges (specialty insignia,
specialty badge or command badge) will be worn in the same manner as
Figure 6-16 illustrates the CAP aviation badges and Figure 6-17 illustrates
the specialty insignia. Table 6-3 outlines the placement of these items.
6-7. US Military Badges. CAP members may wear only the US military
badges authorized for wear on the US Air Force uniform when earned
through qualification and awarded by competent authority for service
performed in any branch of the Armed Forces of the United States or its
allies. The military badges authorized for wear on the CAP uniform and
BDU are listed in Table 6-5. Before wearing any badge not listed in this
table, contact National Headquarters/LMM for clarification. US Military
badges are authorized for wear on CAP distinctive uniforms in the same
manner as worn on Air Force style uniforms.

Advisor/Staff Comments: [Uniform Team] The Uniform Team does not concur.
Each service regulation sets the rules for wear of awards and decorations and most
are very limited as to wear. While it is true that you can wear items with civilian
clothing on certain patriotic holidays, the wear is limited to just that. Further most
services limit wear on other uniforms to just patriotic or veterans organizations and
then only at specific functions. CAP as an organization does not qualify in those
listed. While the VA is trying to get veterans to wear their military awards on civilian
clothing they are still limited to wear on certain patriotic holidays. The Team
cautions the board that a violation of individual service regulations would subject
each and every person involved to punishment as stated in law.
For Example: Wearing Decorations, Service Medals, Badges, Unit Awards, and
Appurtenances
Chapter 28, Army Regulation 670-1(Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and
Insignia)1 September 1992
On any uniform other than authorized in this regulation. See Section 704, Title 18,
United States Code, for penalty for unauthorized wear
[NLO] The guidance for the Department of Veterans Affairs clearly applies only to
civilian clothing and only on national patriotic holidays. Thus, the application to
general wear on a CAP corporate uniform (which is not civilian clothing in the
89

February 2009 National Board Minutes
same sense) at all times is not supported by this initiative. Additionally, the wear of
military decorations on the CAP corporate uniform increases the likelihood of
confusion between the USAF uniform and the CAP corporate uniform, particularly
when "hard rank" is present. It is my understanding (anecdotal only) that this - no
military decorations or awards - is the reason that hard rank was approved for the
corporate uniform. Finally, we are a noncombatant organization, and it has always
been my view that combat devices of all kinds are inappropriate for wear,
regardless of whether they are permitted on the USAF-style CAP uniform. All of
the above having been said, I do think that the wear of miniature CAP medals
(NOT military medals) should be authorized with the wear of the CAP corporate
uniform in a mess-dress configuration, similar to the policy of permitting a single
miniature medal on the blazer combination in its semiformal configuration.

NHQ Comments: Defer to the Uniform Team.

CAP-USAF Comments: No comments on para 5-2 and 6-5. Non-concur on para
6-7, and this will not be approved by the Air Force. CAP-USAF notes that this
proposal may further confuse CAP volunteers. By definition, a uniform is intended
to be standardized. Continuing to increase the options for wear detracts from the
purpose of having a uniform in the first place.

NB Action:
COL LEE/PA MOVED the written Proposal

THE MOTION FAILED DUE TO NO SECOND.
h. Optional Shoulder Patches on BDU: Col Benckert, VT/CC
When the Civil Air Patrol adopted the wear of the reverse U.S. flag on the BDU
uniform several years ago, previously authorized special activity and school patches
were moved to the pocket. In some wings, this action moved to relocate special
activity/organizational patches that have significant historical ties both to esprit de
corps within the wing and qualifications.

Proposal: That the National Board approves, at the discretion of the member’s
wing commander, the wear of previously approved optional patches in place of the
wing patch.

Advisor/Staff Comments: The Uniform Team concurs with this proposal to the
extent that the national board should authorize the wear of previously approved
optional patches in place of the wing patch or placed in the same relative position
90

February 2009 National Board Minutes
on the left shoulder. The wording allowing the discretion of the wing commander
would not enhance uniformity.

NHQ Comments: Defer to the Uniform Team.
CAP-USAF Comments: No comment.

NB Action:
COL BENCKERT/VT MOVED and COL CAHALEN/MT seconded that the National
Board approves the wear of previously approved optional patches in place of the
wing patch.

THE MOTION CARRIED (31 yes votes—note: there were several
abstentions)
i. Additional Corporate Uniform Outerwear Items: Col Saile, MI/CC
CAPR 39-1 currently does not proscribe any serious cold weather outerwear for the
corporate uniform series of service dress and blue BDU uniform combinations. The
black Army doubled breasted all-weather coat and the black Army light weight
jacket are not always suitable for the coldest months of the year in the northern
climates.

Proposal: That the National Board approve the attached list of cold weather
uniform items with wear instructions as listed, as additions to CAPR 39-1 CAP
Distinctive Uniforms.
Cardigan, Army-style, black, male and female
The Army-style black cardigan sweater may be worn by males and females wearing
the CAP Corporate uniform combination. Blue and silver embroidery shoulder mark
grade insignia will be worn on the epaulettes. A neck tie is optional.

V-Neck Sweater, Army-style, black, male and female

91

February 2009 National Board Minutes
The Army-style black V-neck pull-over sweater may be worn by males and females
wearing the CAP Corporate uniform combination. Blue and silver embroidery
shoulder mark grade insignia will be worn on the epaulettes. A neck-tie is optional.

Parka, N2B and N3B, Black
The N2B (short length) or N3B black parka featured) may be worn by males and
females wearing the CAP Corporate uniform and corporate service coat uniform
combinations. No name tag will be worn on this coat.

Parka, N2B and N3B, Blue
The N2B (short length) or N3B blue parka (featured) may be worn by males and
females wearing the CAP blue field uniform, blue flight suit and blue utility uniform
combinations. No name tag

92

February 2009 National Board Minutes
Advisor/Staff Comments: This proposal should be tabled or withdrawn. Civilian
outerwear appropriate to the weather conditions has normally been authorized for
wear with corporate uniforms. No name tags, rank insignia nor CAP patches or
badges are necessary.

NHQ Comments: Defer to the Uniform Committee.

CAP-USAF Comments: No comment.

NB Action:
COL SAILE/MI MOVED and COL REEVES/IN seconded that the National Board
approve the attached list of cold weather Parkas with wear instructions as listed,
as additions to CAPR 39-1, CAP Distinctive Uniforms.
COL PHELKA/CO MOVED TO POSTPONE and COL PARRIS/TX seconded the
postponement and refer to Committee.

MOTION TO POSTPONE CARRIED.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Referral to the Uniform Team

j. Change of Embroidery Insignia on AF-Style Uniforms: Col Moersch, FL/CC
Currently CAPR 35-10 (memo dated 15-March-2206) specifies two variations of
blue embroidery for utility uniforms. Ultramarine blue is authorized for wear on AFstyle BDUs, and flights suits, and dark blue embroidery is used on corporate utility
and flight suits.
Having 2 different colors of embroidery causes undue confusion either in ordering
by the member, or the packing/shipping of the vendor. This results in orders being
returned, or members ordering additional items to insure the proper uniform match.
Also, in discussion with Vanguard, CAP is currently the sole purchaser of the
ultramarine blue embroidery. This has created a supply problem for Vanguard.
Currently they have a 6-12 month inventory, beyond that, they will have to locate
additional supply. In discussion with Mr. Bostwick of Vanguard, they would support
a change.

Proposal: That the National Board amends, with Air Force approval, CAPM 39-1
to phase out the ultramarine blue embroidery on AF-style BDU and flights suits over
the next 18 months, in favor of the dark blue embroidery.
93

February 2009 National Board Minutes
Advisor/Staff Comments: Proposal received too late for published comments at this
time. This item would require USAF approval. In-person comments will be made at
the Board meeting or in later agenda revisions.

NHQ Comments: Defer to the Uniform Team. However, if the Board chooses to
change the color of grade insignia consideration should be given to changing the
color all the blue cloth devices included nametapes, specialty insignia, aeronautical
ratings, etc. To have dark blue grade insignia and ultramarine blue accouterments
would not present a professional image. Additionally, the change of all badges
would result in a massive conversion for the general membership and could be cost
prohibitive.

CAP-USAF Comments: Do not concur. The ultramarine blue name tapes and
accoutrements are necessary to ensure that CAP members are visually
distinguishable from Air Force members, as required by Air Force policy:

1.3.4. CAP Distinctive Uniforms and Insignia. The emblems, insignia, and
badges of the CAP Air Force-style uniform will clearly identify an individual as a
CAP member at a distance and in low-light conditions…CAP distinctive uniforms
must be sufficiently different from U.S. Armed Forces uniforms so that confusion will
not occur. (Ref AFI 10-2701)
Additionally, Vanguard has assured CAP NHQ that there is no shortage of
ultramarine blue material.

NB Action:
COL MOERSCH/FL MOVED and COL BENCKERT/VT seconded the written
Proposal, EXCEPT that the word “Corporate” shall be inserted between the words
“BDU and” and “flight suits,” and that “18 months” shall be changed to “36
months.”
COL CHARLES/NAT CON MOVED TO AMEND and COL BROWN/AK seconded the
amendment to change the phase-out period from”36 months” to “36 to 48
months, as determined by the NHQ staff.”
COL SAILE/MI MOVED TO POSTPONE and COL PHELKA/CO seconded the
postponement and refer to committee.

THE MOTION TO POSTPONE CARRIED.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Referral to the Process Action Team.

94

February 2009 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 28
SUBJECT: Advisor, Committee and Staff Reports
CAP/CS – Col Chazell
Advisors

1.

Finance Committee Report – Col Weiss

COL WEISS/NFO thanked all the wing commanders and asked them to convey to their
finance officers heartfelt thanks for CAP’s very first unqualified audit.
2.

Chaplain Report – Col Woodard

CH, COL, WOODARD presented a slide briefing on Chaplain activities to the National
Board.
3.

Senior Advisor, Support – Col Guimond

COL GUIMOND presented a slide briefing on Support to the National Board.
4.

Senior Advisor, Operations – Col Skiba

COL SKIBA not able to attend the meeting; however, he was represented by Lt Col
Leslie Vazquez, National Director of Stan/Eval who presented a slide briefing on
Operations to the National Board report.
5.

CAP National Safety Officer – Col Letteer

COL LETTEER presented a slide briefing on safety to the National Board.
6.

Inspector General – Col Linker

COL LINKER presented a slide briefing on inspections to the National Board
7.

Historian Report – Col Blascovich

COL BLASCOVICH presented a slide briefing on historical activities to the National
Board

MAJ GEN COURTER expressed appreciation for all the national staff, executive officer,
and national officers.

95

February 2009 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 29
SUBJECT: Old Business

a. ITEM: CAP NCO Corps
Agenda Item 14; Nov 07 NEC – Col Carr
CAP NCO Corps
NEC ACTION
That the National Executive Committee vote to approve the concept of future
promotions for former military NCOs; task the working group to develop
promotion criteria for each grade, and present a proposal to the May 2008
NEC.
Also, approve the working group to consider concept of individuals without prior
military service being eligible for promotion to NCO grades. The working group
is to develop a program for these individuals to earn NCO grades through CAP
participation and training. This plan should be presented to the summer 2008
National Board for consideration.

Agenda Item 20-1; Aug 08 NB CAP NCO Corps
August 2008 NB ACTION:
CSMGT WALPUS, Chief Master Sergeant of CAP, presented a slide briefing on
the proposals of the working group for individuals with prior military service to
earn NCO grades through CAP participation and training. The proposal is for
the National Board to consider approving the basic promotion program for
submission to CAP-USAF for comments and further review.
In response to a question as to how the Air Force may perceive this proposal,
Col Hodgkins, USAF, responded that CAP-USAF supports the concept and
stated that the distinctive rank insignia, promotion and grade structure would
probably be approved at Air Force level. He expressed an opinion that CAP
needs to develop refinements on exactly how the role of the NCO will be
perceived in CAP in the future, which needs to be a part of the package that
goes forward to the Air Force.
COL PARRIS/CA MOVED and COL LEE/PA seconded that the National
Board approve the NCO promotion progression information as presented
in the slide briefing for presentation to CAP-USAF for Air Force guidance,
96

February 2009 National Board Minutes
which will then be considered by the National Board prior to forwarding
for Air Force approval.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: (1) Development of a package for submission to CAPUSAF to seek Air Force guidance; (2) After response from CAP-USAF,
consideration of suggested changes and guidance by the National Board; and
(3) Inclusion in the 2009 Winter National Board Agenda.

February 2009 NB Action:
COL CARR/GLR reported that the authorized package was submitted to CAP-USAF in
the Oct-Nov 2008 time-frame, about the time the headquarters was preparing to move
for building renovation. CAP-USAF then asked the working group to provide more
clarification on the role of the NCO Corps in CAP. The group met with Susie Parker, a
member of the group, along with Col Hodgkins, USAF, and Col Ward, USAF, on
Wednesday, 25 Feb 09, and developed the additional requested information. The
proposal was rewritten and sent to Col Hodgkins, USAF, and Col Ward, USAF, and they
assured Col Carr that they would take that proposal to the Air University Commander.

b. ITEM: Review of CAPR 20-1 and proposed Pamphlet
Agenda Item 15.7; Nov 08 NEC – Gen Courter
National Staff Structure (CAPR 20-1 and Supporting Pamphlet)
NEC Action
Maj Gen Courter discussed the following informational items:
Job Descriptions for the Executive Officer and Aide de Camp, which were read,
for inclusion along with job descriptions of Senior Advisors and other National
staff personnel into a CAP Pamphlet rather than in regulation form.
COL WEISS/NFO MOVED and COL PEARSON/PCR seconded that the NEC
form a committee to review CAPR 20-1 and the proposed unnumbered
Pamphlet containing the CAP National staff selection process and job
descriptions with potential inclusion of job descriptions of the Executive
Officer and Aide de Camp; the committee is tasked to complete that work
and bring it to the 2009 Winter National Board.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
97

February 2009 National Board Minutes
FOLLOW-ON ACTION:
Committee members are Col Chazell/CS, Col
Guimond, Col Weiss/NFO, Ms. Parker/DP, CAP-USAF Advisor, Lt Col Kothari,
and Maj Harriet Smith/SWR/DA. Include in the 2009 Winter National Board
agenda.

MAJ GEN COURTER/CC reported that a DRAFT copy of CAP Pamphlet 20, containing
the CAP National staff selection process and job descriptions had been distributed to
National Board members for comment. There will be adjustments, such as the National
Commander’s executive officer is not in the command chain. She reminded that the
idea for this effort was to ensure that as volunteers step forward for national staff
positions that people understand who they report to, what are the functions, authority,
responsibilities, and any desired requirements. This process will help guide the
leadership as staff is added and changed.
COL LEE/PA MOVED and COL EGRY/DE seconded that the National Board
approve the DRAFT Pamphlet 20 and, after comments, that it be brought back to
the 2009 Summer National Board.

THE MOTION CARRIED.
Later in the meeting COL CHAZELL/CS MOVED TO RECONSIDER and COL
SAILE/MI seconded the reconsideration of the previous vote on the question of
National Board review of CAP Pamphlet 20, the National Staff Selection Process.
COL CHAZELL/CS offered the following rationale: One reason is that after the
discussion of the modifications to CAPR 5-4, the National Commander indicated that it
might possibly be out of order. Secondly, Col Chazell added that every commander in
the room has the prerogative to establish their staffs and the National Commander
should have that same prerogative without unnecessary oversight of the 67 members of
the board. This is a pamphlet and we do not have a precedent of National Board review
of pamphlets. Should this motion to reconsider fail, he also requested an official ruling
from the chair as to whether or not it was out of order.
There was clarification that since Col Chazell voted in the negative, he was not eligible
to request reconsideration.
COL SAILE/MI MOVED TO RECONSIDER and COL McCABE/NJ seconded the
reconsideration of the previous vote on the question of National Board review of
CAP Pamphlet 20, CAP National Staff Selection Process.

THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER CARRIED.
COL GUIMOND, Senior Advisor explained to the National Board that it was upon his
strong advice that the additional national staff named at the prerogative of the National
Commander needed to be included in a pamphlet as opposed to including in regulation.

98

February 2009 National Board Minutes
This process would allow flexibility to all National Commanders to adjust the optional
national staff according to their command style. The national officers required under the
Constitution and Bylaws will continue to be included in CAPR 20-1.

THE MOTION, AFTER RECONSIDERATION, DID NOT PASS.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: CAP Pamphlet 20, National Staff Selection Process, will be
published when finalized.

c. ITEM: Adverse Action Regulation – Col Herrin
COL HERRIN/NLO briefed that Col Karton and his group has a comprehensive draft of
CAPR 35-10. It is now going through review by legal and the inspector general
process, after which it will be sent out for general review by the National Board. There
are changes to between 24-36 regulations. This effort is to create a single, unified,
disciplinary policy that all the commanders can work through in a progressive manner
selecting appropriate levels of discipline for members. He pointed out one innovation—
called a last-chance agreement—when there is an admission by a member after a
membership termination or other disciplinary process that they have been bad, and
he/she executes a contract with the organization that if anything of a certain thing
happens again there is an immediate termination of membership with no further
recourse. Hopefully, this can be used as a rehabilitating tool for people who have made
a big mistake and want “go forth and sin no more.”
MR. KARTON added that the intention of this document is to provide a simpler
commander’s guide and will be more user-friendly.
COL LINKER/IG asked that the commanders not be intimidated by the size of the
document because the contents are detailed and will be invaluable to commanders.
COL CHARLES/NATCON explained that before 2005 the Adverse Personnel Pamphlet
was outdated and the regulations were somewhat confusing because of different
suspension rules so there were no due process rights for membership. In 2005 there
was a proposal to develop a simple regulation on adverse actions for use by field
commanders with advice from the wing or unit legal officer and inspector general. This
document completely changes the inspector general system in complaints and
commanders will need a companion guide in order to use the document. He expressed
an opinion that this document may not meet the intent of the 2005 request and advised
the commanders to carefully review it.
MAJ GEN COURTER offered to form a committee to look at this document prior to
National Board review, which would enable a team to look at it again, due to the amount
of time passed and amount of work done. This offer was endorsed by National Board
members. The appointed team will be: Col Karton, Col Linker/IG, Col Kuddes/NCR,
Col Parris/CA, Col Cortum/RMR, and one representative from NHQ and one from CAP-

99

February 2009 National Board Minutes
USAF. Gen Courter added that this team will look both at the regulation in its DRAFT
mode and work with the Commander’s Guide and determine what the intent and needs
are for this board. In response to a question, there was clarification that some of the
same team members are added to this new team, as well as others who are
commanders and the IG to bring in the other perspective on that team.

100

February 2009 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 30
SUBJECT: New Business

a. IG to Review Complaints against the National Commander
COL DAVIDSON read the following NATIONAL BOARD motion, seconded by COL
LEE/PA:
“That the Board of Governors has plenary authority to conduct the business of
Civil Air Patrol and is not required to comply with existing CAP regulation in its
conduct of CAP business. Information has been transmitted to the National
Board by the Board of Governors regarding complaints against the National
Commander. The National Board, in order to meet its fiduciary responsibility
intends to evaluate these complaints in accordance with CAP governing
documents.
“Accordingly, the National Board resolves:
“The CAP National Board requests that the Chairman of the CAP Board of
Governors direct the CAP National Inspector General to review all complaints
against the National Commander and all complaint-related material for the period
1 October 2008 to present for conformity with CAPR series 123, and to report his
findings and determinations to the Chair of the Board of Governors and the
National Legal Officer of the National Board within 60 days and provide the report
to the National Board within 10 days following.
“The CAP Inspector General transmits the results of the investigation on all such
complaints to the National Board for further action, if needed, in accordance with
Article XV of the CAP Constitution and Bylaws and CAPR 35-7.”
A secret ballot was requested.

BY SECRET BALLOT VOTE THE MOTION CARRIED (51 Yes; 13 No).
MAJ GEN COURTER thanked the National Board for ensuring the same process that
would be used for any member in the field is also used thoroughly to investigate and
bring closure and remove this matter from the Board of Governors who has worked very
diligently, extensively, and earnestly and to whom we owe a debt of service. Gen
Courter added that she is proud of this organization and its directives and governing
documents, which need to be respected. She added that all CAP members including
the National Commander deserve the rigor of process and expressed appreciation to
the National Board for taking that action

101

February 2009 National Board Minutes

b. Suspend Rules to Allow Uniform Item (Parka) Action at 2009
Summer Board.
COL LEE/PA stated that in August 2001 the National Board approved a proposal to
review all uniform changes annually at the Winter National Board meeting.

COL LEE/PA MOVED and COL BENCKERT/VT seconded that National Board
suspend the referenced policy to allow the Uniform Process Action Team to
submit the recommendations on outer cold weather garments for wear with the
Corporate uniform to the 2009 Summer National Board for consideration and final
action.

THE MOTION CARRIED.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Uniform Process Action Team may submit recommendations
on parkas (Agenda Item 27i. 2009 Winter National Board) to the 2009 Summer National
Board. Include in August 2009 National Board agenda.

c.

Safety Survey Correction Action

COL LETTEER/SE, with reference to the Annual Safety Survey, stated that there is a
regulation which reads, “All commanders will pass down the negative findings on the
annual safety surveys,” but there is nothing in there to indicate that anything has to be
done about them. He proposed that the National Board direct that a requirement be
added to CAPR 62-1, as follows: “That after receiving the comments on the annual
safety survey from the commander at the next higher echelon each unit will correct or
resolve all safety concerns and issues identified on that survey.”
COL LEE/PA MOVED and COL KUDDES/NCR seconded the motion that the
National Board approve a change to CAPR 62-1, to include the added requirement
as recommended and read by the National Safety Officer.
COL WINTERS/OH MOVED TO POSTPONE and COL BEASON/SD seconded the
postponement and refer to committee. The following committee was named by
the National Commander: Col Letteer/SE, Col Herrin/NLO, or designees, and Col
Weiss/MD, Col Smith/SC, Col Benckert/VT, and Col Lee/PA, as well as CAPUSAF/SE and NHQ, as needed.

THE MOTION TO POSTPONE CARRIED.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Referral to named committee and inclusion in 2009 Summer
National Board meeting agenda.

102

February 2009 National Board Minutes

Administrative Announcements
National Board badges were presented to the incoming commanders:
Col Roger M. Caires, Interim HI Wing (PCR), appointed 22 Aug 2008
Col Roy W. Douglass, NC Wing (MER), appointed 1 Jan 2009
Col Rafael C. Roman, PR Wing (SER), appointed 6 Dec 2008
Col Donald G. Cortum, RMR, appointed 6 Nov 2008
Col Herbert C. Cahalen, MT Wing (RMR), appointed 6 Feb 2009
Col Brian L. Bishop, OR Wing, (PCR), appointed 25 Oct 2008
The following named departing commanders were recognized and thanked for their
service:
Col Robert Diduch, NER
Col Robert J. McCabe, NJ Wing
Col Jane E. Davies, Nat Cap Wing
Col Henry L. Heaberlin, KY Wing
Col Russell D. Hodgkins, Jr., USAF, was also recognized as attending his last National
Board meeting as the CAP-USAF Commander. He will retire from active duty 1 Jul 09.
An Exceptional Service Award was presented to Lt Tolga C. Tarhan CA Wing, for
outstanding service to CAP.
Special Guest, Mr. Tom Jones, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs (SAF/MRR), gave a presentation on ways that CAP can
become a partner even more closely with the Air Force and defined more ways for CAP
members to serve the Air Force. He added that there is a provision for two non-voting
members from CAP on the Air Reserve Forces Policy (ARFP) Committee, appointed by
the Secretary of the Air Force. Mr. Jones stated that the National Commander and
Commander, CAP-USAF will fill those two positions and be invited to come, or send a
representative, to the ARFP Committee meetings. He added that this committee is
made up of general officers from the regular active, reserve, and guard components that
talk about issues of interest for the total Air Force, and CAP needs to be there, engaged
and involved in those discussions. He added that he is so impressed with Maj Gen
Courter that he wants her to brief the most senior Air Force boards, committees, and
councils, up to and including the Air Force Council to talk about what the CAP is doing
in an attempt to increase the HQ Air Force staff’s knowledge of CAP. Mr. Jones also
commended the establishment of the CAP Cadet Leadership Academy, which was
meeting in Washington, DC, and expressed regrets that the Air Force did not offer to
send some more senior staff (Chief of Staff or Secretary of the Air Force) to address the
cadets. He promised to try to do that next year. Mr. Jones also expressed an opinion
that all the wings in CAP and the National Guard need to develop a more universal
partnership. He proposed to discuss this idea with the general in charge of the National
Guard to encourage his board of directors—the state adjutants general—to work closer
with CAP. He gave the Guard’s Youth Challenge Program as an example
103

February 2009 National Board Minutes
for CAP interface with the Guard. He added that there are probably also areas where
CAP can partner with the Air Force Reserves and encouraged CAP to look for
partnerships with other military-associated organizations. Mr. Jones closed by stating
that he agreed with a recent statement by Lt Gen John Hopper, USAF (Ret), Chairman
of the Board of Governors, who said that he hoped that 10 years from now when we
refer to the components of the Air Force, we will be talking about the regular active
component, the National Guard component, the Reserve component, and the
auxiliary—the Civil Air Patrol—component of the Air Force: the four components of the
Air Force.” Mr. Jones disagreed that it should take 10 years, but should happen a lot
sooner. He added that he is looking forward to working with Gen Courter for 3 years to
help make this happen and to get great things going with CAP. He presented Maj Gen
Courter with his personal coin, which shows only three components of the Air Force on
the back. He stated that when he reorders this coin, he will request that four
components be added to the back of the coin.
Maj Gen Courter announced that approximately 8,000 were viewing the streaming of
the National Board proceedings and thanked them for participating.
Lt Gen John D. Hopper, Jr., USAF (Ret), Chairman of the Board of Governors, on
behalf of all the BoG, expressed appreciation to Maj Gen Richard Bowling for his
service on the Board of Governors, and most recently as its chairman. As a tribute to
Gen Bowling, Gen Hopper added words from other BoG members that focused his
dedication to CAP, professionalism, a love of CAP and a desire to continue and support
this mission. He stated that Rick Bowling has done that first for CAP directly as a
previous National Commander and through his membership and most recently his
chairmanship of the Board of Governors.
Maj Gen Courter announced that John Salvador/NHQ/DO was voted the Most Valuable
Player for this National Board.
Maj Gen Courter announced that Chuck Mullin/NHQ/PM was named as the Greatest
Team Player.
Maj Gen Courter noted the number of agenda items, especially those regarding safety
and safety-related items. She stated there were also some technology-related
improvements of great interest to the board. She added that she was proud of the
members of the National Board who are doing the fiduciary work of the board, in an
open, honest, thoughtful and deliberate manner. She further added that it is CAP’S
culture of safety, the service provided to the nation and the excellence with which it is
provided and the respect we have for each other and for the leaders of CAP that make
a difference. She expressed appreciation for all that.
THE NATIONAL BOARD ADJOURNED AT 1648 SATURDAY, 28 Feb 2009.

104