File #1310: "National Board Minutes_2010_02.pdf"

National Board Minutes_2010_02.pdf

PDF Text

Text

Civil Air Patrol
National Board
Minutes

26-27 February 2010
Washington DC

26-27 February 2010
Contents
OPEN SESSION
Reports
1.

Advisor, Executive, Staff and Committee Reports ........................ Col Chazell....... 7

Action Agenda Items
2.

Approval of the September 2009 National Board Minutes............ Col Chazell....... 9

3.

Uniforms
a. Uniform Change Approval Process .............................................. Col Chazell..... 10
b. Extension of wear-out date of Corporate Service Uniform ............. Col Castle..... 15
c. Consolidation of CAP Service Dress Uniforms ................................. Col Saile..... 18
d. Mandatory Guaranteed Minimum Usage term for Uniform Items .. Col Andreu..... 29
e. Badges on Aviator Shirt Uniform Combinations ........................... Col Haffner..... 32
f. Grade Insignia for Cadet Senior NCOs’ ........................................ Col Boylan..... 34
g. Recognition for the Organizational Excellence Program .................. Col Saile..... 36

4.

Regulatory Approvals
a. National Board Approval of Regulations- Part 1 ............................... Col Todd..... 38
b. National Board Approval of Regulations Part 2 ................................ Col Todd..... 42
c. Change to CAPR 5-4 / Review of Regulations and Publications ........ Col Lee..... 44
d. Change to CAPR 5-4, Procedure for National Board
Establish New or Validate Changes to Regulations and Manuals ..... Col Lee..... 47
e. Obsolete Regulations ..................................................................... Col Myrick..... 49

5.

Governance
a. Wing Commander Selection Process ........................................... Col Chazell..... 51
b. Region Commander Selection Process........................................ Col Chazell..... 53
c. Continued Membership Eligibility ................................................. Col Chazell..... 59
d. NEC Fingerprinting ....................................................................... Col Chazell..... 61
e. Core Competencies for CAP’s Executive Leaders ....................... Col Chazell..... 63
f. Amend Constitution of CAP Regarding Appointment & Removal
of CAP Members at Large to the Board of Governors ........................ Col Lee..... 66
g. Commander’s Action during Election for National Commander
and / or Vice Commander ............................................................. Col Weiss..... 69
h. Clarification and Revision of Duties and Responsibilities
of the National Executive Committee ............................................... Col Egry..... 71
i. Selection of Region Commanders ............................................. Col Davidson..... 73
j. SAV Close Out ............................................................................... Col Myrick..... 76

6.

Awards
a. Aerospace Education Mission Awards Process ............................... Col Saile..... 79
b. Quality Cadet Unit Award ................................... Col Hayden & Col Davidson..... 81
2

7.

Operations
a. Limited OPSEC Waiver ................................................................ Col Chazell..... 85
b. Single Qualification Record ..............................................................Col Miller..... 88
c. Changes to CAPR 60-1 ................................................................ Col Kuddes..... 90

Old Business
8.

Old Business
a. AE Officer of the Year .......................................................................................... 94
b. Organizational Missions – Elections ..................................................................... 98
c. Revision and Update of CAPR 35-7:
Removal of National Commander and National Vice Commander ..................... 101
d. Cadet Advisory Council Term Limits .................................................................. 104
e. Making Accident / Incident Information available to Pilots .................................. 106
f. Conduct of Members Using Social Media .......................................................... 109
g. Air Patrol Ribbon ................................................................................................ 114
h. Membership Application – Proof of True Identity ................................................ 118
I. Identification Cards for CAP Members ............................................................... 121
J. National Staff College Prerequisites for NCOs ................................................... 123

New Business
9.

New Business
a. Diversity ............................................................................................................. 127
b. Public Trust Task Force ..................................................................................... 127
c. Life Membership for Lt Gen Searock .................................................................. 128

ATTEST:

OFFICIAL:

Barry S. Herrin
Colonel, CAP
National Legal Officer

Amy S. Courter
Major General, CAP
National Commander

3

CIVIL AIR PATROL
NATIONAL BOARD MEETING MINUTES
26-27 February 2010
Washington DC

OPEN SESSION
CALL TO ORDER ..................................................... Maj Gen Amy S. Courter, CAP
INVOCATION ............................................................ Ch, Col Whitson B. Woodard, CAP
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ...................................... CMSgt Lou Walpus, 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 William R. Ward, USAF
NATIONAL COMMANDER REMARKS ..................... Maj Gen Amy S. Courter, CAP
SPECIAL GUEST REMARKS ................................... Maj Gen Amy S. Courter, CAP

NATIONAL BOARD
(As of 20 February 2010)

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 Corps, Commander,
CAP-USAF, the 8 region commanders, and 52 wing commanders.
MIDDLE EAST REGION

NATIONAL OFFICERS
*Maj Gen Amy S. Courter, CAP
*Brig Gen Reggie L. Chitwood, CAP
**Col William R. Ward, USAF
*Col Russell E. Chazell CAP
*Col C. Warren Vest, CAP
*Col Barry S. Herrin, CAP
*Col William S. Charles, III, CAP
**Col Merle V. Starr, 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 Richard J. Cooper Jr., CAP
Col Roy W. Douglass, CAP
Col Hubbard J. Lindler, CAP
Col David A. Carter, CAP
Col Dennis D. Barron, CAP

GREAT LAKES REGION

NORTHEAST REGION
*Col, Christopher J. Hayden CAP
Col Cassandra B. Hutchko, CAP
Col Daniel M. LaClair CAP
Col William H. Meskill, CAP
Col Donald C. Davidson, CAP
Col David L. Mull, 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 Richard L. Griffith, CAP
Col Robert J. Koob, CAP
Col Michael A. Saile, CAP
Col David M. Winters, CAP
Col Donald J. Haffner, CAP

4

Region Commander
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin

ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION

SOUTHEAST REGION
*Col James M. Rushing, CAP
Col Lisa C. Robinson, CAP
Col Christian F. Moersch, III, CAP
Col Tonya R. Boylan, 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 Herbert C. Cahalen, CAP
Col Jerry E. Wellman, 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 Teresa L. Schimelfening, CAP

Region Commander
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming

*Col Larry F. Myrick, CAP
Col Carl L. Brown, CAP
Col Kenneth W. Parris, CAP
Col Roger M. Caires, CAP
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 Joseph C. Jensen, CAP
Col John M. Eggen, CAP
Col Robert B. Britton, CAP
Col Cecil A. Scarbrough, CAP
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

5

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 1

REPORTS

SUBJECT: Advisor, Executive, Staff and Committee Reports
CAP/CS – Col Chazell

Perfunctory Reports:
1. * (Staff) CAP National Safety Officer

Col Diduch

2. * (Executive) Finance Committee Report

Col Vest

3. * (Executive) Chaplain Report

Ch, Col Woodard

4. * (Executive) National Legal Officer’s Report

Col Herrin

5. * (Executive) Inspector General

Col Starr

6. * (Advisor) Senior Advisor, Support

Col Guimond

7. * (Advisor) Senior Advisor, Operations

Col Skiba

Additional Reports, time permitting:
8. (Advisor) National Advisory Council

Brig Gen du Pont

9. (Advisor) National Cadet Advisory Council

c/Col King

10. (Staff) Historian Report

Col Blascovich

11. (Staff) National Medical Officer

Col McLaughlin

12. (Committee) Hall of Honor

Maj Gen Wheless

13. (Committee) Constitution and Bylaws

Col Herrin

14. (Committee) Public Trust

Col Kavich

15. (Affinity) Large Wing

Col Pearson

16. (Affinity) Disaster Relief

Col Rushing

17. (Affinity) Operations

Col Vazquez

6

February 2010 National Board Minutes
MAJ GEN COURTER announced that all of the following reports will be sent
electronically to the board members:
1.

(Staff) CAP National Safety Officer – Col Diduch

2.

(Executive) Finance Committee Report – Col Vest
COL VEST/NFO briefed that the FY2010 Corporate and Appropriated Budgets
have been approved and forwarded up the chain to the BoG for final approval.
He also noted that Congress has since increased the FY2010 Appropriated
Budget by $4M, which has been incorporated back into the budget. The
committee has worked on several other projects including a revised investment
policy, several items of business from the wings, and a review and possible
future change in the CAP Investment Manager.

3.

(Executive) Chaplain Report – Ch, Col Woodard
CH, COL WOODWARD presented a slide briefing updating activities of the
Chaplain Corps.

4.

(Executive) National Legal Officer’s Report – Col Herrin
COL HERRIN/NLO recognized three CAP and USAF attorneys that were sworn
in as members of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States. They are:
Col. Tim Verrett (PCR/JA), Maj. Ed Barreto (PRWG/JA), and Maj. Paul Maraian,
CAP/USAF JAG. He thanked the board members for using the CAP lawyers and
for their support and help to appoint and retain lawyers working for the
corporation.

5.

(Executive) Inspector General - Col Starr

6.

(Advisor) Senior Advisor, Support – Col Guimond
COL GUIMOND presented a slide briefing on the status of the projects and
accomplishments of the various areas aligned under the Senior Advisor for
Support.

7.

(Advisor) Senior Advisor, Operations – Col Skiba
COL SKIBA presented a written report and highlighted the summary of his report
on page 4. He stated that this is his final report as senior advisor for operations,
and thanked the National Board and the NEC for the honor of working in this
position.

7

February 2010 National Board Minutes
14. (Committee) Public Trust – Col Kavich
COL KAVICH presented a slide briefing to report the committee’s task to
determine how to better garner executive leaders for CAP. The Public Trust
Committee has focused on three main areas: (1) How to improve transparency,
(2) How to make better decisions, and (3) How to increase the talent pool. With
regard to (1) and (2), the committee has presented four agenda items for this
meeting. Number (3) was more difficult and will center on diversity—get smarter
on finding and developing talent—emulating the Air Force in getting more
efficient and innovative. The committee made two recommendations. Number
One: That the National Board adopt a resolution like the Air Force that diversity
is a strategic imperative for Civil Air Patrol, moving forward from this time.
Number Two: That the National Commander appoint a committee to study the
diversity within CAP and make specific, measurable recommendations to the
National Board on how CAP can increase diversity and do a better job of
developing talent.

These were all the reports that time allowed.

8

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 2

PM

Action

SUBJECT: Approval of the September 2009 National Board Minutes
CAP/CS – Col Chazell

Author: None

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:

The minutes of the September 2009 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 approve the September 2009 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 CHAZELL/CS MOVED and COL VAZQUEZ/MER seconded the PROPOSED
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Remove the word “DRAFT” from the September 2009 National
Board Minutes.

9

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 3a
Uniforms

ED

Action

Uniforms

SUBJECT: Uniform Change Approval Process
Author: Uniform PAT
CAP/CS – Col Chazell
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
A process action team was established by direction of the National Board at the
February 2009 meeting (Agenda Item 27(a), February 2009). The mandate of the team
was to review current processes for making changes to CAP uniforms and
accoutrements and then make a recommendation to the National Commander to
streamline the process in order for National Board time and effort to be used more
effectively during Board meetings – rather than debating what are inherently
administrative issues – and to provide a predictable and codified method for uniform
changes. The report of the team is attached and includes the team’s process
recommendation and is presented to National Board for consideration.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve the Process Action Report as presented and adopt the
recommendation provided as the official method of processing requests for changes to
CAP uniforms and associated accoutrements.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
None.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
CAP NHQ will draft the appropriate regulations changes based on the decision of the
National Board.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
Uniform Committee
1) Section 5. a. 1-4 a. 1st paragraph, last sentence. The Uniform Team Leader
believes this sentence is not strong enough to convince Commanders they can help
stop the out of control changes being offered to the uniform. As Commanders they
have an obligation first to the corporation and CAP and second to their
membership. It should be clear in the wording they should exercise their command
responsibility. I would suggest that the sentence be split as follows "The chain ....
to National Headquarters/DP. Commanders in the chain are obliged to review and
10

February 2010 National Board Minutes
approve or deny uniform changes as they see fit. Commanders are expected to
hold the overall program above parochial or unit biased loyalties."
2) Section 5. a. 1-4 b. Comment: It is expected that the first appointed chair of the
new uniform committee would select a board of qualified officers, establish a
charter for the committee and document its internal working procedures. The board
should be composed of a Chair, 2 sitting NB members, 1 senior Cadet to represent
Cadets, 3 members-at-large, and the CAP CMS, Historian, and a representative
from CAP-USAF as an ex-offico non-voting member.
Sr Advisor Support:
recommendations.

Recommend approval and implementation of the PAT

REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPM 39-1, CAP Uniform Manual
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL CHAZELL/CS MOVED and COL CARR/GLR seconded the PROPOSED
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.
COL DAVIDSON/NH MOVED TO POSTPONE and COL LEE/PA seconded the
postponement until the first item of business on Saturday morning.

THE MOTION TO POSTPONE CARRIED
On Saturday morning, Agenda Item 3a, Uniform Change Approval Process, was
brought from the table.
During discussion, Col Chazell/CS clarified that it was never the intention of the team to
remove the authority for commanders to authorize items such as encampment tee shirts
and shorts (activity-type). The focus of the team was to make modifications to approve
uniforms, such as BDUs, which would be problematic if an approved tee shirt were
combined with the BDU because that would be a modification to an approved Air Forcetype or Corporate uniform. He further clarified that there is no intention to change those
items already authorized for approval by commanders.
MS. PARKER/DP further clarified that there are provisions for commanders to
determine what members will wear at a particular activity, on a temporary basis.
COL LEE/PAMOVED TO AMEND and COL BISHOP/OR seconded the amendment
to change the Process Action Report as follows:
:
1. Paragraph 5.a. CAPM 39-1 (Draft), Paragraph 1-4, Changes to the Uniform,
Paragraph a. How to Recommend Changes to the Uniform:

11

February 2010 National Board Minutes
Strike the words: “This includes such specialty wear as distinctive shirts and
other “informal” items worn by groups of members performing similar
specialty CAP functions and duties.”
2. Paragraph 5.a. CAPM 39-1 (Draft), Paragraph 1-4, Changes to the Uniform,
Paragraph b. Composition of the Uniform Committee: The fourth paragraph
amended to read as follows: “The committee will be comprised of one wing
commander from each region selected by the region commander. The
committee will also seek individuals with substantive knowledge of uniforms
either from US military or CAP background. Various mission areas will be
represented on the committee, as well as the National Historian and CAP
Chief Master Sergeant, and a CAP-USAF advisor, appointed by the CAPUSAF/CC, will serve ex officio.”
3. Paragraph 8. (ADDED). Uniform items will be vetted through and
recommended by the Uniform Committee and (1) will be posted for a 30-day
comment period, (2) will be submitted through the chain of command, and (3)
comments from National Board members will be listed first and comments
from members will follow.
4. Paragraph 9. (ADDED). A 2-year moratorium on uniform items, which will
give National Headquarters Staff time to incorporate all current ICL changes
into an updated CAPM 39-1, Uniform Manual so we will actually have a
uniform manual that is set and ready to go.
Also, the Uniform Committee will perform a comprehensive review of all corporate
uniforms and report to the National Board at the summer 2011 National Board meeting,
giving the board and the membership time to review before action is taken at the 2012
boards.
THERE WAS CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD to delay this agenda item until after lunch
to allow time for reviewing a printed copy, and also to delay all uniform agenda items
until after lunch in case some of them may be impacted by this agenda item.
On Saturday afternoon, discussion continued on this item and the following printed
version of the amendment to the Uniform Process Action Team Report, as further
amended by the Process Action Team (to include adding the word “major” between “on”
and “uniform” on line 1, paragraph 8, ITEM III), was presented: NOTE: A vote was
taken on each item.
ITEM I
Paragraph 5.a. CAPM 39-1 (Draft), Paragraph 1-4, Changes to the Uniform:
Paragraph a, How to Recommend Changes to the Uniform. Strike the following
sentence: This includes such specialty wear as distinctive shirts and other “informal”
items worn by groups of members performing similar specialty CAP functions and
duties.

12

February 2010 National Board Minutes

THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED
COL DAVIDSON/NH MOVED TO AMEND and COL BRITTON/AR seconded that the
Uniform Process Action Team Report be amended as follows: Paragraph 5.a. 1-4,
paragraph a., last sentence of the first paragraph: After the words “will be
returned” delete the words “to National Headquarters/DP for announcement and
implementation” and add the words:
“to the National Board for
approval/disapproval by an up or down vote.”

THE MOTION TO AMEND DID NOT PASS
ITEM II
Paragraph 5.a. CAPM 39-1 (Draft), Paragraph 1-4, Changes to the Uniform:
Paragraph b. Composition of the Uniform Committee. Replace the second to last
paragraph with the following: The committee shall be comprised of one wing
commander from each region selected by the region commander. The committee will
also contain individuals with substantive knowledge of uniforms either from US military
or CAP backgrounds. Various mission areas will be represented on the committee,
including the National Historian, the CAP Chief Master Sergeant, and the Chair of the
National Cadet Advisory Council; a CAP-USAF advisor, appointed by the CAPUSAF/CC will serve ex-officio.
COL HERRIN/NLO MOVED TO SUBSTITUTE and COL CARR/GLR seconded that
paragraph b. is changed to read as follows:
The Chair of the Uniform Committee will be selected using the same procedure used for
all other National Staff positions. The Uniform Committee will report to the National
Commander through the National Chief of Staff. The committee shall be comprised of
one wing commander from each region selected by the region commander, the National
Historian, the CAP Chief Master Sergeant, and the Chair of the National Cadet Advisory
Council; a CAP-USAF advisor, appointed by the CAP-USAF/CC will serve without vote.
The committee will solicit input from individuals with substantive knowledge of uniforms
either from the US military or with CAP backgrounds. As members of the Uniform
Committee, officers would be expected to hold the membership and overall program
above parochial or unit-based loyalties. Internal operation of the Uniform Committee
will be at the discretion of the Chair.
COL HERRIN/NLO MOVED TO AMEND and COL CARR/GLR seconded the
amendment, as follows: (1) Strike the words: “comprised of 5-10 officers,” and
the words: “and will be selected by Chair with prior approval by the National
Chief of Staff and National Commander;” and (2) Delete the second paragraph
under b.

THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED
13

February 2010 National Board Minutes

THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED
ITEM III
Paragraph 8. (ADDED). A 2-year moratorium on major uniform items will give the
national staff time to incorporate all current ICL changes into an updated CAPM 39-1,
Uniform Manual. The Uniform Committee will perform a comprehensive review of
corporate uniforms (service, utility, flight) and report to the National Board at the
summer 2011 to give the board and the membership time to review before action is
taken at the winter 2012 National Board.
Paragraph 9. (ADDED). All uniform items vetted through and recommended by the
Uniform Committee will be posted for a 30-day comment period; comments will be
submitted through the chain of command, and comments from National Board members
specially identified.

THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED
COL GUIMOND stated that through the years in working uniform issues it has become
a necessity to have a female member on the Uniform Committee. The board provided
clarification and guidance that the chair of the Uniform Committee would have sufficient
authority to appoint a female member if one were not in one of the de facto positions.

THE AMENDED MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Implementation of policy, notification to the field, and change to
CAPM 39-1, CAP Uniform Manual.

14

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 3b

ED

Uniforms

Action

Uniforms

SUBJECT:
Extension of the wear-out date of the Corporate Service Uniform
Author: Col Castle
OKWG/CC – Col Castle
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
In August 2006, an optional Corporate Service Uniform was developed and fielded
which received wide acceptance from the general membership. This uniform was
eliminated by National Executive Committee action in November 2009. During the
period of its existence, members expended funds to obtain the uniform as a whole or its
various components, including expensive dress jackets and outerwear. The uniform
has a brief wear-out period, ending on 31 January 2011.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approves
1.) an extension of the wear-out period to 31 December 2012 and
2.) the establishment of a committee, the composition and membership of which is to be
approved by the National Board during the 2010 Summer National Board Meeting, to
develop a Corporate Uniform System that complies with law and with Air Force
Instruction 10-2701 and would be acceptable to the National Board and to the United
States Air Force. Said committee would present its findings, together with a finalized Air
Force approved uniform design, to the National Board at its Winter National Board
meeting in 2011, which allows members to obtain full value of the money expended to
purchase this uniform.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
No funding impact. Potential to save individual member funds and prevent members
from waste of individual funds for additional uniform purchases.
NHQ will have to review funding impact with our business partner Vanguard on any
changes to uniforms.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
CAP NHQ will draft the appropriate regulations changes based on the decision of the
National Board.

15

February 2010 National Board Minutes
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
1) CAP-USAF non-concurs with a wear-out date of 31 Dec 2012. No date later than 1
Jan 2012 will be allowed. This provides for greater than 2 years of wear from the time
the uniform was disapproved.
2) CAP-USAF concurs with the recommendations of the previously established uniform
process action team as referred to in Item 2a above. The goal of replacing the recently
disapproved “new corporate uniform” is problematic. CAP already has an AF-style
uniform and a corporate uniform. The “new corporate uniform” appears to have been to
attempt to devise an AF-style uniform but title it “corporate” as a method to bypass the
requirement to meet AF weight and appearance standards. Redesigning the gray/white
corporate uniform is fine, but any attempts to provide another AF-like uniform will be
disapproved.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
Sr Advisor Support agrees with the Uniform Team that this is a two part AI. With
regard to the extension of the wear period for the phased out Corporate Service
Uniform, steps have already been taken to request an extension of the phase out date
from the Air Force. By the time of the actual NB Meeting we hope to have an approval
of this request. The Senior Advisor also recommends approval of the recommendations
of the Uniform PAT which was composed of NB, NEC, Staff, and CAP-USAF members.
Uniform Team:
“The Uniform Team considers this a two part agenda item and responds accordingly:
Part 1) Extension of the wear-out period from Jan 2011 to Dec 2012. The Uniform
Team does not concur with this item. The USAF in Aug 2006 expressed concern on
whether the new distinctive Corporate Uniform (now known as the military style
Blue/White uniform) met the letter and intent of policy guidance from the USAF. In other
words it was not properly chopped through the USAF chain of command. This is
another way of saying the uniform was never approved by the USAF as required before
it was authorized for CAP wear. In the interim period, from USAF questioning the
uniform’s distinctiveness to the emergency action taken by the NEC in Nov 2009, CAP
leadership attempted several compromise efforts leading to the emergency action. It
wasn’t until the Nov 2009 NEC meeting that CAP leadership felt it necessary to take
emergency action to establish a phase out date of Jan 2011. CAP membership and the
USAF have suggested that the CAP reduce the uniform inventory to a manageable
level. The suggestion while just that alludes to a return to two option uniform system the USAF military style uniform and the already approved corporate uniform consisting
of the blue blazer, grey slacks and white shirt that served the CAP for many years. One
other major point that occurred with the USAF questioning the new military style
Blue/White uniform that we should not forget was a requirement that all changes to the
uniform (both USAF style and CAP corporate style uniform) be processed through the
chain of command for USAF approval before being authorized for wear by the
membership. The NEC is the responsible agent when the NB is not in session. The
16

February 2010 National Board Minutes
NEC action should be supported by the NB. This portion of the AI should not be
approved.
Part 2) Establishment of a committee to develop a new distinctive Corporate Uniform.
The Uniform Team concurs in principal with this portion of the AI however the tasking
should be given to a process action team not the Uniform Team (remember that the
Uniform Committee no longer exists). The Uniform Team has a different charter from
years past. In lieu of the Uniform Team leading the charge I would suggest that the
Nat/CC appoint a PAT with a charter to explore the underlying reasons for the need for
a distinctive Corporate uniform along the lines of a military uniform, the development of
a distinctive Corporate Uniform (if that is to be the PAT’s recommendation) that
complies with the law and with AFI 10-2701 guidance that would be acceptable to the
USAF, that the report be completed and available at the 2012 Summer NB meeting, and
that a sum of $5,000 be appropriated for development and purchase of sample articles
to be presented to the NB. If the PAT’s recommendation is not to pursue a distinctive
uniform the report should be made to the NB at the winter 2011 NB meeting.
For the uniform team to expand its charter to take on the onerous task would be
impossible at this juncture and would be unreasonable. To fully support a new design
will cost money. To obtain designs, approvals and samples in less than a 6 month
period is extremely unreasonable and should be appropriately disapproved by the NB.
This portion of the AI should be amended to include the suggestion noted above.”
National Historian
The dictionary definition of a uniform “A distinctive set of clothes worn to identify
somebody's occupation, affiliation, or status”. As the U.S Air Force Auxiliary since May
1951 the Secretary of the Air Force has authorized CAP to wear the blue USAF uniform
but with distinctive and distinguishable modifications so as not to be confused with the
active duty Air Force. Moreover since 1980 the USAF has set grooming standards to
maintain the professional appearance for their own and CAP with permissible variance
to reflect our auxiliary status and yet maintain the same professional appearance.
As the USAF auxiliary we must always obtain permission to add to or to digress from
the uniform standards all ready in place. The current “Corporate Uniform” was not
approved by the USAF. Moreover by its design truly does not reflect to the public that
one is a member of the USAF Auxiliary. For that reason I would hasten its quick
removal and demise not to be extended past 31 December 2010.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPM 39-1, CAP Uniform Manual
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
The Chair stated that this item has already been referred to committee

17

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 3c
Uniforms

ED

Action

Uniforms

SUBJECT: Consolidation of CAP Service Dress Uniforms
Author: Col Saile
MIWG/CC – Col Saile
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
The current Civil Air Patrol Air Force-style Service Dress Uniform does not comply with
AFI 10-2701, paragraph 1.3.4. as it does not clearly identify an individual as a CAP
member at a distance and in low-light conditions. The current Civil Air Patrol Corporatestyle Service Dress Uniform does not comply with AFI 10-2701, paragraph 1.3.4.
because CAP distinctive uniforms must be sufficiently different from U.S. Armed Forces
uniforms so that confusion will not occur. (See attachments 1 and 3.)
The Civil Air Patrol National Executive Committee believed it necessary to eliminate the
CAP Corporate Service Uniform and accessories by motion and vote at the fall 2009
NEC meeting. Phase-out is currently slated for 31 January 2011. (See Attachment 2.)
At the NEC meeting, there was concern that the CAP Corporate-style Service Dress
Uniform should have been approved by the Air Force before it was authorized to be
worn, per AFI 10-2701, paragraph 1.3.4 because it was too similar to military uniforms
and the wish of a HQ USAF/A3/5 General Officer who wrote to the BoG in 2006
• Concerned that the blue/white uniform “does not meet the letter and intent” of
policy guidance
• Concerned that it “is not significantly different from the U.S. Armed Forces
uniforms to avoid confusion”
• Directed that all future corporate uniforms to be vetted through USAF, too. (to
ensure distinctiveness). (See Attachment 1 and 4.)
Another possible concern was that the Army’s latest choice of a service dress uniform
was too similar to the CAP Corporate-style Service Dress Uniform and would conflict
with AFI 10-2701 paragraph 1.3.4. (See Attachments 1 and 3)
A Power Point Presentation was distributed by National Headquarters regarding the
demise of the Corporate Uniform. (See Attachment 4) One slide I do not agree with in
part. It is titled “Factors – 4”. It reads:




Corporate style uniforms exist to provide a uniform that is appropriate for:
– Those who do not meet the weight standards, or
– those who do not meet the grooming standards, or
– those who choose to use it because of the circumstances, for example,
when meeting with others wearing “suits” – the corporate uniform may be
more appropriate.
Corporate style uniforms do not exist to allow those who may not wear the
USAF-style to have a military-looking alternative.

18

February 2010 National Board Minutes
The part I do not agree with is emphasized. The CAP Corporate style uniform was
created to allow those senior members who may not wear the USAF-style uniform to
have a military-looking alternative. It was an attempt at inclusion of all members rather
than exclusion of some of our members and not others. The CAP Corporate-style
Uniform allowed CAP members to fulfill their social needs of belonging and their self
esteem needs of recognition as defined by Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. (See
Attachment 5)
When the NEC chose to eliminate the Corporate Service Dress Uniform, they did not
offer a replacement to fill this void to those who are unable to wear the AF-style Service
Dress Uniform. Many members purchased the Corporate-style CAP Service Coat out of
pocket at a cost of $180 each and these coats are still very serviceable.
A uniform should serve three purposes. The first is to let the commander of the field
identify their team for a quick status check as to where every one is and to differentiate
the various teams from each other and to let each team member know who and where
their co-workers are at. The second purpose is to provide some utilitarian function to
the wearer that will assist them in carrying out their assigned tasks and aid in their
comfort and survival, while still permitting the first purpose to succeed. The third
purpose is to provide a mechanism for recognition of each individual’s status as part of
the team and their individual accomplishments as a member.
Many of our Emergency Services customers have commented positively that one thing
they like about CAP is that its members are disciplined and uniformed. This has a
calming effect on the population being served when they can see that professional
uniformed assistance has arrived on scene. Doing away with all military looking
uniforms and just wearing suits is therefore not in our customers best interests, or ours.
Many CAP members have longed for a single service dress uniform for quite a while.
They would like a service dress uniform that can be worn by all members. It would
allow all members to display their status with pride as a member of an organization,
which when performing Air Force Assigned Missions is the proud auxiliary of the United
States Air Force. Our members also long for a uniform that doesn’t cost each one an
arm and a leg every few years to remain a member of an identifiable team.
AFI 10-2701 paragraph 1.3.3 does permit the Air Force to modify weight and grooming
standards for the AF style uniform for CAP, as it states “Variations in these standards are
subject to Air Force approval.” (See Attachment 1.)
AFI 10-248, applicable to all Air Force Total Force members (not CAP), states
“8.2.7. Failing to present a professional military image while in uniform.
8.2.7.1. CCs must ensure members present a professional military image while in uniform. A
professional military image/appearance may or may not directly relate to an individual’s
fitness level or weight.”

19

February 2010 National Board Minutes
There are many potential solutions to this issue, both short-term and long-term. One
short-term solution might be the addition of a national shoulder patch to either or both
current style service dress uniforms, on one or both shoulders, on both coats and shirts.
A side benefit might be that this would be an opportunity for corporate brand recognition
through a simplistic design on the patch. Another short-term solution might be the
standardization of grade and collar insignia worn on shirts, coats or both. Another
short-term solution might be the standardization of nameplates. The standardization or
elimination of sleeve braid might also be a short-term solution. Some long-term
solutions might be the standardization of coat type and shirt color.
Some factors to consider would be the affect on cadet service dress uniforms, if any.
Commonality with the cadet uniform might be preferred than something different.
Availability of Air Force stock items would be less expensive than non-AF stock items
due to supply and demand and should be another consideration.
PROPOSED NB ACTION:
That the National Board approve, effective immediately, the postponement of the
phase-out of the CAP Corporate style uniform until the Air Force and the CAP jointly
create a single service style uniform that may be worn by all members. That the CAP
Uniform committee be authorized to represent CAP’s interests on this joint committee.
And that, upon approval of a new jointly approved CAP Service Dress Uniform by this
committee, a phase out date for any other uniform combination affected will be
announced that will be mandatory not less than 36 months from the date of approval of
the new uniform, or phased out sooner with 2/3 concurrence of the full National Board.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Postponing the dismissal of the CAP Corporate-style uniform will save members money.
Creation of a single uniform will at some point cost members money. Short-term
solutions would be more economical than long term solutions. How much will depend
on what design is created.
NHQ will have to review funding impact with our business partner Vanguard on any
changes to uniforms.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
CAP NHQ will draft the appropriate regulations changes based on the decision of the
National Board.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Please see comments on Item 2b regarding wear-out date for “new corporate uniform.”
More broadly, CAP is welcome to redesign a single dress uniform ensemble suitable for
all members. If CAP desires to use a military style uniform, all wearers must meet
weight and appearance standards. Members must keep in mind, wear of a military
20

February 2010 National Board Minutes
style uniform reflects not only on CAP, but also on the AF; that’s precisely the reason
the AF is in the approval chain for CAP uniforms.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
Uniform Team:
“The Uniform Team considers this AI to be very similar to AI 2b – Extension of the
Wear-out Date of The Corporate Service Uniform. This is also a two part agenda item
and the team responds accordingly:
Part 1) Postponement of the phase-out of the CAP Corporate style uniform. The
Uniform Team does not concur with this item. The USAF in Aug 2006 expressed
concern on whether the new distinctive Corporate Uniform (now known as the military
style Blue/White uniform) met the letter and intent of policy guidance from the USAF. In
other words it was not properly chopped through the USAF chain of command. This is
another way of saying the uniform was never approved by the USAF as required before
it was authorized for CAP wear. In the interim period, from USAF questioning the
uniform’s distinctiveness to the emergency action taken by the NEC in Nov 2009, CAP
leadership attempted several compromise efforts leading to the emergency action. It
wasn’t until the Nov 2009 NEC meeting that CAP leadership felt it necessary to take
emergency action to establish a phase out date of Jan 2011. CAP membership and the
USAF have suggested that the CAP reduce the uniform inventory to a manageable
level. The suggestion while just that alludes to a return to two option uniform system the USAF military style uniform and the already approved corporate uniform consisting
of the blue blazer, grey slacks and white shirt that served the CAP for many years. One
other major point that occurred with the USAF questioning the new military style
Blue/White uniform that we should not forget was a requirement that all changes to the
uniform (both USAF style and CAP corporate style uniform) be processed through the
chain of command for USAF approval before being authorized for wear by the
membership. The NEC is the responsible agent when the NB is not in session. The
NEC action should be supported by the NB. This portion of the AI should not be
approved.
Part 2) The Air Force and the CAP jointly create a single service style uniform that may
be worn by all members. The Uniform Team concurs in principal with this portion of the
AI however the tasking should be given to a process action team composed of CAPUSAF and CAP members. The uniform team suggests that the Nat/CC appoint a PAT,
composed of a member of the uniform team, a sitting member of the NB, a member of
CAP-USAF and 2 members at large, with a charter to explore the underlying reasons for
the need for a distinctive Corporate uniform along the lines of a military uniform, the
development of a distinctive Corporate Uniform (if that is to be the PAT’s
recommendation) that complies with the law and with AFI 10-2701 guidance that would
be acceptable to the USAF, that the report be completed and available at the 2012
Summer NB meeting, and that a sum of $5,000 be appropriated for development and
purchase of sample articles to be presented to the NB. If the PAT’s recommendation is
not to pursue a distinctive uniform the report should be made to the NB at the winter
2011 NB meeting. To fully support a new design it will cost money to obtain designs,
21

February 2010 National Board Minutes
approvals and samples. This portion of the AI should be amended to include the
suggestion noted above.”
Sr Advisor Support agrees with the recommendations of the Uniform Team. In
addition we must remember that a potential elimination of the CAP Military Style uniform
will also have a very substantial impact on the membership.
National Historian
Since 1951 when the new type of blue USAF Uniform was first approved with distinctive
modifications for CAP. The uniform as approved is unmistakable that of the USAF but
clearly lets others know we were their Auxiliary, as the years progress every new
uniform that became a part of the USAF inventory was usually also approve for CAP.
Currently CAP has four USAF uniform types approved for members that meet the
grooming and modified weight standards, 1.) The Service Coat and shirt Combination,
2.) Mess Dress, 3.) Utility (BDU’s) and 4.) Flying suit. Note: the wearing of the
USAF/CAP uniform legally allows members who served in the military to wear their
decoration and awards.
The Blazer and slacks combination first approved in 1957 for participants on the IACE
later became the choice for members that did not meet the Grooming Standards. In
1994 the wearing of grey rank shoulder slides was added so members that removed
their coats still had grade recognition that also included one aviation and specialty
badge. The wearing of a bow tie, the removal of the name tag it covers the formal wear.
I suggest, to maintain uniformity, is to standardize the Blue Blazer, Grey slacks
combination by obtaining USAF permission to use the “Hap Arnold Silver Buttons on the
Jacket, uniformity of the slacks all must be plain front and color, a special belt and
above all the proper size crest. When worn properly, it sets a profession business look.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPM 39-1, CAP Uniform Manual
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL SAILE/MI MOVED TO REFER and COL BENCKERT/VT seconded that the
National Board refer this item to committee.

THE MOTION TO REFER CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Referral to committee and include in 2012 winter NB agenda.

22

February 2010 National Board Minutes
ATTACHMENT 1 to AGENDA ITEM 3c,
2010 Winter Session, Civil Air Patrol National Board Meeting
AFI 10-2701 includes the following instructions:
1.3.2. Uniform Wear and Personal Appearance. CAP members are authorized
to wear CAP or Air Force-style uniforms in accordance with CAP regulations
(civilian clothing may be worn when specific missions dictate). The Air Force
controls the configuration of the Air Force-style uniform worn by CAP
members.
1.3.3. Grooming Standards. CAP members that choose to wear the Air Forcestyle uniform must maintain weight, appearance, and grooming standards
comparable to the Air Force. Variations in these standards are subject to Air
Force approval. CAP ensures that all members wearing Air Force-style uniforms
adhere to these standards. CAP senior members who do not meet these
standards are restricted from wearing the Air Force-style uniform but are not
barred from membership or active participation in CAP. In these circumstances
the senior members may only wear authorized CAP uniforms, or civilian attire as
appropriate.
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. The Air Force
must approve changes to the CAP Air Force-style uniform. CAP distinctive
uniforms must be sufficiently different from U.S. Armed Forces uniforms so
that confusion will not occur.
Look at the following photograph of several CAP Officers and one Air Force Officer.
How easy is it for someone to tell the CAP members from the Air Force officer? Show it
to some new CAP members, show it to some AF members and show it to some civilians
if you have any doubts.

23

February 2010 National Board Minutes

Does either the AF-style CAP Service Dress Uniform or the Corporate style CAP
Service Dress Uniform conform to the above requirements of AFI 10-2701, paragraph
1.3.4.?

24

February 2010 National Board Minutes
ATTACHMENT 2 to AGENDA ITEM 3c,
2010 Winter Session, Civil Air Patrol National Board Meeting
Whether or not the Civil Air Patrol National Executive Committee had the authority to
rule on any uniform question is debatable but moot. Some members feel that only the
full National Board has the authority to rule on any and all uniform questions, per
resolution of the 2001 CAP Summer National Board (Exhibit 1) and then only at it’s
Winter sessions. Others believe the NEC has the authority to do what they did based
on the CAP Constitution and Bylaws (Exhibit 2). In either case, there are several
examples in the minutes of various Summer Board meetings and NEC meetings since
2001 where uniform items where also discussed (2005, 2006, etc.).
Exhibit 1 -- MINUTES OF NATIONAL BOARD MEETING AUGUST 2001
AGENDA ITEM 6 XP-08-0801 Action
SUBJECT: Committee Reports
CAP/NCS – Col McMillan
1. Development Committee—Col Convery.
Paragraph 12. Consolidated, scheduled, consideration and publication of all
suggested uniform changes.
COL CONVERY moved that the National Board approve the proposal as printed
with the following changes: The winter NB will review all uniform items that have
been suggested from the previous year. Changes to regulations will be
published the following June.
All proposed uniform items must be to
CAPNHQ/DPP prior to 1 Oct for consideration at the following winter NB.
AMENDED MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: DP notification to the field and change to CAPM 39-1.
Exhibit 2 -- CAP CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS
ARTICLE XI
THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
1. When the National Board is not in session, the National Executive Committee
shall be vested with all the powers of the National Board, except those powers
which may be reserved exclusively to the National Board.

25

February 2010 National Board Minutes
ATTACHMENT 3 to AGENDA ITEM 3c
2010 Winter Session, Civil Air Patrol National Board Meeting
One reason possibly cited for the elimination of the CAP Corporate Uniform was its
somewhat similarity to the new Army Blue Service Dress Uniform. The Army has done
away with their green service dress uniform and has updated an older blue uniform style
for the modern era. Differences are many between the CAP Corporate Uniform and this
Army uniform, but as you can see below, some similarities do exist.

26

February 2010 National Board Minutes
ATTACHMENT 4 to AGENDA ITEM 3c,
2010 Winter Session, Civil Air Patrol National Board Meeting

(Insert from Military Style Uniform - Considerations and Deliberation FINALIZED
Handouts.pdf)

27

February 2010 National Board Minutes
ATTACHMENT 5 to AGENDA ITEM 3c,
2010 Winter Session, Civil Air Patrol National Board Meeting

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

28

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 3d
Uniforms

ED

Action

Uniforms

SUBJECT: Mandatory Guaranteed Minimum Usage term for Uniform Items
Author: Col Andreu
NYWG/CC – Col Andreu
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
As uniform items come and go, the National Board needs to keep faith with the
members who purchase uniform items. Uniform items must be insured to be in use for
a sufficient time span to allow members to get reasonable use out of the uniforms and
uniform accessories that the NB approves. CAP members are neither reimbursed nor
given a uniform allowance and therefore uniform expenses come out of the individual
member’s pocket.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve a mandatory guaranteed minimum timeframe of seven
years on any uniform item approved from the date it is approved.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
None for NHQ and will save moneys for the individual CAP member.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
CAP NHQ will draft the appropriate regulations changes based on the decision of the
National Board.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur with NLO comments. Changes to a properly vetted uniform would likely not
receive more than the AF-standard 2-year phase-in/out period. CAP-USAF is involved
in the approval of any corporate style uniforms, as well, but only to ensure they don’t
infringe on military style uniforms.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
NLO: Do not concur. Changes in USAF policy may require a shorter timeframe for
uniform changes. I think the policy would be acceptable if limited to “CAP distinctive” or
“corporate” uniform changes, but “USAF-style” or “military style” uniform changes must
remain fluid to account for USAF’s role in those uniforms.
Uniform Team and Sr Advisor Support:
We concur with this item in principal but have several reservations. We can see why on
the surface this sounds appealing. It would likely also win some applause from
members, especially many who bought as an example a round of "U.S. Civil Air Patrol"
29

February 2010 National Board Minutes
- branded insignia only to find out a year later it was being phased out. We also would
agree that we need to put more thought, process, research, and review into any future
uniform decisions because our last five years have been filled with poorly thought-out,
and poorly executed uniform decisions.
First of all, as a “passed” action of the National Board, even if this were posted into
regulation, could simply be overridden in the future by the same voting majority needed
to pass a uniform change. In other words, if such a "Mandatory Guaranteed Minimum
Usage Term" were passed and on the books, and a majority of the National Board
wanted to phase-out the newly created Incident Commander badge, for example, that
majority of NB members would only need to make a motion to repeal or suspend the
minimum usage term and then immediately pass a motion to make the change.
Second, if we do find a need to make uniform changes, for legal, practical, or other
important reasons and the organization made the necessary changes, the National
leadership would lose considerable trust and respect from the membership for violating
their own self-imposed rule.
While we understand the reasoning Col Andreu, NYWG has in wanting to limit the
needless and seemingly "willy-nilly" changes to our uniforms (so many so that we can't
even keep up with incorporating them into regulations), and while we think most of us
are in the same camp, making this toothless and mostly unenforceable rule will not
accomplish that. Rather, a gesture from the NB to commit to staffing all uniform-related
decisions through a Uniform Committee or Board would accomplish far more in
reducing impulsive and poorly-researched decisions. This should be an on-going
process rather than just a once-a-year urgent effort to get uniform agenda items
passed.
We recommend against approval of this item.
National Historian – The NLO is absolutely correct.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPM 39-1, CAP Uniform Manual
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL CHARLES/NATCON MOVED and COL CARR/GLR seconded that the National
Board, in light of the board passing the modifications to 3a (noting that 3b has
already been removed) approve referring 3d, 3e, 3f, and 3g under the new
Process Action Team with the new committee to be appointed and handled in that
process.
MOTION AS RESTATED BY THE CHAIR:
Motion to refer to committee, agenda items 3d, 3e, 3f, and 3g.
30

February 2010 National Board Minutes

THE MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Referral to committee and include in 2012 winter NB agenda.

31

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 3e

ED

Uniforms

Action

Uniforms

SUBJECT: Badges on Aviator Shirt Uniform Combinations
Author: Col Haffner
WIWG/CC – Col Haffner
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
Per CAPM 39-1 para. 6-3, para.6-5 and the current Interim Change Letters
supplementing it, members that are within weight standards may wear the Air Force
Style Long-sleeve or Short-sleeve uniform, and can wear four earned badges/devices.
Members who are not within weight standards may only wear the Aviator Shirt Uniform
combinations and are only allowed to wear two badges/devices.
This presents the unintentional message that if a member is not within weight
standards, they are not worthy of wearing the same number of badges that their peers
that meet weight standards are allowed to wear.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve a uniform change on the Aviator Shirt Uniform
combinations to allow the same number of badges/devices as worn on the Air Force
Style Long-sleeve and Short-sleeve uniforms.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Cost of updating related publications.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
CAP NHQ will draft the appropriate regulations changes based on the decision of the
National Board.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
None.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
Uniform Team Leader and Sr Advisor Support: Do not agree with this proposal. The
current regulation does not allow any four badges. On the USAF style uniform shirt the
wearer can wear 2 devices above the left pocket—one a US military aviation badge (if
earned) and one a CAP aviation specialty badge. One specialty badge may be worn
below the pocket flap on the left and right breast. If a commander, the command badge
may be worn above the right breast pocket. For 2 devices above the pocket, only one
insignia and one aeronautical badge can be worn. Military badges/devices continue to
be prohibited from wear on any item of the Corporate uniform.

32

February 2010 National Board Minutes
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPM 39-1, CAP Uniform Manual
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL CHARLES/NATCON MOVED and COL CARR/GLR seconded that the National
Board, in light of the board passing the modifications to 3a (noting that 3b has
already been removed) approve referring 3d, 3e, 3f, and 3g under the new
Process Action Team with the new committee to be appointed and handled in that
process.
MOTION AS RESTATED BY THE CHAIR:
Motion to refer to committee, agenda items 3d, 3e, 3f, and 3g.

THE MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Referral to committee and include in 2012 winter NB agenda.

33

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 3f
Uniforms

ED

Action

Uniforms

SUBJECT: Grade Insignia for Cadet Senior NCOs’
Author: Lt Col Greenwood
GAWG/CC – Col Boylan
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
Currently, CAP Enlisted Cadets wear their grade insignia on their shirt collars of the
blue Air Force Uniform with the side of the insignia parallel to the front of the collar.
When cadets reach the senior NCO grades (MSGT, SMSGT and CMSGT), the points of
these insignia are directed towards the cadet’s neck and Jugular Vein. Because of the
size of the insignia, and the fact that many of our cadets are small, this could allow the
point of the insignia to be resting against the skin of the Cadet’s neck. This “is” a safety
concern because the point is sharp, and given the proper circumstance, could easily
cause injury to a cadet. On the Service Coat, the cadet Enlisted Insignia is worn
straight up and down. When the service coat is worn, it causes an awkward
appearance between the coat and the shirt collar, since one set of insignia is going one
way and the other set is ninety degrees off.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve a change to CAPM 39-1, The Civil Air Patrol Uniform
Manual to allow the wear of the Cadet Enlisted Grade Insignia on the Air Force Blue
Shirt to be worn in the same manner as on the Service Coat..
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Little to no funding impact. Cost of changing the online regulation.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
CAP NHQ will draft the appropriate regulations changes based on the decision of the
National Board.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur with Advisor/National Staff Comments.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
Uniform Team and Sr Advisor Support:
We do not concur with this AI. There appears to be two issues reflected in this AI. One
is the perceived problem and second is the orientation of the Cadet grade insignia on
the blue USAF uniform shirt collar to mitigate the perceived problem. Several members
of the uniform team who have worked with cadets do not believe this is a problem – only
a perceived problem. No evidence was provided with this agenda item that would argue
this is other than perceived.
34

February 2010 National Board Minutes
First point, there was no evidence presented that the point on the grade insignia have
been a problem. Perhaps CAP Safety has some statistics to reflect the magnitude of
the problem. The point on the NCO insignia is not sharp. Even if it were, Cadet unitleadership should be able to snip off the ends of the points if they are sharp. The points
are not against the neck but are protected somewhat by the shirt collar fabric. Even if a
cadet were to somehow fall “just right” they would more likely sustain a poke from the
post-back pins on their nameplates, ribbons, or other insignia than from the post-back
pins of their chevrons. The length of the points may be to long and extend past the
clip. If this is the real problem than we have a quality issue that needs to be resolved by
the CAP uniform suppliers. There just isn’t sufficient justification to support this change.
The second point concerning orientation if changed will prevent the cadet from wearing
the shirt with an open collar. With a closed collar, the orientation corresponds to the
configuration when wearing the service dress uniform. We don’t believe “awkward
appearance” is sufficient justification to make a change to the wear standards. It would
appear that the change would make an equally awkward appearance. Current wear
standards contained in CAPM 39-1, Chapters 2 and 6 should be maintained.
National Historian
Might I suggest that like the USAF, CAP Cadets that achieve the Master, Senior and
Chief Sergeants’ grade wear the rank on the blue shoulder loop this would eliminate the
collar problem and be more in keeping with the military.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPM 39-1, CAP Uniform Manual
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL CHARLES/NATCON MOVED and COL CARR/GLR seconded that the National
Board, in light of the board passing the modifications to 3a (noting that 3b has
already been removed) approve referring 3d, 3e, 3f, and 3g under the new
Process Action Team with the new committee to be appointed and handled in that
process.
MOTION AS RESTATED BY THE CHAIR:
Motion to refer to committee, agenda items 3d, 3e, 3f, and 3g.

THE MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Referral to committee and include in 2012 winter NB agenda.

35

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 3g
Uniforms

ED

Action

Uniforms

SUBJECT: Recognition for the Organizational Excellence Program
Author: Lt Col Turner
MIWG/CC – Col Saile
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
CAPP 229 states “The Organizational Excellence (OE) track is divided into four
progressive ratings: Technician, Senior, Master and Executive.” Its purpose is to
facilitate the development of the finest corps of commanders, staff officers, and
executive-level leaders for service to CAP and the nation.
Some unique professional development features built into the new OE Track include: (1)
expansion of the standard training track ratings from Technician, Senior, and Master to
include a follow-on “Executive Level;” (2) the incorporation of all five levels of our basic
Professional Development Program outlined in CAPR 50-17; (3) accommodation of duty
performance promotions per CAPR 35-5; (4) incorporation of wing commander
qualifications contained in CAPR 35-9, Section B; (5) provisions for a performance
feedback process for trainees; (6) establishment of an awards program to recognize
senior member progress; (7) development of a supplemental “Mentoring” program to
assist participants; and, (8) development of associated educational products to guide
Mentors.
When the appropriate commander requests NHQ at prodev@capnhq.gov to update a
member’s record, the request should also ask for issuance of a certificate appropriate to
the training level achieved and provide a mailing address for the certificate. To enhance
the prestige of OE track achievements, wing and region commanders and the National
Commander are encouraged to personally present these certificates whenever possible.
Is a certificate the best we can do as an organization to reward those members who go
the extra miles to complete any level in the OE Program? Is there a way to also
recognize these individuals with an item to be worn on the uniform that is distinctive and
that will accomplish this purpose?
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board authorizes the creation of a device to be worn on the
Leadership Award Ribbon, or some other ribbon, that is different than current devices,
to denote completion of each level of the Organizational Excellence program. Only the
highest rated OE device would be worn. If on the Leadership Award Ribbon, up to two
other devices could still be worn to continue to recognize senior and master ratings in
other specialty tracks. The Uniform Committee would be responsible for creating the
actual device and any other ribbon if necessary and draft the appropriate changes to
CAP directives.

36

February 2010 National Board Minutes
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Unknown.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
CAP NHQ will draft the appropriate regulations changes based on the decision of the
National Board.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
None.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
Sr Advisor Support: The OE Program is still a work in progress. The OE Team—both
volunteer and NHQ—recognizes the need for proper recognition. The OEO Team
Leader, (Col Pearson), the PD Advisor (Col Cooper), and the NHQ staff have requested
that they be allowed to finalize other critical portions of the program prior to defining OE
recognition details.
National Historian
I suggest that we ask the USAF for permission to wear the “Reserve Hour Glass”
attachment which comes in Bronze, Silver and Gold as a fitting attachment. For the
Senior Master and Executive level accordingly.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPM 39-1, CAP Uniform Manual
CAPR 50-17, CAP Senior Member Professional Development Program
CAPR 39-3, Award of CAP Medals, Ribbons, and Certificates
CAPP 229, Specialty Track Study Guide-Organizational Excellence
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL CHARLES/NATCON MOVED and COL CARR/GLR seconded that the National
Board, in light of the board passing the modifications to 3a (noting that 3b has
already been removed) approve referring 3d, 3e, 3f, and 3g under the new
Process Action Team with the new committee to be appointed and handled in that
process.
MOTION AS RESTATED BY THE CHAIR:
Motion to refer to committee, agenda items 3d, 3e, 3f, and 3g.

THE MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Referral to committee and include in 2012 winter NB agenda.
37

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 4a
Regulatory Approvals

EX

Action

CAP Regulations

SUBJECT: National Board Approval of Regulations- Part 1
Author: Col Todd
NEWG/CC – Col Todd
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
Regulations and changes to regulations are being made without sufficient input from the
National Board. In some cases, this creates undo burden on the volunteers. Wording
changes and clarification of intent are required to make some of these regulation
changes workable and complete. It is the duty of the National Board to review
regulations and insure that they are satisfying the original concept agreed upon and do
not inhibit the retention of members.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve changes CAPR 5-4, paragraph 2d, as follows:
Add the sentence “All comments and the OPR recommendations of whether a comment
was incorporated or not will be made available on-line and a notice sent to all National
Board members of the location of this document.
Change CAPR 5-4, paragraph 2e, as follows:
Add this sentence after “…National Commander for approval.”
“Final approval for adoption will be made by the National Board at the next scheduled
winter or summer meeting.”
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
None.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Due to the fact that one or more of the Agenda Items relating to CAPR 5-4 contradict
one another, and the fact that the Information Background of these items indicate an
apparent misunderstanding of the current regulatory approval process, NHQ
recommends that these Agenda Items be referred to an adhoc committee consisting of
National Board members appointed by the National Commander, to include the authors
of these Agenda Items.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Non-concur. Approving regulations is not the role of the National Board. The National
Board states policy. This distinction was made clear by a Dec 06 change to the CAP
constitution. CAP NHQ has a well defined process for translating policy into regulation.
It includes ample opportunity for member input (including board members) and provides
38

February 2010 National Board Minutes
disposition of every received comment. Approving individual regulations would be an
inappropriate diversion from the National Board’s policy deliberations.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
CS - Does not concur with this agenda item. As requested, comments received by
NHQ are being addressed and the answers to the comments are being posted with the
new/revised directive as a “comment letter”. Several of these comment letters can
already be found on the publications page of the CAP website. This item proposes a
solution to a problem that no longer exists. Regarding National Board approval of all
regulations, I concur with the NLO comments.
NLO - Concurs with the first proposed action, but does not concur with the second
proposed action. There is already a robust regulation publication and review procedure
that permits all National Board members to comment upon drafted regulations and
therefore to ensure that the regulations as drafted meet NB policy guidance. If the
National Board feels that a regulation does not meet its established policy guidance,
then the National Commander, the NB, or the NEC (acting for the NB) can issue further
guidance or direct the change of the regulation.
Senior Advisor Support does not recommend the approval of this agenda item. The
National Board has previously decided that the function of the NB and NEC is to
establish policy which is then to be implemented by the staff. While the current system
might be improved, it is far superior to all past policy. The NHQ Staff (paid staff)
developed a staff review process for all regulation changes, including ICLs, which allows
for review, comment, and signoff by every staff section affected by the proposed
change. This review includes ensuring that the policy set by the NB is properly
implemented. The volunteer staff has been brought into this process recently which has
yielded major improvements.
There is no question that we are behind in the regulation review process, including the
inclusion of ICLs into regulations. This is due to budget limits, and since the great
majority of the work is done by the NHQ staff, any changes will require additional
appropriated or Corporate dollars.
As an alternate suggestion, the NB might consider the creation of a Process Action
Team consisting of members of the NB, NHQ Staff, and volunteer Staff to make
recommendations to the Summer NB on a better method of assigning priority to the
regulation review/creation process. This would, by design, include the roll-over of ICLs
into the appropriate regulations. Of course, the NB or NEC can always change a policy
in its normal course of business.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 5-4, Publications Forms Management

39

February 2010 National Board Minutes
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
This agenda item was divided into two parts in order for them to be considered
separately.
PART I, CAPR 5-4, Publications Forms Management, paragraph 2d:
COL TODD/NE MOVED and COL BENCKERT/VT seconded that the National Board
approve changes to CAPR 5-4, paragraph 2d, to add the sentence: “All
comments and the OPR recommendations of whether a comment was
incorporated or not will be made available on-line and a notice sent to all National
Board members of the location of this document.”

THE MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Implementation of policy, notification to the field, and change to
CAPR 5-4, Publications Forms Management.

PART II, CAPR 5-4, Publications Forms Management, paragraph 2e:
COL TODD/NE MOVED and COL DAVIDSON/NH seconded that the National Board
approve a change to CAPR 5-4, paragraph 2e, as follows: After the words,
“National Commander for approval.” add the sentence: “Final approval for
adoption will be made by the National Board at the next scheduled winter or
summer meeting.”
COL SAILE/MI MOVED TO AMEND and COL EGRY/DE seconded the amendment
to strike out “winter or summer” in the last sentence and replace with “face-toface, telephonic, or electronic.”

THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED
COL DAVIDSON/NH MOVED TO AMEND and COL JENSEN/SWR seconded the
amendment to add the sentence: “Said vote will be by approval or disapproval
only.”

THE MOTION TO AMEND DID NOT PASS
The amended motion reads: “Final approval for adoption will be made by the
National Board at the next scheduled face-to-face, telephonic, or electronic
meeting.”
The Chair asked the Executive Director to comment on staffing actions after receipt of
comments on regulations and manuals prior to publication.

40

February 2010 National Board Minutes
MR. ROWLAND/EX explained that the Staff Summary Sheet is used to send the
comments to each applicable office, including the volunteer staff and directors. After
that in-depth review, the comments then go to EX and CAP-USAF before going to the
National Commander.
COL SAILE/MI MOVED TO REFER and COL HERRINN/NLO seconded that the
National Board approve referring this matter back to the National Headquarters
staff to propose a change to CAPR 5-4 and send to the field for comment,
recognizing that the staff has a process in place but not completely codified.

THE MOTION TO REFER DID NOT PASS
THE AMENDED MOTION DID NOT PASS (19 yes; 43 no)

41

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 4b
Regulatory Approvals

EX

Action

CAP Regulations

SUBJECT: National Board Approval of Regulations Part 2
Author: Col Todd
NEWG/CC – Col Todd
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
Regulations and changes to regulations are being made without sufficient input from the
National Board. In some cases, this creates undo burden on the volunteers. Wording
changes and clarification of intent are required to make some of these regulation
changes workable and complete. It is the duty of the National Board to review
regulations and insure that they are satisfying the original concept agreed upon and do
not inhibit the retention of members.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve changes to CAPR 5-4 as follows:
Delete paragraph 4b.
Add this sentence to paragraph 4a. “All ICLs, which have not expired, will be approved
by the National Board at the next winter or summer meeting in order to be extended
beyond the date of that National Board meeting.”
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
None.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Due to the fact that one or more of the Agenda Items relating to CAPR 5-4 contradict
one another, and the fact that the Information Background of these items indicate an
apparent misunderstanding of the current regulatory approval process, NHQ
recommends that these Agenda Items be referred to an adhoc committee consisting of
National Board members appointed by the National Commander, to include the authors
of these Agenda Items.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Non-concur. Approving regulations is not the role of the National Board. The National
Board states policy. This distinction was made clear by a Dec 06 change to the CAP
constitution. CAP NHQ has a well defined process for translating policy into regulation.
It includes ample opportunity for member input (including board members) and provides
disposition of every received comment. Approving individual regulations would be an
inappropriate diversion from the National Board’s policy deliberations.

42

February 2010 National Board Minutes
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
NLO - Does not concur. The National Board should not have the ability to review or
adopt regulations as a matter of routine beyond current processes. If the National
Board feels that a regulation does not meet its established policy guidance, then the
National Commander, the NB, or the NEC (acting for the NB) can issue further guidance
or direct the change of the regulation.
Senior Advisor Support does not recommend the approval of this agenda item. The
National Board has previously decided that the function of the NB and NEC is to
establish policy which is then to be implemented by the staff. While the current system
might be improved, it is far superior to all past policy. The NHQ Staff (paid staff)
developed a staff review process for all regulation changes which allows for review,
comment, and signoff by every staff section affected by the proposed change. This
review includes ensuring that the policy set by the NB is properly implemented. The
volunteer staff has been brought into this process recently which has yielded major
improvements. After all signoffs are in place the draft regulation is published for
comment for a period of thirty days. The comments are reviewed, and the final
regulation published.
There is no question that we are behind in the regulation review process. This is due to
budget limits, and since the great majority of the work is done by the NHQ staff, any
changes will require additional appropriated or Corporate dollars.
As an alternate suggestion, the NB might consider the creation of a Process Action
Team consisting of members of the NB, NHQ Staff, and volunteer Staff to make
recommendations to the Summer NB on a better method of assigning priority to the
regulation review/creation process.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 5-4, Publications Forms Management
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL TODD/NE MOVED the PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.
The motion failed due to the lack of a second.

43

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 4c
Regulatory Approvals

EX

Action

CAP Regulations

SUBJECT:
Change to CAPR 5-4 / Review of Regulations and Publications
Author: Large Wing Affinity
PAWG/CC – Col Lee
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
In accordance with CAPR 5-4, paragraph 2, the National Board/National Executive
Committee/Board of Governors is empowered to establish policies in accordance with
the Constitution and Bylaws of Civil Air Patrol. The National Commander is empowered
to establish immediate regulations under the provisions of Article XX, paragraph 3, of
the Constitution of Civil Air Patrol, when circumstances dictate. National Headquarters
(NHQ) staff, including volunteer members of CAP assigned to the National
Commander’s staff, are required to incorporate all policies, or changes to existing
policies, into drafts of CAP regulations, manuals, or revisions thereof. Presently,
however, there is no provision within CAPR 5-4 for the periodic review of regulations or
other publications for currency once published.
Additionally, CAPR 5-4 provides only for Interim Change Letters (ICL) that need to be
incorporated, renewed, made permanent or allowed to expire.
There is no provision for the review of ICL’s for currency or permanency once issued.
There is no provision to extend ICL’s that have expired.
As of 1 January 2010, there were 10 ICL’s that are in excess of one-year old; there are
more than 25 regulations that are more than five years old; there are more than 25
pamphlets that are approaching or over 10 years old. This affects forms associated
with these publications. Additionally, major changes not involving emergency situations
that have been promulgated by the National Commander have not been incorporated
into regulations.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve amending CAPR 5-4, Paragraph 2, as follows:
a. The National Board/National Executive Committee/Board of Governors
will establish policies in accordance with the Constitution and Bylaws of Civil Air
Patrol. The National Board will review regulations and associated publications at
each of its meetings for currency. The National Commander may establish
immediate regulations under the provisions of Article XX, paragraph 3, of the
Constitution of Civil Air Patrol, when circumstances dictate.
b. National Headquarters (NHQ) staff, including volunteer members of CAP
assigned to the National Commander’s staff, shall incorporate all policies, or
changes to existing policies, into drafts of CAP regulations, manuals, or revisions
thereof. The NHQ staff may also implement non-policy publications or changes
44

February 2010 National Board Minutes
to publications (e.g., address changes, points of contact, Air Force or other DoD
mandated changes, statutory or other legal requirements) as needed. The NHQ
staff including volunteer members of CAP assigned to the National Commander’s
staff, shall prepare and present a report concerning the status of incorporation of
all new policies or changes to existing policies, into CAP regulations, manuals,
and revisions thereof to the National Board for ratification at the Board meeting
immediately following incorporation of policies or changes to existing policies.
Said NHQ staff shall provide, at each National Board meeting, a report on the six
earliest dated publications concerning ratification of present regulations or
present those revisions required for currency, including those promulgated by
Interim Change Letter, to the National Board for ratification or approval, as
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. Proposed action provides guidance and
timetable for oversight function already required and foreseen by the Constitution and
Bylaws of Civil Air Patrol, and by regulations already promulgated.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Due to the fact that one or more of the Agenda Items relating to CAPR 5-4 contradict
one another, and the fact that the Information Background of these items indicate an
apparent misunderstanding of the current regulatory approval process, NHQ
recommends that these Agenda Items be referred to an adhoc committee consisting of
National Board members appointed by the National Commander, to include the authors
of these Agenda Items.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Non-concur. Approving regulations is not the role of the National Board. The National
Board states policy. This distinction was made clear by a Dec 06 change to the CAP
constitution. CAP NHQ has a well defined process for translating policy into regulation.
It includes ample opportunity for member input (including board members) and provides
disposition of every received comment. Approving individual regulations would be an
inappropriate diversion from the National Board’s policy deliberations.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
NLO - Concurs that a process to review old regulations on a timetable basis should
exist. However, NLO does not concur that the NB should be in the business of
micromanaging the content and number of regulations. There is a process for the
revision of regulations already in existence that should not require the intervention of the
NB for “ratification.” Only policy changes should be brought to the NB.
Sr Advisor Support is in agreement with the comments and recommendations of the
National Headquarters’ Staff noted above.
45

February 2010 National Board Minutes
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 5-4, Publications Forms Management
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL LEE/PA MOVED and COL HERRIN/NLO seconded (for the purpose of making
an amendment) the PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.
COL HERRIN/NLO MOVED TO AMEND and COL CHARLES/NATCON seconded the
amendment to strike all provisions of the motion except the last sentence, as
amended: (1) to delete the word “Said” and add the word “The” and (2) to delete
the words “for ratification or approval, as necessary” and add the words “as an
information item.”
By request, the CAP-USAF/CC explained the process of updating Air Force instructions
and TOs, which is far different from Civil Air Patrol.

THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED
The amended motion reads: “That the National Board approve amending CAPR
5-4, Paragraph 2, as follows: The NHQ staff shall provide, at each National Board
meeting, a report on the six earliest dated publications concerning ratification of
present regulations or present those revisions required for currency, including
those promulgated by Interim Change Letter, to the National Board as an
information item.”

THE AMENDED MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Include in the agenda of each winter and summer National
Board meetings.

46

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 4d
Regulatory Approvals

EX

Action

CAP Regulations

SUBJECT:
Change to CAPR 5-4, Procedure For National Board Establish New or Validate
Changes to Regulations and Manuals
Author: Large Wing Affinity
PAWG/CC – Col Lee
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
The current procedure for validating and implementing both new regulations and
changes to regulations, includes that regulations are submitted to the NHQ publications
manager by the Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) for posting on the NHQ website
for comment. Comments are then provided to the OPR for evaluation and inclusion or
rejection. The draft regulation has then been submitted to the National Board or NEC at
a meeting of that body for approval/validation. Should changes to that regulation be
proposed at that meeting, the regulation would often be held over until the next meeting
of the body before it can be implemented. Of course in extreme cases where an
emergency is deemed to exist, the National Commander could implement the new
regulation in the interim until the body meets.
Today, as we implement more and better electronic communications, mission reporting
and technology improvements in our financial dealings, there is no reason to delay the
validation/approval or even change the process for implementation of regulations and
manuals. We have proved the capabilities and validity of voting and taking action on
financial matters using Sertifi in a distributed manner. In fact, since Sertifi has a proven
track record, you’ll find it used for much more than Finance Committee votes. We
should take advantage of the technology to both ensure the regulatory process and to
reduce delays in implementing improved regulations, forms, manuals et al. By doing
this, the National Board can exercise its constitutional function to establish policies while
doing so in a secure, proven and cost effective manner, without the delay or cost of a
physical meeting at which to do so.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve the following change to the process for
validating/approving new, and changes to, regulations, and manuals
Upon the completion of the final version of the draft regulation or manual, after the
comment period, resolution of comments and review, the final draft regulation or manual
will be submitted to the members of the National Board via Sertifi and the members will
be given two weeks in which to vote affirmatively or negatively. Once approved, it will
be sent to the NHQ publications manager for publication and distribution.

47

February 2010 National Board Minutes
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Negligible, Sertifi is already in use both at the national level and in the Wings. Training
too should be negligible for the same reason.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Due to the fact that one or more of the Agenda Items relating to CAPR 5-4 contradict
one another, and the fact that the Information Background of these items indicate an
apparent misunderstanding of the current regulatory approval process, NHQ
recommends that these Agenda Items be referred to an adhoc committee consisting of
National Board members appointed by the National Commander, to include the authors
of these Agenda Items.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Non-concur. Approving regulations is not the role of the National Board. The National
Board states policy. This distinction was made clear by a Dec 06 change to the CAP
constitution. CAP NHQ has a well defined process for translating policy into regulation.
It includes ample opportunity for member input (including board members) and provides
disposition of every received comment. Approving individual regulations would be an
inappropriate diversion from the National Board’s policy deliberations.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
NLO - Does not concur with the proposal as written. There is already a robust
regulation publication and review procedure that permits all National Board members to
comment upon drafted regulations and therefore to ensure that the regulations as
drafted meet NB policy guidance. If the National Board feels that a regulation does not
meet its established policy guidance, then the National Commander, the NB, or the
NEC (acting for the NB) can issue further guidance or direct the change of the
regulation.
Sr Advisor Support is in agreement with the comments and recommendations of the
National Headquarters’ Staff noted above.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 5-4, Publications Forms Management
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
This agenda item was been withdrawn by maker of the motion, Col Lee/PA.

48

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 4e

EX

Action

Regulatory Approvals
Author: Col Myrick

SUBJECT: Obsolete Regulations
PCR/CC – Col Myrick
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:

Electronic records and approvals have been introduced over the past few years faster
than regulations can be rewritten. There are many instances of Wings receiving CI
findings when practice has outrun regulations, and these findings are very difficult to
close since the CI process relies on regulation alone and does not recognize
documented changes in practice which have not yet been reflected in regulation. The
purpose of this agenda item is to create a formal policy for situations where the
regulations are out-of-date, and to provide a simplified mechanism for resolving similar
issues in the future.
CAPR 35-1 notes that “Duty positions are normally assigned by using the on-line duty
assignment application available in eServices.” However, it does not specifically state
that duty positions assigned via eServices do NOT require a CAPF 2a or Personnel
Authorization. Several CI teams have issued findings that the latter documents are
required even with eServices appointment.
CAPR 50-17 para 2-4c acknowledges that the “PDO updates specialty training tracks in
the on-line Specialty Track administration utility in eServices” However, it does not
specifically state that the eServices entry obviates the need for duplicate entry on the
CAPF 45. Findings have been issued on this as well.
CAPR 50-17 para 3-10 requires that copies of CAPF 11’s for Level I be sent to unit,
Wing and (optionally) group and region – despite the fact that submission is now
electronic to NHQ and the completion is entered by NHQ into eServices. Wings are
receiving findings for not maintaining copies of these obsolete documents.
There are many more examples where there is either ambiguity in the regulations, or
the regulations have not been modified to keep pace with new CAP procedures.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve forms which document information that is available in
eServices, WMIRS or other CAP-approved online databases do not need to be kept on
file, and the information does not need to be entered on other CAP forms. CI findings
will not be issued when the published regulation has been effectively superseded by
procedural instructions from NHQ. Wings receiving findings which they believe to be in
conflict with this policy may close the finding by asking the appropriate NHQ director to
confirm in writing that the Wing’s procedure is consistent with current CAP practice.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
None.
49

February 2010 National Board Minutes
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur. A motion from the Paperwork Reduction Committee permitting electronic
records use in lieu of paper documents was presented and passed at the August 2003
National Board.
(Committee Report Agenda Item 6b)
(b) BRIG GEN WHELESS/CV moved and COL KAUFFMAN/CS seconded that
the National Board approve a policy that, as electronic processes are developed
to replace paper forms, CAP units are authorized to use the electronic process of
filing as an alternative to the paper form. This policy shall apply to all CAP
publications.
MOTION CARRIED WITH NO DISSENTING VOTES
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Implementation of policy, notification to the field, and
change to regulations for this purpose only.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
NLO - Concur, with the proviso that all regulations be changed to reflect the NHQapproved electronic storage option as a compliant methodology, and that future
regulations be amended as new eservices capabilities come online without the
necessity of further NB approval.
Sr Advisor Support – Concur.
National Historian - Please always make sure that Historian has a copy of the old ERegulation on a CD with an accompanied by a hard copy; this is a reference for
historical research.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
To be determined.
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL MYRICK/PCR MOVED and COL CORTUM/RMR seconded the PROPOSED
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Implementation of policy and notification to the field.
50

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 5a

GC

Action

Governance
SUBJECT: Wing Commander Selection Process
Author: Public Trust Task Force
CAP/CS – Col Chazell
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
CAPR 35-9 lists a suggested process for region commanders to select new wing
commanders assigned to their regions. The suggested process is for the region
commander to notify the members of the affected wing of the upcoming opening, to
solicit interested members to apply for the position, and to appoint a board to interview
those interested members and to recommend a candidate to the region commander.
The region commander has also been given the opportunity to select wing commanders
without following this process. The current wording of CAPR 35-9 may give the
impression that region commanders can appoint wing commanders without opening up
the process to all qualified candidates. The goal of following the suggested process in
CAPR 35-9 is to standardize the wing commander selection process. The process
cannot be standardized if it is only a suggested process. We suggest that requiring
region commanders to follow the above process will make the selection process more
transparent to the members and to our stakeholders.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve changing CAPR 35-9 so that the process for selecting
wing commanders be changed from a suggested process to a required process.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
None.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Article XIII of the Constitution states that “Wing commanders shall be appointed by the
Commander of the respective region.” CAPR 39-5 further indicates that “The final
decision concerning selection still rest with the Region commander concerned.”
If the process is changed from “suggested” to a “required” process, the National Board
should bear in mind that the Region commander’s final decision must now be based
exclusively on the selection process.
Recommend the Board specify that the process shall be in accordance with the
Memorandum to Applicants for the **** Region Commander attachment.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur.

51

February 2010 National Board Minutes
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
NLO – Concur.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 35-9, Board of Governor and Wing Commander Selection Procedures
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL VERRETTE/PCR/VC & Legal Officer and Chairman of the CAP Governance
Review Committee, presented a slide briefing prior to the board’s consideration of those
items under Agenda 5.
COL CARR/GLR MOVED and COL VAZQUEZ/MER seconded that the National
Board refer all items under Agenda Item 5 (a., b., c., d., e., f., g., h. i., and j.) to the
Governance Review Committee (working with the Public Trust Committee and
Constitution and Bylaws Committee) for review and report back to the National
Board.
COL HERRIN/NLO MOVED TO AMEND and COL JENSEN/SWR seconded that
Items 5.c, 5.d, and 5.j. be deleted from referral to the Governance Review
Committee.

THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED
The amended motion reads: “That the National Board refers items 5.a., 5.b., 5.e.,
5.f., 5.g., 5.h., and 5.i. under Agenda Item 5 to the Governance Review Committee
(working with the Public Trust Committee and Constitution and Bylaws
Committee) for review and a report back to the National Board.

THE AMENDED MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTIONS:
Referral to committee;
By request of committee chair, two other corporate officers to be named to committee;
By request, names of committee members provided to National Board;
Comments from National Board members will be sent to the committee chair (contact
information to be provided to board members);
Interim report presented at the June 2010 Board of Governors Meeting;
Include in the June 2010 BoG Agenda;
Report of committee made available for comment prior to the summer 2010 National
Board Meeting;
Include in the September 2010 National Board Agenda.

52

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 5b

GC

Action

Governance
SUBJECT: Region Commander Selection Process
Author: Public Trust Task Force
CAP/CS – Col Chazell
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
The Civil Air Patrol Constitution and Bylaws give the national commander the
responsibility to appoint and remove region commanders. However, neither the
constitution nor CAP’s regulations give the national commander guidelines on what
process to follow to appoint region commanders.
The process needs to be
standardized so that the national commander may select the best qualified region
commanders to lead the organization while maintaining a transparent and open
process.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve the rewriting of CAPR 35-9 to include a standardized
process for the national commander to use to select region commanders. The process
should be similar to the letter used by the current national commander to advertise and
select for open region commander positions.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
None.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Article XIII of the Constitution states that “Region commanders shall be appointed by
the National Commander.”
If the process is changed from “suggested” to a “required” process, the National Board
should bear in mind that the National Commander’s final decision must now be based
exclusively on the selection process.
Recommend the Board specify that the process shall be in accordance with the
Memorandum to Applicants for the **** Region Commander attachment.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
NLO – Concur.

53

February 2010 National Board Minutes
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 35-9, Board of Governor and Wing Commander Selection Procedures
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
Sent to Governance Committee for action.

54

February 2010 National Board Minutes
OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL COMMANDER
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
CIVIL AIR PATROL
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AUXILIARY
MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA 36112-6332

1 January 2008
MEMORANDUM TO APPLICANTS FOR THE **** REGION COMMANDER
FROM: CAP/CC
SUBJECT: Notice of Application and Process Position
1. This document and its attachments are official notice of the application, interview and
selection process for the position of the **** Region Commander.
2. Interview Board Overview.
(1)

The interview board will be formed by and report to the CAP/CC.

(2)

Each member will review and consider applications individually.

(3)

The members will interview the selected candidates as a board.

(4)

Each member will discuss and then cast their votes independently.

(5)

The interview board will provide information exclusively to the CAP/CC.

(6)

The CAP/CC will make the final selection decision.

3. Process.
a. A call for applications will be published, and this letter serves as that call.
b. Applications: (including supporting documentation).
(1) Applications must include:
(a) Curriculum Vitae (résumé) for CAP, Military, Business, etc.
(b) A signed release form, which may be obtained from Ms. Susie Parker.
(c) Answers to all of these questions (not to exceed 2 pages total):
1 What is your vision for the future of the region?
2 What strategies and partnerships will you use to strengthen CAP in the region?
3 What have you experienced that prepares you for the role of Region CC?
4 How will you balance the missions (AE, CP, ES) of CAP in the region?
5 What time and CAP/family/business/other support will you have to ensure
your success as Region CC?
55

February 2010 National Board Minutes
(2) Applications must be e-mailed to the CAP/CC at ***(e-mail) and to the interview
board chair, Colonel **** ****, at ***(e-mail).
(3) Applications must be e-mailed prior to midnight (applicant’s local time) of the
deadline stated in paragraph 4 of this letter.
(4) Applications with original signatures must be mailed/shipped to the attention of Ms.
Susie Parker at NHQ within one day following the deadline.
(5) Applications must include all required information to be considered.
c. Application Receipt.
(1) An e-mail receipt will be sent by the interview board chair to the applicant when
his/her application is received.
(2) If receipt is not received by ***(date), inform the CAP/CC.
d. Application Review and Interview Selection.
(1) Each member of the board will review and consider each application.
(2) Each member of the board will agree to any narrowing of the field for the interviews
(if any board member requests the interview, it will be granted).
(3) A list of the applicants to be interviewed will be made available [how] and any
current CAP member may provide feedback directly to the CAP/CC at ***(email) prior to the
interviews. Exception: Wing Commanders in this chain of command should contact the
CAP/CC via telephone to share their thoughts, and they are encouraged to do so.
e. In-person Interviews.
(1) Applicants selected for interviews will be notified by the board chairperson.
(2) Any applicant not selected for an interview will be notified by the CAP/CC.
(3) Candidates for interviews will be notified at least 7 calendar days prior to the
interview date.
(4) Interviews will be held in a location determined by the board chairperson.
(5) Two days will be set aside for interviews.
(6) Applicants must make all attempts to meet the interview schedule.
(7) What should be done if there is a valid reason for a candidate not to make the
scheduled dates?
f. Selection.
(1) The interview board will provide perceived strengths, areas for improvement, and
other relevant information of the applicants to the CAP/CC immediately following the
completion of the interview process.
(2) The CAP/CC will review the information provided by the interview board.
(3) The CAP/CC may hold telephonic interviews of selected candidates.
(4) The CAP/CC will render the decision and document the selection.
56

February 2010 National Board Minutes
(5) The CAP/CC will make notification to all interviewed applicants of the decision.
4. Etiquette/Ethics/Protocol.
a. This is a confidential process, and information regarding applicants, their interviews, or
other information garnered in the process of this selection will not be shared with others outside
of the process. All information will be treated confidentially.
b. Any questions from applicants about waivers, the overall selection process, or timing
should be directed to the CAP/CC. Any questions about the interview process should be directed
to the interview board chairperson.
c. Any concerns with the interview committee or process may be shared with the CAP/CC.
Similarly, any process improvement suggestions will be welcomed by the CAP/CC.
d. As noted above, current CAP members may go outside of the chain of command to
provide feedback, both positive and negative, to the CAP/CC after the list of interview applicants
has been announced and before the interviews are held.
5. Timing.
a. dd mmm yyyy

Application deadline

b. dd mmm yyyy

Interview selection and notification to all applicants

c. dd mmm yyyy

Interviews will be held

d. dd mmm yyyy

Selection will be made and all interviewees notified

e. dd mmm yyyy

Assumption of command

6. Qualifications. The minimum qualifications for application to the position of Region
Commander are:
a. Be a member in good standing currently holding the grade of Colonel.
b. Level IV of the CAP Professional Development program (Level V preferred), and 4-year
college degree is preferred.
c. Three years of command and corporate officer experience at the wing, region or national
level.
d. Budget and asset allocation experience within or external to CAP.
e. Five years of Leadership/Management experience within or external to CAP.
f. Ten years of CAP membership with no less than 3 years of continuous service prior to
applying for this position.
g. Prior to appointment as Region Commander, the applicant must successfully complete a
fingerprint rescreening, and agree to and successfully complete the CAP-selected Commander
Background Check.

57

February 2010 National Board Minutes
7. The role of a region commander in our Civil Air Patrol is significant, and requires a person
ready to devote time, talent and energy to this position. As you consider submission of your
application, I ask that you please weigh your abilities, availability and motivations carefully.

AMY S. COURTER
Major General, CAP
National Commander

Attachments:
_________
__________
cc:
CAP/EX
CAP/EXA
CAP/CV
CAP/CS
All CAP Region Commanders
CAP-USAF/CC
CAP-USAF/CV
BoG Chair

58

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 5c

GC

Action

Governance
Author:

SUBJECT: Continued Membership Eligibility
CAP/CS – Col Chazell
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:

At the present time, CAP members complete the screening process upon their initial
membership and are generally only required to be rescreened if they have a break in
service, participate in the counterdrug program, or apply for a Corporate Officer
position. The Senior Member Oath of Membership that is agreed to upon joining and
reconfirmed on an annually basis states that members are obligated to notify CAP if
there are any changes to their background/screening information. It has recently been
discovered that this requirement is not being following by members at all times. A
formal procedure for submitting this information needs to be established.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve a policy that states all senior members must notify the
National Headquarters Screening Division (NHQ/PMM) of any changes to the
background/screening information originally submitted on their CAP Form 12 within 30
days of the offense/arrest and/or conviction. Upon receipt of the updated information,
National Headquarters will follow the established procedures for reviewing background
information to determine continued membership eligibility. Failure to properly notify
National Headquarters of any change in information may result in automatic loss of
membership.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
The current budget should be able to accommodate the small increase in fingerprint
screening that is anticipated as a result of this proposal.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
To be presented.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
NLO – Concur.

59

February 2010 National Board Minutes
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 39-2, CAP Membership
CAPR 35-3, Membership Termination
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL CHAZELL/CS MOVED and COL RUSHING/SER seconded the PROPOSED
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.
COL SAILE/MI MOVED TO REFER and COL BROWN/AK seconded the amendment
to refer this to the Membership Action Review Board and staff for appropriate
language to make the intent of this proposed action more clear and to include a
review of Form 12.

THE MOTION TO REFER CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Referral to committee and staff with guidance from the National
Board to include review of Forms 12 and 2b in deliberations as well as the appropriate
language to apply all CAP members. Include in 2010 summer NB Agenda.

60

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 5d

GC

Action

Governance
SUBJECT: NEC Fingerprinting
Author: Public Trust Task Force
CAP/CS – Col Chazell
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
Members that are appointed to the National Executive Committee (NEC) hold an office
of extreme importance to Civil Air Patrol and are under intense scrutiny by our
members, our customers, and interested outsiders. NEC members should be held to
the highest ethical standards and the National Commander should be assured that
potential NEC members will live up to those high standards. CAPR 39-2 addresses FBI
background checks for CAP senior members and states that senior members may be
required by National Headquarters to undergo a rescreening. We feel that it is prudent
to require all new NEC members undergo an FBI fingerprint rescreening. This will
uncover any major transgressions that may have occurred since any previous
screening.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve the rewriting of CAPR 39-2 to require that all new
members of the National Executive Committee submit an FBI fingerprint card to
National Headquarters so that a confidential FBI criminal records check can be
performed.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Minimal.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
NLO – Concur; however, there should be a rescreening requirement if there is any gap
in service between NEC appointments, even though the “new” NEC member once
served on the NEC.
Sr Advisor Support – Concur.

61

February 2010 National Board Minutes
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 35-9, Board of Governor and Wing Commander Selection Procedures
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL CHAZELL/CS MOVED and COL DAVIDSON/NH seconded the PROPOSED
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.
COL JENSEN/SWR MOVED TO AMEND and MAJ SMITH/OK (PROXY) seconded
the amendment to strike the words “members of the National Executive
Committee” and add the words “all new corporate officers,” and add the
following words at the end of the sentence: “and repeated on a 2-year basis
while serving in a corporate officer position.”
COL PARRIS/CA MOVED TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT and COL VAZQUEZ/MER
seconded to strike the words: “and repeated on a 2-year basis while serving in a
corporate officer position.”

THE MOTION TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (to delete 2-year repeat)
THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED (change NEC to all new corporate officers)
The amended motion reads: “That the National Board approve the rewriting of
CAPR 39-2 to require that all new corporate officers submit an FBI fingerprint
card to National Headquarters so that a confidential FBI criminal records check
can be performed.”

THE AMENDED MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Implementation of policy, notification to the field, and change to
CAPR 39-2, CAP Membership.

62

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 5e

GC

Action

Governance
SUBJECT: Core Competencies for CAP’s Executive Leaders
Author: Public Trust Task Force
CAP/CS – Col Chazell
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
The National Board has put a lot of emphasis on looking for ways to strengthen the
executive leadership of Civil Air Patrol. It has looked for ways to standardize selection
procedures. It has held executive leaders to higher ethical standards than in the past
and it has tasked groups such as the Public Trust Committee to seek ways to improve
the level of CAP’s executive leadership. The Public Trust Committee proposes that Civil
Air Patrol adopt a set of core competencies of a Civil Air Patrol executive leader. These
core competencies, which are modeled off of executive officer competencies from Air
University, can be used by all levels of the organization to select, develop, and improve
CAP’s present and future executive leaders. We feel these competencies will give our
members a roadmap to set their development goals so they can prepare themselves for
senior leadership roles. It will also give us a better structure to assess members as we
select them for executive level positions.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve the attached core competencies for CAP’s executive
leaders and direct National Headquarters to adopt them in the development, selection,
and training of CAP’s executive leaders.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
To be determined.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Tools are being developed in the normal course of the PD program and in response to
the specific agenda request:
Office Basic Course
Commanders Courses (Unit and Wing, Group commander’s course in concept
development)
PD Lending Library (used to help instructors at wing and region levels augment/support
their courses as well as support the Organizational Excellence program)
Continual revisions of NSC and WCC curriculums to address the changing needs of
executive/operational member education.
CAP-NHQ will continue to work with the leadership to improve education/training in this
area.
63

February 2010 National Board Minutes
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
NLO – Concur. These should be incorporated into the Wing CC and Region CC
selection processes that are the subject of other agenda items.
Sr Advisor Support – Concur, and will continue to work with the NHQ Staff to improve
education/training in this area.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
To be determined.
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
Sent to Governance Committee for action.

64

February 2010 National Board Minutes

Core Competencies of a Civil Air Patrol Executive Leader

Self-Development

Leading Organizations

Lifelong Learning
Self Assessment
Values & Ethics
Reading
Professionalism
Leadership Theory

Command & Control
Organizational Learning
Strategic Planning
Risk Management
Basic Process
Improvement

Thinking Skills

Leading People

Critical Thinking
Creativity & Innovation
Argumentative Writing
Decision Making
Problem Solving

Counseling
Mentoring
Negotiation
Volunteerism

Leading Transformation
Communication Skills

Lessons Learned
Future Studies
Strategic Planning
Creativity & Innovation
Innovation Adoption

Writing
Speaking
Listening
Interviewing
Cross-Cultural
Mediation &
Facilitation
Media Relations
Nonverbals

65

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 5f

GC

Action

Governance
SUBJECT:
Amend the Constitution of Civil Air Patrol Regarding Appointment and Removal
of Civil Air Patrol Members at Large to the Board of Governors
Author: Col Lee
PAWG/CC – Col Lee
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
The present Constitution of Civil Air Patrol, in Article IX, vests power to appoint and
remove members of the Board of Governors by the National Executive Committee,
without any ratification or action by the National Board, which has responsibility for
corporate governance. Absent an emergency situation, the present state of technology
permits the Board, as a whole, to vote on important matters of corporate governance
without physically gathering:
ARTICLE IX
SELECTION OF CAP APPOINTEES TO THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
1. The National Commander and National Vice Commander shall serve ex officio.
2. Two CAP Members at Large shall be selected as follows:
a. Candidates for consideration must be senior members in good standing; be in
the grade of major or above; have been awarded the Paul G. Garber Award;
and have at least five years CAP service.
b. Applicants will submit a written application to the National Executive
Committee and be selected in accordance with published CAP directives.
c. A Member at Large may not hold any other concurrent position as a CAP
corporate officer.
d. Members at Large will be appointed to serve a single four-year term.
e. The Members at Large may be removed from office by a 2/3 vote of the
National Executive Committee.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
Motion A:
The National Board approve, subject to approval of the Board of Governors, in
accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 9447, a proposal to amend the Constitution of Civil Air
Patrol as follows:
ARTICLE IX
SELECTION OF CAP APPOINTEES TO THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
1. The National Commander and National Vice Commander shall serve ex officio.
2. Two CAP Members at Large shall be selected as follows:
66

February 2010 National Board Minutes
a. Candidates for consideration must be senior members in good standing; be in the
grade of Major or above; have been awarded the Paul E. Garber Award; and have
at least five years CAP service.
b. Applicants will submit a written application to the National Executive Committee
and will be selected by the National Board from among all applicants, in
accordance with published CAP directives.
c. A Member at Large may not hold any other concurrent position as a CAP
corporate officer.
d. Members at Large will be appointed to serve a single four-year term.
e. The Members at Large may be removed from office by a two-thirds vote of the
National Executive Committee, which will be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the
National Board.
Motion B:
That the National Board approve, subject to approval of the forgoing by the Board of
Governors, changes to CAP Regulation 35-9, providing for selection and removal of
CAP Members at Large to the Board of Governors:
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
No funding impact. Information systems that would be used are already used to
communicate between members of the National Board.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
CAP-NHQ adheres to the will of the National Board on this matter.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Non-concur. Sound procedures exist for appointing and removing at large BOG
members. The only rationale provided for making the change is the state of technology
today. Conference call technology has existed for generations; that is all that would be
required to conduct official votes without meeting in person. The underlying premise
appears to be that the NEC can only take action on those items specifically “delegated”
to it. By contrast, the constitution gives the NEC authority to rule on all areas of CAP
business that are not specifically reserved for the national board.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
NLO - Does not concur. The Board of Governors has already established a policy that
requires certain standards be met for the removal of a Board of Governors member.

67

February 2010 National Board Minutes
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
Constitution of Civil Air Patrol
CAPR 35-9, Board of Governor and Wing Commander Selection Procedures.
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
Sent to Governance Committee for action.

68

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 5g

GC

Action

Governance
SUBJECT:
Commander’s Action during Election for National Commander
and / or Vice Commander
Author: Col Weiss
MDWG/CC – Col Weiss
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
During the last three and a half years as a National Board member there have been
investigations by the Air Force, the BoG and our own internal processes concerning
leadership authority. One investigation during the previous National Commander’s
tenure spoke to undue commander influence and in the military that is very serious
business. It is prudent as the US Air Force Auxiliary to avoid such appearances. Also
as the Civil Air Patrol we are non-profit organization and therefore it is wise for us as a
National Board to follow the best practices of non-profit organizations so as to not
jeopardize our 501c3 status.
Applying the tenant of avoiding undue command influence and employing the best
practices of non-profit organizations is a wise path to follow in all actions and especially
for elections. Our current system of nominations, receiving resumes for review,
communications from the candidates and the presentations at the Board Meeting
appear to already exceed the norm for non-profit organizations which in many cases
consists of a mailing with information about the candidates, notification of the election
place and time and a proxy form.
Because of the above concerns and following the current National Commander’s (Maj
Gen Courter) prudent statement during the last National Vice Commander election
process that she would not make her preference known and therefore not influence the
outcome and in an effort to place in writing specific guidance as a follow-up to this
excellent precedent, and to provide transparency and to ensure ethical standards the
following is proposed.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board recommend to the Board of governors to revise Section 16 of
the CAP By-Laws by adding the following:
“Starting on the day of the closing of nominations for National Commander and Vice
Commander, until the close of the CAP general meeting and conference in which the
elections are held, the current National Commander shall “remain silent” and shall not
convey, in any manner either written or orally to the membership or external sources,
his/her desires, wishes, or requests concerning the outcome of the election. The
National Commander shall not provide input into, nor direct any part of, the election
process.

69

February 2010 National Board Minutes
The National Commander-elect shall “remain silent” and shall not convey his/her
desires, wishes, or requests concerning the outcome of the election for National Vice
Commander”.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
None.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
CAP-NHQ adheres to the will of the National Board on this matter.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Non-concur. Extending the military analogy of undue command influence to CAP
elections is inappropriate. In fact, the military precedent is for a commander to either
select, or be involved in the selection of a vice or deputy commander. This ensures
unity of command, which is critical to the efficient and effective operation of a military
unit. The term undue command influence generally refers to attempts to influence
promotion boards or to use a subordinate commander as a proxy by directing their
actions, not to elections. Unity of command is critical to the effective and efficient
administration of Civil Air Patrol. The national commander must remain free to provide
input to the process.
Maj Gen Courter opted to not communicate her preference for any of the nominees as a
personal choice. To institute that decision as a policy absolute could have unintended
consequences for future elections. The decision to “remain silent” should rest with the
member.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
NLO - Does not concur unless the candidates for the position of National Commander
and National Vice Commander are limited to the kinds of written and spoken
advertisements mentioned above. There cannot be a “one-way street” of election
communication. Further, any guidance on this point should require a candidate that
breaks these election rules to be disqualified.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAP By-Laws – Section 16
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
Sent to Governance Committee for action.

70

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 5h

GC

Action

Governance
SUBJECT:
Clarification and Revision of Duties and Responsibilities
of the National Executive Committee
Author: Col Egry
DEWG/CC – Col Egry
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
Article XI of the Civil Air Patrol Constitution and By-Laws describes the duties and
responsibilities of the National Executive Committee (NEC), including being vested with
all powers and duties of the National Board except those powers and duties given
exclusively to the National Board. Furthermore Section 14, paragraph 14.8 of the Civil
Air Patrol Constitution and By-Laws states “The National Executive Committee shall
meet at least twice annually and, except as otherwise directed or limited by the National
Board, may consider any business properly brought before it.”
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve, subject to approval of the Board of Governors, in
accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 9447, a proposal to revise the Constitution of Civil Air
Patrol, Article XI, paragraph 1 to read:
“1. Except those powers which may be reserved exclusively to the National Board; the
National Executive Committee shall, unless authorized by the National Board with a
2/3rds majority vote, only act on issues or meeting agenda items that pertain to:
a) Items requiring immediate change as mandated by the U.S. Air Force,
and/or
b) Items requiring immediate change as mandated by applicable law,
and/or
c) Personnel actions requiring immediate attention,
and/or
d) Budgetary issues,
and/or
e) Safety items.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
None.
71

February 2010 National Board Minutes
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
CAP-NHQ adheres to the will of the National Board on this matter.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Non-concur. This proposed change seeks to limit the authority of the NEC to act on
behalf of the corporation. It appears arbitrary in that no rationale is provided for making
such a significant change in governance. It unnecessarily restricts the efficacy of the
NEC, in contradiction to the duty structure outlined by the BoG in the constitution.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
Support Staff does not comment on matters of CAP governance. The Senior Advisor
Support does note, however, that based upon the recent agendas of the National Board
and NEC meetings it would be difficult to accomplish the business of the Corporation
with the present meeting and budget structure if this agenda item is adopted.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAP Constitution & By-Laws Article XI
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
Sent to Governance Committee for action.

72

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 5i

GC

Action

Governance
SUBJECT: Selection of Region Commanders
Author: Col Davidson
NHWG/CC – Col Davidson
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
In 2006, a "Complaint Analysis" was performed by the Office of the Air Force Inspector
General regarding a complaint in 2005 against the CAP National Commander. Although
an investigation into the complaint was not warranted, the analysis “illuminated potential
deficiencies in the system of checks and balances and internal controls restraining
abuses of authority by CAP leadership”. The analysis goes further to stipulate that
abuse of authority “can have a chilling effect on meaningful discourse within the
organization”; and that “This appears to be particularly true of the National Commander,
who not only appoints the Region Commanders, but also appoints much of the National
Staff. In circumstances where offices are elected or ratified, this is done by either the
National Board or National Executive Committee – all appointed by the National
Commander. This has the effect of concentrating an unusual amount of unchecked
power in the office of National Commander”.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
Motion 1
1) That the National Board recommend to the BoG a revision to Article XIII, paragraph
1(b), of the CAP Constitution and By-Laws to read:
“Region Commanders shall be selected by the Wing Commanders from within the
specific Region(s). A committee of at least 3, but not more than 5, current or former
Wing Commanders from the specific Region will be selected by a vote of all current
Wing Commanders. Candidates for the position will be ineligible for this committee.
This vote should occur NLT 120 days from the expiration of the current term.
Candidates for Region Commander will submit resume’s for the position 90 days prior to
the expiration of the current term, to those members of the selection committee.
On or before 60 days from the expiration of the current term, the committee members
will hold interview conference calls or in-person interview meetings with the candidates.
The senior ranked Commander not applying for the position (designated by the CAPNHQ/DP using Wing Commander inception dates), will chair the conference call(s)
and/or the meeting(s).
It is incumbent upon the members of the committee to maintain professionalism and
decorum during this process and select a Region Commander who is befitting of the
office to which they are being selected.

73

February 2010 National Board Minutes
Parameters for selection as Region Commander shall include, but not be limited to,
Command experience, CAP professional development level, time in grade, service time
and exemplary history.
The committee, after interviewing all candidates during the conference call(s) and/or
meeting(s) will make a selection on or about 30 days from the expiration of the current
term.
The designated chair will keep the current Region Commander and National
Commander advised of the progress of the selection process and once a selection is
finalized, the current Region Commander and the National Commander will be formally
notified.
The National Commander will then notify the Chairman of the CAP Board of Governors.
The National Legal Officer will be available to the Chair of the committee to assist in this
process, if needed”.
Motion 2
2) That the National Board recommends to the BoG the deletion of Section 10,
paragraph 10.1(c), of the CAP Constitution & By-Laws.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
None.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
CAP-NHQ adheres to the will of the National Board on this matter.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Non-concur. The concept of unity of command would be significantly degraded if the
region commander was answerable only to the members of his region. The ability of
the national command element to implement national policies and goals would be
hindered if appointment authority was removed from their discretion. Wing and region
commanders are not just corporate officers representing their constituents at the
national board. They are also commanders in a military style hierarchy. As such, the
organizational construct must also reinforce fidelity up the chain toward the shared
goals of the corporation.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
NLO - Does not concur. The process of election by a person’s subordinates in
command would have a chilling effect on the ability of the region commander to
discipline errant wing commanders and enforce systemic orthodoxy. Additionally, the
74

February 2010 National Board Minutes
item as proposed should allow the NLO “or his designee” to serve as the legal advisor
to the committee.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAP Constitution & By-Laws Article XIII.
CAP Constitution & By-Laws Section 10, paragraph 10.1(c) (TO BE DELETED)
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
Sent to Governance Committee for action.

75

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 5j

CAP-USAF

Action

Governance
Author: Col Myrick

SUBJECT: SAV Close Out
PCR/CC – Col Myrick
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:

SAV’s are conducted prior to CI’s, and one of the purposes is to prepare the Wing for
the CI. However, the current CAPR 123-3 requires that all findings be closed before the
SAV is completed and a close-out letter is issued.
Generally, the actual CI occurs BEFORE all SAV items are closed out. This imposes a
double-reporting burden on the Wing. Since the CI team receives a copy of the SAV
and is aware of open items, the simpler solution is for the CI team to determine whether
the finding needs more work and include it in the CI report if it does.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve that all SAV’s will be considered complete once the
next Compliance Inspection is conducted. Open SAV items needing further attention
should be included in the CI report and closed IAW CI procedures.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
None.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur with CAP-USAF comments.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
CAP-USAF concurs. The SAV is conducted to provide the wing commander an
advance review of his/her programs in order to focus preparation for the upcoming CI.
That SAV report will be provided to the CI team in advance of the CI. At that point, the
SAV is closed. During the course of the CI, the CI team should review the status of all
areas that received SAV findings. Any areas that remain below standards should be
identified as findings in the CI report and tracked to closure.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
NLO - Concur, with the proviso that all regulations be changed to reflect the eservices
option as a compliant methodology, and that future regulations be amended as new
eservices capabilities come online without the necessity of further NB approval.
Senior Advisor/Ops: I concur with the recommended agenda action.

76

February 2010 National Board Minutes
Sr Advisor Support – Concur.
IG
Currently all Staff Assistance Visits (SAVs) conducted in preparation for an upcoming
Compliance Inspection (CI) are accomplished by CAP-USAF (not CAP) under the
provisions of CAP-USAFI 10-2701 paragraph 1.2.5, which states”
1.2.5. Staff Assistance Visits (SAVs) are used to help prepare a Wing for their joint
CAP/CAP-USAF Compliance Inspection (CI). A SAV will be conducted IAW the SOW,
CAPR 123-3, and CAP Wing Inspection Guide. The SAV should be timed to allow the
CAP Wing the opportunity to correct areas needing improvement prior to the actual CI;
typically six to nine months prior to the CI is the desired window. When feasible, SAVs
should be conducted as a joint CAP and CAP-USAF effort.”
CAP does NOT control CAP-USAF in the performance of their duties and for that
reason, the current CAPR 123-3 does NOT require the findings of SAV conducted by
CAP-USAF LR to be closed before the SAV is complete and a close out letter is issued.
The process for CAP-USAF conducted SAVs is solely their responsibility.
The current CPR 123-3 paragraph 10b which applies only to a SAV conducted by CAP
HQ, does say:
“b. SAVs Conducted by a CAP HQ.
(1) Two copies of the SAV report are furnished to the evaluated unit approximately 30
days after completion of the visit. Information copies are provided the next higher
headquarters. An electronic copy of all SAVs conducted of region and wing HQ,
preferable in Microsoft Word, will be forwarded to the IG Administrator.
(2) Replies of corrective action(s) to deficiencies are submitted to the assessing agency
that completed the SAV. Use an electronic format supplied by the assessing agency, as
a format for replying to SAV deficiencies.
(3) When all deficiencies are corrected, the appropriate IG and Commander of the
assessing agency will issue a SAV close-out letter to the assessed unit, with copies to
the next higher headquarters.”
The CI team receives a copy of the SAV for the wing to be inspected approximately 10
days prior to the scheduled CI. To date NO information of what findings are open or
closed in the SAV has ever been provided to the CI team prior to the CI.
If the status of the responses were provided and available during the CI, findings that
were found during the SAV and found by the CI team would then be a repeat finding
and certain Safety and FWA findings that were repeated could potentially force the wing
to cease operations.
The SAVs that are currently conducted by CAP-USAF have the sole purpose to help the
wing prepare for the CI. The wing should use this information and make any necessary
corrections.

77

February 2010 National Board Minutes
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 123-3, Civil Air Patrol Compliance Assessment Program
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL MYRICK/PCR MOVED and COL VAZQUEZ/MER seconded the PROPOSED
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.
There was clarification that the SAV and CI are joint programs conducted by the CAPUSAF liaison region. The SAV is to point out those things that will be written up and
needs to be taken more seriously nation-wide for both the SAV write-up parts of the CI
and follow-up on items written up in the CI in a timely manner.

THE MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Implementation of policy, notification to the field (with
command emphasis on helping move the items from the SAV to the CI to reduce the
number of open items), and change to CAPR 123-3, Civil Air Patrol Compliance
Assessment Program

78

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 6a
Awards

ED

Action

Aerospace Education

SUBJECT: Aerospace Education Mission Awards Process
Author: Col Saile
MIWG/CC – Col Saile
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
Each year, CAP honors outstanding Wings in each Region and the top three wings in
the country with an Aerospace Mission Award, based upon the annual AE Activity
Report from each Wing. However, a discrepancy exists in the current process. The top
three Wings in the country are currently selected from the top Wings in each Region
and not necessarily the three highest scoring Wings overall. This is not a fair process
and needs to be remedied.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That, effective immediately, the National Board approve that the top Wing in each
Region, and the three highest scoring Wings out of all 52 Wings be recognized with the
CAP Aerospace Education Mission Award, based upon submissions of the Annual
Aerospace Education Activity Report from each Wing.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
No additional cost.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
AE Advisor and Sr Advisor-Support: There are times when a Wing may not win the
Region AE mission award, yet will out score the winner of another Region. Despite the
higher score, however, under current policy the Wing is eliminated from the being
considered for the National Top Three because they did not win their Region. On
occasion, circumstances could allow a National Top Three with lower scores than
another wing. We recommend passage of this agenda item.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 280-2, Civil Air Patrol Aerospace Education Mission
CAPP 15, Aerospace Education Officers' Handbook
CAPP 215, Specialty Track Study Guide-Aerospace Education Officer
79

February 2010 National Board Minutes
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL SAILE/MI MOVED and COL LARSON/IL seconded the PROPOSED NATIONAL
BOARD ACTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Implementation of policy, notification to the field, and change to
CAPR 280-2, Civil Air Patrol Aerospace Education Mission; CAPP 15, Aerospace
Education Officers’ Handbook; and CAPP 215, Specialty Track Study Guide—
Aerospace Education Officer.

80

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 6b
Awards
Author: Col Hayden

ED

Action

Cadet Programs

SUBJECT: Quality Cadet Unit Award
NER/CC - Col Hayden & NHWG/CC - Col Davidson
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:

The most successful cadet units all seem to display the same characteristics: their
cadets are flying, earning promotions, attending encampment, renewing their
membership, recruiting their friends, etc. The hallmarks of a great cadet unit are no
secret.
To help put more squadrons on the road toward success, we need to motivate them to
focus on the fundamentals.
This proposal calls for creating a Quality Cadet Unit Award. Every unit that meets
certain criteria would earn the award. A big wing like California, for example, might set
a goal of having 30 squadrons earn the Quality Cadet Unit Award, and every unit would
know it could meet that goal if it works hard enough. In contrast, one shortcoming of the
Squadron of Merit Award / Squadron of Distinction Award programs is that every year
one, but only one, unit will win it, regardless of how many squadrons are performing
well. It’s also worth noting that SOM/SOD is entirely subjective, while the Quality Cadet
Unit Award would be based on objective criteria.
The Quality Cadet Unit Award would give all cadet units something to strive for. Such a
criteria-based award could help grassroots units focus on the Cadet Program’s
fundamentals. In turn, we would make a positive impact on how individual cadets
experience CAP.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board authorizes National Headquarters to establish a Quality Cadet
Unit Award program, as outlined below. This award would replace the Squadron of
Merit and Squadron of Distinction Award programs.
Goal: Motivate squadrons to excel in Cadet Programs by focusing units on the
fundamentals
Eligibility: All cadet and composite squadrons are eligible
Criteria: The award criteria are entirely objective. Any squadron that meets at least 5
of the 8 criteria listed below, as of 31 December of a given year qualifies for the award:
a. Cadet Achievement: 33% of cadets on roster have attained the Wright Brothers
Award
b. Orientation Flights: 40% of cadets on roster have participated in at least 1 flight
81

February 2010 National Board Minutes
c. Encampment: 40% of cadets on roster have completed encampment
d. Growth: Unit’s cadet roster increased by at least 10%, or 10 cadets during
previous year
e. Retention: Unit retained at least 40% of first year cadets during previous year
f. Enrollment: Unit has at least 25 cadets listed on its roster
g. Aerospace: Unit earned the Aerospace Excellence Award (AEX) during previous
year
h. Adult Leadership: Unit has at least 2 Training Leaders of Cadets graduates on
its roster
Award Elements: All units that qualify for the Quality Cadet Unit Award would receive
the benefits listed below.
a. Permission to place a Quality Cadet Unit Award emblem on the unit website
and letterhead
b. An award certificate
c. Permission to attach to the unit flag a blue and gold streamer, to be available
through Vanguard (style will be similar to the Squadron of Merit streamer).
Award Process: Each January, NHQ will examine data from the preceding calendar
year to determine winning squadrons. All squadrons are automatically considered for
the award and all winners will automatically be notified by NHQ – this is to be a “push
system” with no application process.
Amending the Program: NHQ is authorized to adjust the award criteria from year to
year, with permission of the National Commander.
Wing-Level Award. Further, in each region, the wing that has the highest percentage
of cadet units earning the squadron-level award will win the Wing-Level Quality Cadet
Unit Award. The award elements will be similar to those used for the squadron-level
award.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Approximately $100 per year for award certificates.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur. Members have responded very enthusiastically to this idea and criteria based
award would be an important new metric for the Cadet Program.
82

February 2010 National Board Minutes
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
NLO - Concurs, and suggests that the current National Commander’s Unit Citation
Ribbon be converted to a Quality Unit ribbon to recognize members of such units, such
ribbon to rank in precedence immediately below the Unit Citation ribbon.
Awards and Promotions Team and Sr Advisor Support:
We are in agreement with the basic idea of this agenda item, but do not believe that it
has been sufficiently staffed to refer to the NB. This lack of detailed evaluation resulted
in the failure of the old “CAP-MAP” award system. In addition, the cost and manpower
necessary for the award needs further consideration. A total cost of $100 per year is
not realistic, and we do not believe it is proper to have the receiving units purchase their
own streamer (current cost $35 per unit). We also believe that the Wing Commander
must have the final review on concurrence on all awards to his or her units.
Finally, we do not recommend the elimination of the Squadron of Merit/Distinction
Award. Winning these prestigious awards have been the goals of many squadrons
across the nation, and we believe the Quality Unit Award should supplement, not
replace, the SOM/SOD.
In order for these items to be addressed, we recommend this AI be referred to a joint
Cadet Programs/Awards Committee for return to the summer 2010 NB for final action.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 39-3, Award of CAP Medals, Ribbons, & Certificates
CAPR 52-16, Cadet Program Management
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL HAYDEN/NER MOVED and COL COOPER/NH (PROXY) seconded the
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION, amended as follows: (1) Withdraw the
second sentence of the motion; (2) Change the first sentence to read: That the
National Board authorizes National Headquarters to establish a Quality Cadet Unit
Award program, as outlined below, including a banner on the squadron flag, as
an incentive for working toward and achieving the Squadron of Distinction
Award.
COL HERRIN/NLO MOVED TO AMEND and COL ROBINSON/AL seconded the
amendment to provide direction to the Uniform Committee to develop an
appropriate ribbon or devise for members of a quality unit to wear on their
uniform.

THE MOTION TO AMEND DID NOT PASS
83

February 2010 National Board Minutes
COL PHELKA/CO MOVED TO REFER and COL WINTERS/OH seconded that the
board approve this motion, in concept, and refer to committee with guidance to
study the criteria and award elements, if any, and the study results brought
forward to the next NEC meeting.

THE MOTION TO REFER CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Referral to committee with a report to the May 2010 NEC
Meeting. Include in the May 2010 NEC Agenda.

84

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 7a

MD

Action

Operations
Author: Col Murrell

SUBJECT: Limited OPSEC Waiver
CAP/CS – Col Chazell
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:

Currently, Civil Air Patrol requires Operational Security (OPSEC) training for all CAP
members. The following is an excerpt of the OPSEC requirement as found in the
Operations area of the Emergency Service section of the CAP website:
“OPSEC is the basis for the protection of information that regardless of the designation,
the loss or compromise of sensitive information could pose a threat to the operations or
missions of the agency designating the information to be sensitive. All CAP members
have had to complete OPSEC Training and sign the non-disclosure agreement to
remain emergency services qualified since 30 March 2008.”
At this time, CAP offers memberships that are limited in scope to specific participation
that does not present exposure to the potential loss or compromise of sensitive
information; however, they fall under the definition of “all CAP members”. One example
of a limited member is the Aerospace Education Member (AEM). Other than
participating in the optional Teacher Orientation Program Flights, (TOP FLIGHTS), there
is no mission or operational participation and no exposure to vulnerable areas needing
OPSEC. As the statement reads, however, AEMS must complete OPSEC training in
order to participate. The AE Advisory Team is very concerned that this could place
undue burden on these limited members and discourage new membership and
retention.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve a waiver to exclude limited membership categories
from the OPSEC requirement.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Unknown.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur. The other limited membership categories the NB should consider in this
discussion are: Patron, Cadet Sponsors, Congressional, Legislative Squadrons, and
Honorary.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur. CAP should consider extension to other limited membership categories, as
well.
85

February 2010 National Board Minutes
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
Sr Advisor Support and the AE Team concurs with this agenda item. During TOP
FLIGHTS the AEM members are essentially acting as passengers on the flight similar to
our Cadets during Cadet Orientation flights. The AEM program has become a small but
vibrant contributor to the overall CAP mission and this AI will assist in its continued
growth.
Senior Advisor/Ops: If there is no potential for an AE member or any special category
member to obtain and disclose any Operational sensitive information, then I see no
objective to allowing that membership category to be excluded from the OPSEC
requirement. If a potential exists for a member in a special category to observe
sensitive information such as on an orientation flight or other activity then they should
be required to meet the OPSEC requirements.
NLO - Concurs and would suggest the waiver be expanded to patron members.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
To be determined.
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL CHAZELL/CS MOVED and BRIG GEN CHITWOOD/CV seconded that the
National Board approve a waiver to exclude limited membership categories from
the OPSEC requirement which, in addition to the Aerospace Education Member,
also includes Patron, Cadet Sponsors, Congressional, Legislative Squadrons,
and Honorary members.
COL BENCKERT/VT MOVED TO AMEND and COL ROBINSON/AL seconded the
amendment to exclude Cadet Sponsors from the limited membership categories
under discussion.

THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED
COL JENSEN/SWR MOVED TO AMEND and COL CORTUM/RMR seconded the
amendment to allow the National Headquarters staff the flexibility to adjust those
categories as circumstances they identify may permit.

THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED
The amended motion reads: “That the National Board approve a waiver to
exclude limited membership categories from the OPSEC requirements which in
addition to the Aerospace Education Member also includes Patron,
Congressional, Legislative Squadrons, and Honorary members, and allow the
National Headquarters staff the flexibility to adjust those categories as
circumstances they identify may permit.”

86

February 2010 National Board Minutes

THE AMENDED MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Implementation of policy, notification to the field, and change to
appropriate regulations and forms. NOTE: There was a request for the excluded list to
be specified.

87

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 7b

MD/XP

Action

Operations
Author: Col Miller

SUBJECT: Single Qualification Record
NVWG/CC – Col Miller
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:

In pre-computer days each Directorate developed its own forms to document
qualifications. As a result, members must carry a number of documents – 101 card,
CAP driver’s license, radio operator’s card, etc. Moreover, a number of achievements
are not documented on any of the existing forms, so members may need to carry a
SQTR. Examples would include survival training and various levels of first aid training.
In the computer age, there is no need for multiple documents to serve multiple
directorates.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve NHQ/IT develop a single printable form, similar to a
CAPF 101, which documents ALL qualifications tracked in eServices.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Unknown.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
If approved, NHQ/IT will work with the IT Committee to create and field the desired
form. NHQ will need additional clarification to determine whether this proposed form is
intended to replace the CAPF 101, the CAP driver license and the radio operator card
and how big (wallet size?) the NB wants this new consolidated document to be.
Although not all information for the license and operator’s card are currently tracked, we
can capture additional data within the Ops Qual system to meet the intent of this
agenda item. Due to the size, we recommend that SQTRs remain in their current
format.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
NLO: Concurs.
Senior Advisor/Ops: Concur with the recommended action.

88

February 2010 National Board Minutes
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
To be determined.
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL MILLER/NV MOVED and COL PHELKA/CO seconded the PROPOSED
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Staff action to implement policy, notification to the field, and
change to appropriate regulation.

89

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 7c

MD

Action

Operations
Author: Col Kuddes

SUBJECT: Changes to CAPR 60-1
Col Vazquez, Col Jensen, Col Kuddes
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:

CAP needs to readdress some aspects of the Standardization/Evaluation (Stan/Eval)
program in order to continue providing safe and proficient pilots for CAP missions.
These recommended policy changes affect the entire Stan/Eval program to include the
emphasis being placed at all levels of command from the national commander to region
commanders, wing commanders, unit commanders, Stan/Eval officers and all the way
down to the individual pilot. The changes are designed to ensure that CAP’s Stan/Eval
program is strong and effective in every region/wing. Supporting this agenda item will
give CAP’s instructor pilots and check pilots additional training/tools and the leadership
support they need to continue making critical decisions about our pilots. These
decisions are difficult at times but our instructor pilots and check pilots must fully
understand that CAP leaders will support them in ensuring only those pilots who are
satisfactorily trained/evaluated will continue flying CAP’s important missions. These
needed Stan/Eval program changes will help continue to instill confidence in our Air
Force partners that CAP should retain its currently assigned Air Force missions and the
changes will also help CAP gain support for more Air Force missions in the future. All of
these policy changes are designed to increase risk management and safety.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board increase the leadership oversight and strengthen the CAP
Stan/Eval program by doing the following:
1. National Stan/Eval will provide more oversight of the program through periodic
teleconferences between the National Stan/Eval Advisor and the Region DOVs to
discuss trends and special emphasis items. Trend Analysis will be strengthened to
reflect more detailed information.
2. In order to increase pilot proficiency, Wings will be authorized to use AF training
funds to help finance Pilot Flight Clinics for all CAPF-5 pilots, including those who are
not current or mission qualified. The clinics will offer a curriculum to include ground
school subjects and flight instruction in areas of need.
3. Wing Commanders will receive information/training from National Stan/Eval about
Stan/Eval issues including trusting the counsel of their DOs and DOVs before making
pilot related decisions (e.g. disciplinary actions, check pilot assignments, etc.),
understanding a positive check pilot selection process, recognizing and not rewarding
bad pilot judgment, and supporting the Wing DOV.
4. More oversight will be directed toward cadet orientation and AFROTC/AFJROTC
orientation pilots. Two of these objectives will be accomplished by modifying the CAPF5 with tasks specifically for cadet orientation and AFROTC/AFJROTC pilots. These
90

February 2010 National Board Minutes
tasks will require the pilot to review and discuss the syllabus before the flight and
include in-flight demonstrations, to the check pilot, of parts of an O-ride flight. The third
objective will be accomplished through recurrent training by requiring the online
orientation pilot exam to be taken every four years. It is now only required to be taken
once.
In a further effort to improve the Stan/Eval program at all levels, the duties of Region
and Wing Stan/Eval Officers will be expanded as follows:
5. Region DOVs or their designee will conduct CAPF-5 check rides for all Wing DOVs.
This will be funded with AF training funds.
6. Region/Wing DOVs will conduct no notice flight checks of check pilots and IPs during
organized region/wing activities.
7. Region DOVs will provide more oversight of their program through periodic
teleconferences with their Wing DOVs to discuss trend analysis and special emphasis
items. This should serve to bolster all wing Stan/Eval programs.
8. Wing DOVs will conduct one or more check pilot meetings a year to discuss trend
analysis, local issues, and special emphasis items. The form of these meetings (inperson, teleconference, web meeting etc.) will remain open to the needs and
capabilities of the Wing.
9. National will provide a confidential system that will make it easy for members to
submit reports of questionable pilot practices for referral to Region/Wing CCs, DOs and
DOVs for investigation and action.

ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
The cost associated with Region DOVs conducting flight checks for Wing DOVs. This
will be funded with AF training funds.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
CAP-USAF has great concern regarding the conduct of orientation rides, both for CAP
cadets and AFROTC/AFJROTC cadets. These AFAMs are no more important than
other AFAMs, however, whenever CAP conducts these missions, they bear a special
burden regarding the safety of the program and of the pilots conducting them. These
pilots operate the mission alone, with no safety observer or additional crew member.
The power differential between a young teenager and a CAP O-ride pilot is tremendous

91

February 2010 National Board Minutes
and imposes barriers against that cadet speaking up, even if they have the wherewithal
to recognize unsafe conduct or conditions. Mission briefing items/checklists should
encourage and promote input and feedback from all crewmembers and passengers. Oride pilots who fail to perform at the safe level demanded for AFAMs should ideally be
prevented through the normal means of standards enforcement, the CAPF 5 check ride
and the O-ride certification. While there are some outstanding wing Stan/Eval programs
and equally superior orientation ride programs, there have been a number of incidents
to indicate this process is not robust enough in its current form to prevent situations that
present a danger to cadets. There are many more instances where the conduct isn’t
unsafe, but degrades the value/benefit of the event for the cadet and the organization.
Stan/Eval programs also appear to vary widely from region to region, and even more,
from wing to wing. It is commendable that this agenda item seeks to apply consistent,
reliable standards to the Stan/Eval program nationwide. Obviously, this benefit will
accrue to all mission areas.
Trend analysis will enable earlier targeting of specific weak areas. With proper
feedback mechanisms, instructors and leadership will be able to provide targeted
training to reverse undesirable trends. Successful implementation will be completely
dependent on actually capturing performance data detailed enough to yield meaningful
analysis.
Special emphasis items are designed to mitigate or eliminate specific risks and/or
trends and are a vital part of a successful flight program. These interest items should
not only be pulled from trend analysis data, but should incorporate other sources such
as flight safety incidents/accidents, potential problems with equipment and/or
procedures, and “lessons learned” from operations evals, flight clinics, inspections,
Profile 7 sortie debrief items, and other events. In addition, special emphasis items
should be reviewed periodically by National Stan/Eval to capture the latest trend
information.
Flight Clinics can be an important component in improving overall proficiency/safety.
Appropriated funds are generally reserved for training that specifically addresses AFAM
qualifications (mission, transport mission, and cadet orientation ride certified pilots). To
expand beyond this pool would require strong rationale/justification and would certainly
require funded clinics to adhere to a recognized standard (e.g. FAA WINGS program).
In addition, expanding the Mission Pilot Proficiency Flight Profile 7 to include CAP
Orientation Pilots would benefit this group of pilots in both proficiency and professional
competence. This aspect would require further discussion prior to a CAP-USAF
decision on the use of appropriate funds.
CAPF 5 check rides that result in O-ride certification must sample elements of that
program. Additionally, only check pilots who are O-ride pilots should be certifying Oride pilots. The exam should be an annual requirement.
Accountability is required to maintain a professional program. Mandatory oversight by
region Stan/Eval will enhance standardization between the wings. A well documented
no-notice check ride program will also enhance accountability and provide valuable data
for trend analysis.
92

February 2010 National Board Minutes
While all these proposed aspects of a strengthened Stan/Eval process are
commendable and should improve reliability (and by extension, safety), they are still
subject to shortcomings in implementation at the individual wing/unit/check pilot level.
The FAA implemented a mandatory retirement age (65) for commercial airline pilots as
a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification precisely because it was determined to be too
difficult/impractical to determine job fitness on an individual basis. Despite the value of
the proposed changes, it may still be necessary to restrict the age of pilots performing
orientation rides where there is no additional crew member to intervene.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
Senior Advisor Operations: Concur with the proposed NB action with the following
additional requirement: Check pilots conducting CAPF 5 proficiency flights for cadet
orientation certification shall be qualified cadet orientation pilots also.
Senior Advisor Support: Concur with the Senior Advisor Operations comments.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 60-1, CAP Flight Management
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
The original agenda item 7c, Changes to CAPR 60-1, was withdrawn and a substitute
agenda item was presented (distributed to National Board members the previous day).
The above is the substituted item.
COL VANZQUEZ/MER MOVED and COL JENSEN/SWR and COL KUDDES/NCR
seconded THE PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION included in the substitute
Agenda Item 7c, Stan/Eval Program Changes.

THE MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Implementation of policy, notification to the field, and change to
CAPR 60-1, CAP Flight Management, and CAPF 5.

93

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 8a

OLD BUSINESS
SUBJECT: AE Officer of the Year

February 2009 National Board Meeting
Agenda Item 12
September 2009 National Board Meeting
Agenda Item 18c
AE Officer of the Year
PCR/CC – Col Pearson
FEBRUARY 2009 NB
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 Julie 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.
FEBRUARY 2009 NB
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approves naming the recently approved Aerospace Education
Officer of the Year ward after Lt Col Julie Zumwalt.
94

February 2010 National Board Minutes
FEBRUARY 2009 NB
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
None.
FEBRUARY 2009 NB
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.
FEBRUARY 2009 NB
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
No comment.
FEBRUARY 2009 NB
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

FEBRUARY 2009 NB
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 Julie 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:

95

February 2010 National Board Minutes
“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
September 2009 National Board Agenda.

September 2009 NHQ Comments:
Concur with AE National Advisor.

September 2009 CAP-USAF Comments:
No comment.

September 2009 ADVISOR/STAFF Comments:
Highlights of AE Letter to Sep 09 NB meeting addressing this item:
a. Wings and Regions submit candidates to the Education Programs Directorate/
Aerospace Education, who will in turn send them to the AE Advisor who will
appoint a committee to review and make recommendations. They should be submitted
directly by the wings and regions by a date to be determined.
b. A candidate’s submission should include a detailed presentation of biography
and history with accomplishments believed to elevate that candidate above all others.
c. The AE Advisor’s Committee will review each submission and select the top
three candidates. The selections along with comments from the committee members
will be submitted to the full National Board no less than 45 days prior to the next
National Board Meeting, at which time the National Board will either make the selection
or, if they do not believe the nominees rise to the occasion, re-open it to other candidate
nominations, at which time the process will begin anew.

September 2009 National Board Action

NO ACTION TAKEN. Item remains Open

96

February 2010 National Board Minutes

ACTION
February 2010 National Board
Committee Report:

WINTER 2010 NB
National Board Action:
COL GUIMOND reported that no candidate submissions for naming the Aerospace
Education Officer of the Year award, as requested at the September 2009 National
Board meeting, have been received to date, in a written form. He requested permission
to recognize Col Carter, VA Wing Commander, who has provided a verbal
recommendation, which is wholeheartedly supported by the AE team.
COL CARTER/VA MOVED and COL CHARLES/NATCON seconded that the
National Board approve naming the Aerospace Education Officer of the Year in
memory of Major General Jeanne M. Holm, USAF (Ret).

THE MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: This nomination will be vetted with General Holm’s family to
ensure that CAP has appropriate approval, after which there will be notification to the
field and change to appropriate regulations.

THIS ITEM IS CLOSED.

97

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 8b

OLD BUSINESS

SUBJECT: Organizational Missions - Elections

September 2009 National Board Meeting
Agenda Item 3
Organizational Missions - Elections
ALWG/CC – Col Oakman

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
There have been many advances in technology that has increased our corporate and
interpersonal communications capabilities across our organization. These advances
change the way in which the leadership could be vetted, interviewed, selected or
elected, and supported.
Behind the many ways elections and campaigns are run in our country, there are
supporting mechanisms that enable the process that exists: the media, the campaign
committees, the fund-raising process, etc. While CAP is a large organization, bearing
the costs of these check-and-balance systems may not be feasible. All of these
considerations should be reviewed.
As there are many choices for the ways in which CAP could select or elect our leaders
at the wing, region and national level, we should have a team of experts from our
membership assist us in determining the reasonable options.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
A. That the National Board direct the National Commander to select and charge a task
force to research and propose options for garnering our Executive Officers in CAP. The
“Executive Officer Selection/Election Task Force” will report all progress back to each
NEC, NB, and BoG meeting, providing final recommendations at the 2011 Winter
National Board meeting. The Task Force should be comprised of a minimum of the
following personnel:
Chairman

National Chief of Staff
National Legal Officer
National Human Resources
National Personnel & Member Actions
One National Executive Committee Member – Region Commander
One National Board Member – Wing Commander
One Squadron Commander – Level 4 – Level 5 Qualified
98

February 2010 National Board Minutes
B. That the National Board direct the NHQ staff and Volunteer staff to write/update
detailed job descriptions and develop qualifications and selection process of positions
for the NEC members and Region and Wing Commanders.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
To be determined.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
No comment.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Non-concur. The concept of unity of command would be significantly degraded if, for
instance, the wing commander was answerable only to the members of his wing. The
ability of the national commander or any region commander to implement national
policies and goals would be hindered if appointment/removal authority was removed
from their discretion. Wing and region commanders are not just corporate officers
representing their constituents at the national board. They are also commanders in a
military style hierarchy. As such, the organizational construct must also reinforce loyalty
up the chain toward the shared goals of the corporation.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
To be given at the meeting.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 20-1, Organization of Civil Air Patrol
CAPR 35-9, Board of Governor and Wing Commander Selection Procedures
CAP Constitution & Bylaws
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL OAKMAN/AL MOVED and COL HAYDEN/NER seconded the proposed
National Board action.
COL JENSEN/SWR MOVED TO AMEND and COL BROWN/AK seconded the
amendment that assignment of volunteer candidates as listed be voluntary with
the option that those individuals may agree or decline to participate and those
who agree to participate agree that they will not be a candidate for selection or
election by a process that they developed for at least the first cycle of election or
selection after the process is adopted.
RESTATED BY THE CHAIR. An amendment with guidance that candidates are
allowed to decline and that any candidates who accept cannot use the process with
which they are a part for the first cycle.
99

February 2010 National Board Minutes

THE AMENDMENT CARRIED
COL CHAZELL/CS MOVED TO AMEND and COL MYRICK/PCR seconded the
amendment that the list of members of the committee or Task Force include an
attorney — a national legal or legal officer appointed by the National Legal
Officer.

THE AMENDMENT CARRIED
COL WEISS/NFO MOVED and COL PHELKA/CO seconded to refer this item to the
Public Trust Committee.

THE MOTION TO REFER CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Referral to Public Trust Committee to work this issue, using
guidance provided during or after this meeting, and report back with recommend action.
Inclusion in the 2010 winter National Board agenda.

ACTION
February 2010 National Board

Committee Report: Public Trust Task Force

National Board Action:
There was note that this item has already been moved to the Governance Committee
and work is in progress. The current AL Wg/CC, Col Robinson, will provide additional
guidance to the committee (in lieu of removing the item since it is already in committee).
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Include in future agenda.

100

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 8c

OLD BUSINESS

SUBJECT: Revision and Update of CAPR 35-7:
Removal of National Commander and National Vice Commander

September 2009 National Board Meeting
Agenda Item 4
Revision and Update of CAPR 35-7: Removal of National Commander and
National Vice Commander
CAP/IG – Col Linker

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
CAP Regulation 35-7 promulgates procedures for removal of the CAP National
Commander and National Vice Commander. It was adopted 1 April 1997, prior to the
formation of the CAP Board of Governors. The BoG, which is the governing body of
Civil Air Patrol charged by the CAP Constitution to “govern, direct and manage the
affairs of the corporation”, does not, therefore, have a defined role in the removal of the
top elected leaders of CAP.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board direct the Constitution and Bylaws Committee to review CAPR
35-7 to consider necessary revisions and updates in recognition of the interests and
responsibilities of the Board of Governors in removal actions against the National
Commander and National Vice Commander. Any proposed revisions shall be
coordinated with the BoG and presented for consideration by the National Board in its
2010 winter meeting.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
No funding impact is anticipated.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
No comment.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur, however the review should include not only 35-7, but also 123-2 and the
Constitution and Bylaws to ensure the role and anticipated potential actions of the BoG
are clarified and described as fully as possible. This would necessitate the order of
101

February 2010 National Board Minutes
revision to ensure changes to the Constitution and Bylaws are approved by the BoG
prior to revision of CAPRs 35-7 and 123-2.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
(NLO) – Concurs.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 35-7, Removal of National Commander or National Vice Commander.
CAP Constitution and Bylaws.
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL LINKER/IG MOVED and COL RUSHING/SER seconded the proposed National
Board action.
COL SAILE/MI offered an informal recommendation that the Constitution & Bylaws
Committee look at the process used by the U. S. Senate to remove a member.
COL JANSEN/SWR offered an informal recommendation for the Constitution & Bylaws
Committee to seek guidance from the National Advisory Council on this important issue.
COL WEISS/NFO MOVED A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, and COL LEE/PA seconded
that CAPR 35-7 and/or CAP 123-2 be clarified as to the procedures involved to
remove the National Commander and/or National Vice Commander in accordance
with the current CAP Constitution & Bylaws or to synchronize the regulations
with the Constitution & Bylaws.
COL WEISS/NFO withdrew his substitute motion. Col Lee/PA concurred.
COL JENSEN/SWR MOVED A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, and COL MYRICK/PCR
seconded that the National Board take action to establish an Ad Hoc Committee
to study this important matter and bring recommendations and a report back to
the February 2010 National Board meeting. The Ad Hoc Committee would consist
of a small group of National Board members to be determined by the National
Commander; a small group of Constitution & Bylaws Committee members to be
determined by the Chairman of the Constitution & Bylaws Committee, and that a
request for representation on the Ad Hoc Committee also be sent to the Board of
Governors for its participation as it sees fit, and a request for participation by a
representative of the National Advisory Council for input on the matter.
MOTION RESTATED BY THE CHAIR: “that the National Board establish an Ad Hoc
Committee to study this important matter and bring recommendations and a report back
to the February 2010 National Board meeting. The Ad Hoc Committee would consist of
a small group with representation from the National Board, Constitution & Bylaws
Committee, Board of Governors, and National Advisory Council.”
102

February 2010 National Board Minutes
THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Naming of Ad Hoc Committee chair and members to study this
matter with a report back to the winter 2010 National Board meeting. Include in the
winter 2010 National Board agenda.

ACTION
February 2010 National Board

Committee Report:

National Board Action:
This item has already been moved to the Governance Committee and work is in
progress.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Include in future agenda.

103

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 8d

OLD BUSINESS

SUBJECT: Cadet Advisory Council Term Limits

September 2009 National Board Meeting
Agenda Item 9
Cadet Advisory Council Term Limits
WIWG/CC – Col Haffner
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
By current regulation, cadets are limited to serving two terms at each echelon (Group,
Wing, Region, National) on the Cadet Advisory Council. Therefore, a cadet who serves
as the Squadron CAC Representative to the Wing CAC for two years is not allowed to
serve a third year as the Wing CAC Recorder or Vice Chairperson. For a cadet to serve
in a leadership position on the Wing CAC, he or she would have to serve as the
Squadron Representative the first year and immediately be elected to the Recorder or
Vice Chair position the second year. Because of the two-year term limit, a cadet who is
appointed as the Squadron Representative may either never have enough time to be
elected to a leadership position, or be elected at too young of an age to be an effective
leader over the Wing CAC.
As a result of the term limits and number of younger and inexperienced cadets, these
CACs often have only a small number of senior cadets to provide the needed leadership
to ensure that the council performs successfully and maintains continuity between each
term.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve removing the two-year term limit per echelon from
Group and Wing CAC representatives, effective ___/___/___.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Minimal.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
CAC representatives have term limits so that we can allow as many cadets as possible
to serve. NHQ is generally opposed to extending the term because that would limit
opportunities for other cadets. This proposal assumes that cadets will serve as
assistant representatives, then primary representatives, and then as officers on the
council. Many wings and regions have found success with different paradigms while
104

February 2010 National Board Minutes
still adhering to the regulation’s policy. CAP NHQ suggests the National Board may
want to consider referring this issue to the National Cadet Advisory Council.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
No comment.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
Concur: National CAC Advisor.
Non-Concur: National Cadet Program Advisor and Senior Advisor for Support. Even
with the current term limits, only a minority of cadets will be able to experience service
as a CAC member at any level. Current term limits allow cadets as long as six years as
they progress through the wing, region, and national levels (8 yrs if the wing has a
group structure). By increasing term limits, this proposal will significantly reduce the
number of cadets who will receive the benefits of CAC training and experience. A cadet
serving as a representative on an active council with a dedicated officer advisor should
be well prepared to serve as a CAC officer at the same level the second year.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 52-16, Cadet Program Management
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL HAFFNER/WI MOVED and COL MYRICK/PCR seconded to refer the proposal
to remove the 2-year term limit per echelon from Group and Wing CAC
representatives to the National Cadet Advisory Council (NCAC).
THE MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Referral to NCAC. Include in the winter 2010 National Board
agenda.

ACTION
February 2010 National Board
Committee Report: See attached NCAC report.

National Board Action:
CADET/LT COL KING, Chairman of the NCAC, briefed the written report and stated that
final action would be proposed at the summer 2010 National Board meeting.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Include in the September 2010 National Board Agenda.
105

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 8e

OLD BUSINESS

SUBJECT: Making Accident / Incident Information available to Pilots

September 2009 National Board Meeting
Agenda Item 12
Making Accident / Incident Information available to Pilots

INWG/CC – Col Reeves

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
Currently, the information from accidents and incidents is not disseminated in a manner
to help prevent future accidents and incidents. For example, the IN Wing had its
second tail strike on a C182T. We had no information about what happened, only that
the aircraft was down. Later, I learned, by accident that the incident occurred during a
training exercise during a soft field take off maneuver. As a CFI and check pilot, this is
important information to know if we are to try and prevent future similar incidents. Any
information regarding the safety of flight, particularly involving flight training or check
rides should be disseminated to all pilots and particularly check pilots.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve making the Form 78, Safety Mishap Report and the
Form 79, Safety Report of Investigation available to all CAP members, effective
___/___/___.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Cost associate with eServices report development and establishment of duty position
permissions. New analysis report will require additional requirement definition from
Safety team.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
We agree that the information gained from incidents may be valuable in preventing
similar events; however, we feel that CAPF 78 and 79 are not the appropriate vehicle
for communicating this information. Instead, we propose the use of a sanitized
summary of flight and ground incidents that describe findings and recommendations
without unit or individual data.

106

February 2010 National Board Minutes
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Non-concur as written. It is important to the Civil Air Patrol mishap prevention program
to provide to the membership, lessons learned from accidents and incidents. This
feedback can help educate CAP and avert some mishaps in the future. Some mishaps
are already detailed in the monthly Sentinel newsletter. Providing full mishap accounts
to all members raises legal issues. See CAP NHQ comments.
The US Air Force has a monthly report called Blue 4 News where mishaps are
discussed openly. However, these incidents are sanitized and password protected.
Names, tail numbers, precise locations are edited to protect the individuals involved.
Therefore, the mishap can be used as a mishap prevention tool to other Air Force
members. These reports are kept secure by the unit safety officer and provided only
upon request. If CAP provided a more detailed, yet sanitized mishap and investigation
report for the membership and kept it secure, it would be an invaluable tool to the
organization.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
(NLO) – No recommendation. As a matter of information, release of these reports
beyond the current scope of distribution will not affect any privilege that might otherwise
shield these reports from discovery in litigation, provided that none of the reports are the
result of investigations undertaken pursuant to direction of counsel.
(NSE) – Non-Concur. Wing CCs have the capability of reading every Form 78/79 in
their wing as they are the one delegated to sign the 79 and concurring or making
changes to their wing Form 78/79 mishap reports. Why the CC had to “accidentally” find
this information regarding his own wing, I don’t know as the Form 79 only gets to the
NSE after it is signed by both the Wing and Region CC.
Senior Advisor for Support: Easy access to safety and accident information is always a
good idea. The best method of doing so is in question. We suggest that the Board
consider the appointment of a group of NHQ personnel and volunteers to investigate the
creation of a simple database similar to the federal database managed by the NTSB to
allow members at all levels to both search and access accident and incident data. The
database search option will allow a commander or activity director to customize the
search to areas of direct applicability to his or her activity. We believe that this task
could be completed by the Winter NB.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
Form 78, Safety Mishap Report
Form 79, Safety Report of Investigation

107

February 2010 National Board Minutes
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL REEVES/IN MOVED and COL CARR/GLR seconded that the National Board
refer this item to committee with guidance to make a sanitized summary of
information contained on Form 78, Safety Mishap Report, and Form 79, Safety
Report of Investigation, available to all CAP members.
THE MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Referral to committee with a report to the winter 2010 National
Board meeting.

ACTION
February 2010 National Board

Committee Report:

National Board Action:
COL HERRIN/NLO reported that the National Legal Team is coordinating this item and
a final recommendation will be made at the summer 2010 National Board meeting. The
chair accepted the report.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Include in the September 2010 National Board Agenda.

108

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 8f

OLD BUSINESS

SUBJECT: Conduct of Members Using Social Media

November 2009 National Executive Committee Meeting
Agenda Item 2
Conduct of Members Using Social Media
GLR/CC – Col Carr

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
Social media is a broad term that describes increasingly popular software tools and
techniques, primarily Internet based, that allows groups and individuals to engage in
peer-to-peer conversations and to exchange content. Current examples of social media
are YouTube, flickr®, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and many others.
The primary demographic of social media is young adults, ages 18-34. However, use
by other age groups is rapidly growing, including a reported 193% growth in users over
the age of 55.
Statistics on social media use vary wildly, including projections that there are currently
over 100 million active Facebook users daily, and that since its inception close to 5billion “tweets” have been sent over Twitter.
Social media outlets have had an enormous impact on global communications, most of
it positive. Groups and sites have formed for every imaginable interest, not the least of
which is the Civil Air Patrol. CAP has its own Facebook page with 4,753 fans.
(http://www.facebook.com/CAP.USAF.Aux?_fb_noscript=1), as well as a presence on
Twitter (http://twitter.com/CAP_USAF_AUX) with 883 followers. Twitter was even
used for emergency response (Southern California Wildfires) when other methods of
communications were unavailable or had failed.
Unfortunately, there is a dark side to social media use, just as there is with other
Internet technologies.
Inappropriate content – As with any form of personal expression, the topics discussed
and methods used are limited only by the user’s imagination. What may be innocent
communication to one person may offend the next. This is certainly true of the Internet.
People regularly post photographs displaying near or total nudity, public drunkenness
and antics of questionable safety and legality. Most such posters would be profoundly
embarrassed to disclose the same material to their parents, children, spiritual leader, or
CAP commander.
109

February 2010 National Board Minutes
Other, less obvious, offenses include public disagreements, which deteriorate into
“flame wars” and become the textual equivalent of hazing. Another easily envisioned
scenario is posting of text or photographs from Civil Air Patrol missions that are
classified as FOUO or otherwise not for public dissemination.
Malicious content – The popularity of social media sites has not been lost on those
who would use them for gain or crime. Virus, worms and other malicious program
delivery via social media sites has been on the rise since its inception. It is estimated
that up to 80% of all web sites are infected with some type of malware. Facebook has
had 8 documented vulnerabilities in less than one year. The reason that malicious
content works so well on social media sites is simple: There is an implicit trust of those
on one’s network or social circle, a willingness to share information, little or no identity
and the ability to run arbitrary code (in case of user-created apps) with minimal review.
This all adds up to users becoming an easy target for the bad guys and then
unknowingly distributing the content to their contact lists.
Illegal uses – Notwithstanding the distribution of malicious software, social media can
also be used for other illegal activities, the foremost of which is, predictably, the
solicitation of minors. Pages and posts can be, and too often are, configured to deceive
children and attract them to in-person meetings. Many social media outlets claim to
have controls in place, but unfortunately, the techniques of those who abuse social
media are always several steps ahead of such controls.
Recommendation
It should not be CAP’s intent to stunt use of social media. Rather, with the issues
discussed in the preface to this proposed action in mind, CAP needs to tell its members
what are CAP’s expectations for social media use.
Civil Air Patrol members are expected to behave professionally at all times, not just
while in uniform. This includes not only our appearance and speech, but in all ways we
comport ourselves in public. Our use of social media should be no exception to these
expectations.
Any CAP policy must distinguish guiding moral and ethical behavior from legal
requirements. This is challenging. On the one hand are the behaviors guided by, for
example, CAP Core Values, Ethics Policy and the bases for termination under CAPR
35-3. These standards provide the most concrete statements of CAP’s commitments to
member personal accountability insofar as they express CAP values, member fiduciary
obligations, avoidance of conflict of interest, respect, fairness and openness, good faith,
due care, and confidentiality. On the other hand, however, expressing these attributes,
controlling actions that conflict with them and the legal constraints imposed by the
United States Constitution and the Amendments to the Constitution (not to mention
State constitutions) are in natural tension. Simply forbidding any speech that interferes
with CAP Core Values, Ethics Policy, etc., is plainly unworkable.

110

February 2010 National Board Minutes
A functional policy must be one that can be understood and followed by all members
and that does not constrain a member’s speech. This policy proposal attempts to meet
those conflicting needs.
PROPOSED NEC ACTION:
That the National Executive Committee approve the following wording being added to
CAPR 35-3, Membership Termination:
Social Media. CAP, its commanders, officers, and staff shall not constrain any
communication by a member, whether senior or cadet, including without limitation use
of the Internet. Provided, however:
(1) CAP member generated material constituting “speech” shall not use either
sexually explicit or suggestive language, profanity, photograph or graphic material of
sexually explicit or suggestive or depictions of violence or mayhem;
(2) CAP member generated material constituting “speech” shall not violate any CAP
regulation or policy directive;
(3) CAP member generated material constituting “speech” shall not link or redirect
any person who may receive such material to any such proscribed material.
Violation. Violation of subparagraphs (1) through (3) may be deemed misconduct and
may be subject to adverse membership action including membership termination.
Before any adverse membership action is commenced for violation of this subpart of the
regulation, it shall be reviewed by the Wing Commander, Wing Legal Officer, and CAP
General Counsel. Any final adverse decision shall be reviewed by the National
Commander or his or her designee.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
None.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Non-concur: Due to considerations of First Amendment rights (Freedom of Speech),
enforcement is very unlikely beyond making it clear that members participating in Social
Networking Media in their individual capacity have no authority to speak for Civil Air
Patrol.
In addition, Civil Air Patrol may properly enforce protection of non-authorized use of its
logos, brands, and symbols in a Social Networking environment.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur with National Staff comments.
111

February 2010 National Board Minutes
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
Senior Advisor - Support: The entire Support Section agrees that social media has
become a major factor in our lives with both a positive and negative side. The USAF
and DOD have been struggling with this issue for some time; however, members of the
armed services are subject to the UCMJ which is not the case in CAP.
A review of the proposed Agenda Item indicates that there are several areas which may
have substantial legal issues involved. For that reason we recommend that the NEC
refer this to a committee comprised of both NHQ and volunteer staff (including the CAP
General Council) to develop recommendations on this important issue and report back
to the NEC at the spring 2010 Meeting.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 35-3, Membership Termination.
NEC ACTION:
COL CARR/GLR MOVED and COL MYRICK/PCR seconded that the National
Executive Committee approve sending this item to an appropriate committee for
consideration and return to the appropriate body (no guidance provided by the
maker of the motion).

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Referral to a committee to be created by the National
Commander, with the following guidance: (1) Legal officer people who are aware of
social media to review the internet policy; (2) Committee will be requested to send
status interim reports at each of the next upcoming meetings until the final report.
Include in the winter 2010 National Board agenda.

ACTION
February 2010 National Board
Committee Report: The Social Media Committee is being formed with representation
from all appropriated areas. The National Commander has approved the National
Public Affairs Team Leader, Maj Al Pabon as Chairman. NHQA has designated Mr.
Marc Huchette as their representative. A formal report will be submitted to the 2010
summer National Board meeting.

112

February 2010 National Board Minutes

National Board Action:
The chair noted that another report will be given at the summer 2010 National Board
meeting.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Include in the September 2010 National Board Agenda.

113

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 8g

OLD BUSINESS
SUBJECT: Air Patrol Ribbon

November 2009 National Executive Committee Meeting
Agenda Item 3
Air Patrol Ribbon
NER/CC – Col Hayden

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
The Civil Air Patrol has performed many types of “patrol” missions that do not meet the
criteria for award of either the Search and Rescue Ribbon or of the Disaster Relief
Ribbon. Examples of these types of missions include fire patrols, sundown patrols, bay
patrol, as well as counter drug flights. We have also been taking on additional missions
in support of Homeland Security that require our members to give of their time and
talents, for which they should be recognized.
Proposed Criteria: Participate actively in at least ten patrol watch sorties as an aircrew
member occupying any crewmember station. A bronze clasp is awarded for each
additional ten sorties. A silver clasp replaces five bronze clasps. All sorties must be in
support of patrol watch missions authorized by competent authority. The same would
apply to each mission staff member who gives of their time to supervise and/or assist
with these missions. Each mission staff sortie would be a minimum of four hours of
mission staff time.
PROPOSED NEC ACTION:
That the National Executive Committee approve the proposed Air Patrol Ribbon and
corresponding miniature medal criteria. That they also instruct the National Historian to
research an appropriate design and the Uniform Team to determines the appropriate
position for this ribbon in the Order of Precedence.
Alternative motion: Rename the Counterdrug Ribbon the Air Patrol Ribbon and
incorporate all the various patrol type flying missions and related mission staff
participation requirements into criteria for this award.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
None. After design and approval, CAPM 39-3 and CAPM 39-1 will require updating and
a vendor must be selected for production and sale.

114

February 2010 National Board Minutes
If the alternative motion is used, new designs would not be required.

CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Defer to the Senior Advisor/Support comments.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
None.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
Senior Advisor – Support: Awards and Promotion Team Leader and the Senior
Advisor Support favor recognizing the efforts of these members. We do, however,
recommend that this Agenda Item be referred to the Winter NB where award and
uniform issues have been traditionally handled.
In addition, we believe that this award is too restrictive and the opportunity to earn it
would be available to only a small percentage of members. We recommend that the
award criteria be opened to allow the award to include other similar missions such as
coastal patrol, fire watch, Surrogate Predator, etc. We also suggest that the award
criteria be expanded to include all participating members, not only air crews. This delay
would also allow the Agenda Item to be fully staffed including the design of the ribbon
with the assistance of the National Historian.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPM 39-3, Award of CAP Medals, Ribbons, and Certificates
NEC ACTION:
COL HAYDEN/NER MOVED and COL HERRIN/NLO seconded the PROPOSED NEC
ACTION.
COL JENSEN/SWR MOVED and COL VAZQUEZ/MER seconded to refer this
information to the Uniform Committee with input from the Heraldry Committee
and bring back to the winter 2010 National Board Meeting.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Referral to the Uniform Committee to work with Heraldry and
include in Uniform Committee Report at winter 2010 National Board. There was
clarification that in considering the Air Patrol Ribbon, the Uniform Committee has broad
latitude to provide criteria and bring forth suggestions for recognition of other missions
and things that could be included in this proposal.

115

February 2010 National Board Minutes

ACTION
February 2010 National Board

Committee Report:
The Awards and Uniform Teams, in conjunction with the Operation Section recommend
the Air Patrol Ribbon should be approved using the following criteria:
1. Applies for any USAF Approved Mission in the A or B category that does not qualify
for an existing ribbon or award, such as SAR, DR, and CD. C Missions do not count
toward the award. Members must complete 10 sorties to earn the award or each
additional device on the ribbon
2. Aircrew members obtain one sortie for each flight successfully completed.
3. Ground Team Members obtain one sortie credit for each 4 hours in the field in
support of a qualifying mission
4. Mission staff members obtain one sortie credit for each 4 hours they participate as a
mission staff member on a qualifying mission.
5. Ribbon/Medal design as presented by National Historian should be accepted
6. Still need to determine the order of precedence for this ribbon on the uniform

National Board Action:
COL MOSLEY made the following changes to the printed Committee Report:
1. Change paragraph 1, line 1: Insert between “category” and “that” the following
words: “and any C Missions that are approved by NHQ/DO or the NOC as C-14 flights.”
2. Delete the second sentence, which reads: “C Missions do not count toward the
award.”
The revised first paragraph of the Committee Report reads:
“1. Applies for any USAF Approved Mission in the A or B category and any C Missions
that are approved by NHQ/DO or the NOC as C-14 flights that do not qualify for an
existing ribbon or award, such as SAR, DR. and CD. Members must complete 10
sorties to earn the award or each additional devise on the ribbon.
116

February 2010 National Board Minutes
COL JENSEN/SWR MOVED TO REFER and COL MYRICK/PCR seconded that the
National Board refer to committee.

THE MOTION TO REFER CARRIED
An issue was raised that there are two issues to be considered—the award and the
ribbon on the uniform.
COL CARR/GLR MOVED TO RECONSIDER and COL BENCKERT/VT seconded
that the National Board reconsider the previous vote.

THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER CARRIED
COL PARRIS/CA MOVED and COL LEE/PA seconded that the National Board
approve the Air Patrol Ribbon (award criteria only), as presented.

THE MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Implementation of policy, notification to the field, and change to
appropriate regulation.
COL JENSEN/SWR MOVED TO REFER and COL LEE/PA seconded that the
National Board refer the ribbon design and designation to the Uniform
Committee.

THE MOTION TO REFER CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Referral to committee and include in a future agenda.

117

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 8h

OLD BUSINESS

SUBJECT: Membership Application – Proof of True Identity

November 2009 National Executive Committee Meeting
Agenda Item 7
Membership Application – Proof of True Identity
NER/CC – Col Hayden

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
Recent Homeland Security reports indicate terrorist groups could be joining “open door”
volunteer organizations such as Civil Air Patrol in order to gain security information
and/or gain access to military uniforms. Nowhere in CAPR 39-2 or the Change letters
of 20 December 07 and 4 September 08 do we require true and complete proof of
identification when a potential new member submits a CAPF 12 or 15. Even though
they are required to include a “Volunteer” fingerprint card, there is no accompanying
proof that the prints were taken by law enforcement requiring full identification of the
applicant. In fact anyone’s prints could be on the form as the ink rollers used are
available even for home use.
PROPOSED NEC ACTION:
That the National Executive Committee approve the requirement for all persons
applying for membership in the Civil Air Patrol to provide proof of true identification
using the same optional forms of true identification required by the instructions
accompanying the Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9. (In the case of a cadet
applicant without such documentation, a birth certificate and school report card will
suffice.) The method of identification used will be indicated on the CAPF 12 and 15 but
the numbers associated with the forms of identification will not be recorded. The unit
commander accepting the application will thus attest to reviewing and authenticating the
identification items used,
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
To be determined.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Non-concur:
Requirement and retention for reporting purposes of additional
identification (ID) would potentially expose Civil Air Patrol to liability if said information is
illegally accessed and utilized in credit scams and identity theft.
118

February 2010 National Board Minutes
Although we do not currently require proof of identity, our fingerprint system will tell us if
the SSN, name and date of birth do not match the information in their files. We would
be especially concerned about including cadets in this requirement. Many 12 year old
cadet applicants do not have any form of picture ID. All schools do not issue ID cards
and we have a number of home-schooled students.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur with agenda item. CAP-USAF realizes cadets may not satisfy the proposed
identification requirement and therefore recommends this item be referred to committee
to develop a course of action.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
Senior Advisor – Support: Senior Advisor Support agrees with the development of a
uniform proof of identity, however, the proposed action as written may cause substantial
difficulty. Many school age children are not issued a photo ID card at their school,
especially in elementary schools and some middle schools.
We are also concerned with potential identity theft issues including possible retention in
local unit files of sensitive documents such as birth certificates, passports, etc. We
therefore recommend that this be referred to committee to develop a recommended
policy for both senior and cadet members. The committee to be directed to report back
to the spring NEC Meeting.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 39-2, Civil Air Patrol Membership; CAPF’s 12 & 15
NEC ACTION:
COL HAYDEN/NER MOVED and COL HERRIN/NLO seconded the PROPOSED NEC
ACTION.
COL VAZQUEZ/MER MOVED TO AMEND and COL JENSEN/SWR seconded the
amendment to change the first line of the motion to strike the words “all
persons,” and add the words “all persons, except cadets.”
Following discussion regarding different ages and categories of membership, the
following motion was made:
COL HAYDEN/NER MOVED and COL KUDDES/NCR seconded to refer this matter
to a committee.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

119

February 2010 National Board Minutes
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: This issue will be staffed by legal, Headquarters membership,
and others to be determined. Guidance to the committee: (1) Recommendation that
fingerprint cards be done by a law enforcement agency to reduce forgeries: (2)
Recommendation to consider live scan fingerprinting rather than ink fingerprints on the
card; (3) Consideration of retroactive action. Interim report at winter 2010 National
Board and final report at May 2010 NEC. Inclusion in winter 2010 National Board and
May 2010 NEC agendas.

ACTION
February 2010 National Board

Committee Action: Interim Report

COL HERRIN/NLO gave the following Interim Report: He reported that the committee
needs to coordinate an issue with regard to describing how fingerprint cards will be
gathered if they are not done at a law enforcement agency where they attest to proof of
identify of the individual whose fingerprints are being taken. If that is not ascertained,
then the data collection problem will have to be worked until May when a final report will
be given. The chair accepted the report.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Include in the May 2010 NEC Agenda.

120

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 8i

OLD BUSINESS

SUBJECT: Identification Cards for CAP Members

November 2009 National Executive Committee Meeting
Agenda Item 14-2
Identification Cards for CAP Members
PCR/CC – Col Myrick

2. ITEM: Identification Cards for CAP Members
COL MYRICK/PCR presented CAP ID Card Discussion Points, as of October 2009
containing a two-part proposal:
(1) To make picture ID cards mandatory for all senior members by 1 January 2011
(currently only an option), and
(2) To form a committee to study the feasibility of getting a “Government issued” ID
card.
COL MYRICK/PCR MOVED and COL JENSEN/SWR seconded that the National
Executive Committee approve a 2-part motion: (1) That the current picture ID with
the absence of the member’s rank and unit number will be required for all senior
members by 1 January 2011, as described, and (2) An ad hoc or special
committee to review the “Government issued” ID card project.
COL CHARLES/NC MOVED TO AMEND to strike the implementation date of 1
January 2011 under Part (1).
THE MOTION TO AMEND FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND
COL MYRICK/PCR MOVED TO AMEND and COL HERRIN/NLO seconded the
amendment to strike Part (1) of the motion.
THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED
THE AMENDED MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: The following named committee as approved in Part (2) of the
motion to further review “Government Issued” ID card project: Col Myrick/PCR, Chair;
Members: An additional region commander appointed by the CAP/CC; Mr. Huchette
NHQ/PA or designee; a CAP-USAF representative appointed by Col Ward; Lt Col Ned
121

February 2010 National Board Minutes
Lee, National Cadet senior advisor; Col Chazell/CS, or designee; Col Herrin/NLO, or
designee. Include interim report in February 2010 National Board agenda, May 2010
NEC agenda and each succeeding National Board or NEC meeting until a final report.

ACTION
February 2010 National Board

Committee Action: Interim Report
COL MYRICK/PCR provided an interim report and stated that he would propose action
on Part I at the May 2010 NEC meeting. During the discussion that followed, input was
given to the committee working this issue.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Include in the May 2010 NEC Agenda

122

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 8j

OLD BUSINESS

SUBJECT: National Staff College Prerequisites for NCOs

September 2009 National Board Meeting
Agenda Item 17
National Staff College Prerequisites for NCOs
MIWG/CC – Col Saile

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
Currently, CAPR 50-17 requires CAP Senior Members hold the grade of Major or above
as a prerequisite to attend National Staff College. Since this original requirement was
set, CAP has introduced the concept of a reinvigorated non-commissioned officer corps,
but without any formal professional development training programs at the National level
for these NCOs.
NCOs who have attained the grades of E-7 through E-9 should be allowed to participate
as students at National Staff College if all other prerequisites have been met until such
time as CAP develops a National level CAP Senior NCO Course.
Further, each Wing, each Region, and the National Commander are currently asked to
have a Chief Master Sergeant of the Wing, Region and Civil Air Patrol, respectively.
This person earned this grade in the military service by attaining an E-9 pay grade.
While they know much about the role of an NCO, they don’t always know enough about
their role in CAP. By allowing their participation in the National Staff College, they
would get an in-depth indoctrination in to the CAP culture at the highest level and the
students at the NSC would also be able to benefit from a Chief’s NCO experience
formed in the military. This could prove especially beneficial for all when working in
seminar study groups that recommend policy changes command wide.
A Chief Master Sergeant, by virtue of their earned grade, would already be a graduate
of a service Senior NCO Academy, which is an equivalent course for Region or National
Staff College credit, so the Region Staff College prerequisite for NSC for these
members would be null as far as attaining Level IV or Level V.
This latter part of the agenda item reflects what I believe is CAP's obligation to: (1)
provide executive-level development for Chiefs to better serve CAP ; (2) honor their rise
to the top 1% of the USAF enlisted corps in service to our nation ; and (3), bring
prominence to the Command Chief position. And finally, it adds some impetus to help
achieve our objective of greater use of all NCOs, active and retired, in CAP---especially
as mentors to our cadets.
123

February 2010 National Board Minutes
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve the following resolutions, effective ___/___/___:
Resolved, that CAPR 50-17 be changed immediately to permit the enrollment in Civil Air
Patrol’s National Staff College of Civil Air Patrol senior members in the enlisted grade of
E-7 through E-9 who have completed Level IV of the CAP Senior Member Professional
Development Program; and Be it further resolved that CAPR 50-17 be changed
immediately to permit the enrollment in Civil Air Patrol’s National Staff College of Civil
Air Patrol senior members in the grade of E-9 who are currently serving as a Wing,
Region or National Chief Master Sergeant with the permission of their National
Commander, Region Commander or Wing Commander, as applicable, with no other
requirements necessary.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
None.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
HQ CAP/PD is making arrangements for 2009 NSC and will align arrangements and
admissions to whatever the NB decides.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
Professional Development Advisor and Senior Advisor Support recommend that the
National Board authorize 2 slots for a Civil Air Patrol member in the grade of E-9 be
opened for the 2009 NSC. The NHQ and volunteer staffs will then, in consultation with
the attending Chiefs, be able to make recommendations to the Board and the
committee working on the CAP NCO Corps prior to formal changes to the applicable
CAP regulations.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 50-17, CAP Senior Member Professional Development Program.
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL SAILE/MI MOVED and COL CARR/GLR seconded the proposed National
Board action with the caveat that National Board has proposed a test period be
employed to see if this will work. The test period would allow three members
serving as Chiefs at the wing, region or national level to attend this year’s staff
college as a test program see if there is value for the Chiefs to attend National
Staff College, either as a student or as a mentor for the other students. If the test
124

February 2010 National Board Minutes
program is adopted postponement of this motion would be until after completion
of the test period. The test period would have immediate effect for the fall of
2009.
MOTION RESTATED BY THE CHAIR: The motion is in two parts. PART I: Proposal
for the test period of this item for the 2009 National Staff College, as described. PART
II: A report from National Headquarters to the winter 2010 National Board as to whether
the program is cost effective.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Implementation of the test program (plans already in progress)
at the 2009 National Staff College, with a report to the winter 2010 National Board
meeting. Inclusion in the winter 2010 National Board agenda.

ACTION
February 2010 National Board

Staff Report on test program
See attached report.

National Board Action:
COL COOPER/NH (PROXY) and PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISOR briefed
the written report, which recommends that the attendance of NCOs at National Staff
College be limited to Chiefs.
COL COOPER/NH MOVED and COL BISHOP/OR seconded that the National Board
approve that: (a) Command Chiefs be required to attend NSC within 2 years of
appointment as a Command Chief, providing they meet all the other requirements
to attend NSC with the exception of the grade of Major; (b) All other Chief Master
Sergeants be allowed to attend NSC providing they meet all other requirements to
attend NSC with the exception of the grade of Major; and (c) Attendance for NCOs
be limited to E-9s.

125

February 2010 National Board Minutes
COL PHELKA/CO MOVED TO AMEND and COL CORTUM/RMR seconded the
amendment that, in addition to the grade Chief Master Sergeant, other senior
NCO grades (Master Sergeants and Senior Master Sergeants) be considered for
attendance at NCS, with approval of the region commander.

THE MOTION TO AMEND DID NOT PASS
In response to a question as to which would have priority to attend NSC, a senior
member Major or a Command Chief, Col Herrin/NLO offered an opinion that attendance
at a senior leadership school would be a prerequisite to achieving the rank of Chief
Master Sergeant, therefore, the priority should go to the senior member who has not
attended a senior leadership school.
COL WEISS/MD noted that the education system (ES) for CAP NCOs has not yet been
defined. He added that the board needs to differentiate between the Command Chiefs
who have already completed senior leadership schools versus the E-8 who wants to
become an E-9 in CAP. Also, if the NCO ES, once defined, requires the NSC as a
requirement to become an E-9 CAP NCO, then they need to be considered in the same
way in a developmental program. And for those who have attended an E-9 academy for
their service, another venue could be used to give them equivalent exposure for CAP,
such as the Commanders’ Course.

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 (Changed from
“the grade of Major or above” to read: “the grade of Major or above or the rank of Chief
Master Sergeant.”

126

February 2010 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 9
SUBJECT: New Business

a. Diversity
COL CHAZELL/CS MOVED and COL CHARLES/NATCON seconded that the
National Board adopt the following RESOLUTION on diversity: (Reference was
made to the Public Trust Committee briefing by Col Kavich, as well as the
presentation by Brig Gen Wilma Vaught, USAF (Ret), earlier in the meeting):
“BE IT RESOLVED, on this 27th day of February 2010 that the National Board of
Civil Air Patrol has determined there is a compelling interest to achieve a diverse
membership and leadership in the Civil Air Patrol; and
“That in furtherance of this compelling interest, the National Commander will
establish a Civil Air Patrol Diversity Committee; and
“The Civil Air Patrol Diversity’s Committee’s tasking will be facilitated by a
demonstration of support by the National Board of the Civil Air Patrol and;
“That the National Board echoes the conviction of General Norton Schwartz,
Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force that diversity is a strategic imperative
putting together our creativity and innovation; and
“That the National Board further challenges the Civil Air Patrol Diversity
Committee to produce a plan with specific measurable, actionable, and realistic
objectives to achieve this goal.”

THE MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTIONS: (1) The National Commander establish CAP Diversity
Committee; (2) Committee tasked to produce a plan with specific measurable,
actionable, and realistic objectives to achieve the stated goal; (3) Include in future
agenda.

b. Public Trust Committee Selection Guidelines
COL SAILE/MI MOVED and COL GRIFFITH/IN seconded that the National Board
task the Committee on Public Trust to develop National Team and Committee
Selection Guidelines to include term of appointment, notification of vacancies,
selection process, application requirements, and time lines, etc.

THE MOTION DID NOT PASS
127

February 2010 National Board Minutes

c. Life Membership for Lt Gen Searock, USAF (Ret)
MAJ GEN COURTER/CC MOVED and BRIG GEN CHITWOOD/CV seconded that
the National Board approve a Life Membership for Lt Gen Charles Searock, USAF
(Ret) for his service on the CAP Board of Governors, effective immediately.
THE CHAIR (COL HERRIN/NLO) ENTERTAINED A MOTION TO APPROVE BY
ACCLAMATION.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Presentation of CAP Life Membership to Gen Searock.

128

February 2010 National Board Minutes

ADMINISTRATIVE ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Update remarks and slide briefings were presented by Maj Gen Courter, National
Commander; Mr. Rowland, Executive Director; and Col Ward, USAF, CAP-USAF
Commander. Remarks were also given by Col David (Buck) Walter, Executive Vice
President, Air Force Association, who also presented a video on the Cyber Patriot
Program. Also, a Safety briefing was presented.
Distinguished members and guests were recognized including members of the head
table; other members of the NEC; the National Headquarters staff; the volunteer
National Staff; Brig Gen Richard Anderson, Member of the Board of Governors (and
new statesman from Virginia); Col Glen Atwell, CAP Life Member; the CAP-USAF
staffs--HQ and liaison region commanders; Col David T. (Buck) Buckwalter, USAF
(Ret), Executive Vice President, Air Force Association; Mr. R. Philip Deavel, SAF/MR;
Col Sharon Olbeter, Office of SAF/MR, Director of Air Force Auxiliary Programs—Civil
Air Patrol; and Brig Gen Wilma Vaught, USAF (Ret), former member of the U. S. Military
Processing Command with a distinguished 28-year career. After retirement she
became President of the Women’s Memorial Foundation where she led the
establishment of the Women in Military Service for America Memorial located at
Arlington Cemetery, and has supported CAP in its Wreaths Across America event.
Maj Gen Courter announced with regret the loss of a great friend who served CAP as a
long-time member of the Congressional Squadron: United States Representative John
T. Murtha from Johnstown, PA, the first Vietnam War Veteran to serve in Congress died
February 8 from complications following gallbladder surgery. Representative Murtha
joined the Congressional Squadron in the mid-1980s and became a big supporter to
CAP, in Washington and Pennsylvania. Many times he was instrumental in helping
restore the organization’s federal appropriations, as well obtaining support for
squadrons in the PA Wing. Gen Courter noted his many decorations and awards
throughout his illustrious military career as well as many achievements in Congress.
She asked for a moment of silence to honor Representative John T. Murtha and
remember everything that he has done for CAP and America.
Maj Gen Courter recognized that Lt Gen Charles Searock, USAF (Ret) will complete his
term on the Board of Governors in May, and, while he is unavailable to be at this
meeting, thanked him for his service to Civil Air Patrol. She added that he will continue
as a proud member of CAP.
Brig Gen Chitwood/CV announced the following named new commanders and Maj Gen
Courter presented heir National Board badges:
NER Col Cassandra Hutchko, CT Wing
Col William Meskill, MA Wing

24 Feb 2010
14 Oct 2009

MER Col Hubbard Lindler, SC Wing
Col Dennis Barron, WV Wing

20 Feb 2010
25 Oct 2009

GLR Col Richard Griffith, IN Wing

13 Feb 2010
129

February 2010 National Board Minutes
SER Col Lisa Robinson, AL Wing
Col Tonya Boylan, GA Wing

6 Feb 2010
3 Nov 2009

NCR Col Teresa Schimelfening, SD Wing

23 Jan 2010

SWR Col Cecil (Art) Scarbrough, LA Wing

5 Sep 2009

RMR Col Jerry Wellman, UT Wing (not present)

26 Sep 2009

Brig Gen Chitwood/CV recognized the following named departing National Board
members and expressed appreciation for their service:
NER Col Kenneth Andreu, NY Wing
MER Col Gerard Weiss, MD Wing
GLR Col Donald Haffner, WI Wing
NCR Col Robert Todd, NE Wing
Col Karl Altenburg, ND Wing
PCR Col Carl Brown, AK, Wing
Col David Maxwell, WA Wing

Col Chazell/CS announced the appointment of Col Mike Murrell as the new Senior
Advisor for Operations, effective 28 February 2010. Col Chazell expressed appreciation
to Col Skiba, outgoing Senior Advisor for Operations, for his professionalism and great
service to CAP.
A Distinguished Service Award was presented to Col Andrew Skiba for providing
outstanding performance of duty to CAP during the period 8 January 2008 – 27
February 2010, as Senior Advisor for Operations.
The General Ira C. Eaker Award, the third milestone in the Cadet Program, was
presented to Cadet/Lt Col Ryan Horton, RI Wing, who was the 2,124 cadet to earn this
award since its inception in Dec 1995. After earning this award, Cadet Horton was
promoted to Cadet/Lt Col and is eligible to test for the General Carl A. Spaatz Award.
Mr. Rowland/EX expressed appreciation to all the members for their efforts at
Legislative Day, which appeared to be very successful. He asked commanders who
have not done so to fill out the requested feedback reports
Maj Gen Courter reported that CAP-USAF/CC & CV, Brig Gen Chitwood and she, as
well as all the region commanders meet with the National Cadet Advisory Council over
lunch and received a very comprehensive report on the great work they are doing. She
expressed appreciation for their efforts throughout the nation.
130

February 2010 National Board Minutes
Maj Gen Courter stated that earlier this year she was contacted by Mr. Tilford
Thompson of Norfolk and Suffolk Aviation Museum, located in Suffolk, England. The
museum is assembling memorabilia for a Civil Air Patrol display, and requested our
assistance in supplying specific materials. Each wing commander has been collecting
available patches from their respective units, along with the wing patch, and a cover
letter giving a short description and history of the wing. She asked that and each region
commander to come forward to submit these. She also asked Col Blascovich, National
Historian to come forward. She noted, as shown on the screen, items already displayed
in their museum—an original CAP Fairchild aircraft, with CAP markings, that was
stationed at a patrol base in Rhode Island. Col Blascovich thanked the region
commanders for giving all the patches for the collection. Gen Courter expressed
appreciation to the board and to each unit in the field for collecting and bringing these
forward and bring CAP memorabilia around the world.
Maj Gen Courter announced that Ms. Susie Parker was voted the Most Valuable Player
for this meeting, and expressed appreciation for all that she does to support the board
and help them move forward. She was presented with a desk clock.
CHAP, COL WOODARD gave the benediction.
COL HERRIN/NLO MOVED and COL EGRY/DE seconded that the National Board
adjourn.

THE MOTION CARRIED.
THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1658 ON SATURDAY, 28 FEBRUARY 2010.

131