File #1314: "National Board Minutes_2012_03_draft_.pdf"

National Board Minutes_2012_03_draft_.pdf

PDF Text

Text

DRAFT

Civil Air Patrol
National Board
Minutes
(As of 6 April 2012)

2-3 March 2012
Washington DC

2-3 March 2012
Contents
OPEN SESSION
Reports
1.

Advisor, Executive, Staff and Committee Reports ........................ Col Chazell....... 5

Action Agenda Items
Governance
2. Approval of the August 2011 National Board Minutes .................. Col Chazell....... 6
Operations
3. Aircrew Emergency Training Course ............................................ Col Chazell....... 7
4. CAP G-1000 Training Course ...................................................... Col Chazell..... 10
IG Program
5. Creation of a National Inspection Tracking System ........................ Col Karton..... 15
6. IG Investigation Clarification........................................................... Col Karton..... 18

Old Business
7.

A.
B.
C.

Uniform Change Approval Process ...................................... Col Chazell..... 23
Safety Compliance Intervals.......................................Brig Gen Vazquez..... 30
Commander’s Guide for Performance Improvement ........... Col Rushing..... 35

New Business
8.

A.
B.

Executive Session Matters ..................................................... Col Herrin..... 36
Request to Change “Religious Endorser” to
“Character Reference” for CDI Appointment .............................. Col Ellis..... 36

Administrative Remarks ............................................................................................... 38
ATTEST:

OFFICIAL:

Barry S. Herrin
Colonel, CAP
National Legal Officer

Charles L. Carr, Jr.
Major General, CAP
National Commander
2

CIVIL AIR PATROL
NATIONAL BOARD MEETING MINUTES
2-3 March 2012
Washington DC

OPEN SESSION
CALL TO ORDER ..................................................... Maj Gen Charles L. Carr, Jr., CAP
INVOCATION ............................................................ Ch, Col, J. Delano Ellis II, CAP
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ...................................... CMSgt Lou Walpus, CAP
WELCOME ................................................................ Maj Gen Charles L. Carr, Jr., CAP
ROLL CALL ............................................................... Mr. Don R. Rowland, HQ CAP/EX
INTRODUCTIONS .................................................... Maj Gen Charles L. Carr, Jr., CAP
SAFETY BRIEFING .................................................. Col Robert Diduch, CAP
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REMARKS........................ Mr. Don R. Rowland, HQ CAP/EX
CAP-USAF COMMANDER REMARKS..................... Col Paul D. Gloyd II, USAF
NATIONAL COMMANDER REMARKS ..................... Maj Gen Charles L. Carr, Jr., CAP
SPECIAL GUEST REMARKS ................................... Maj Gen Charles L. Carr, Jr., CAP

NATIONAL BOARD
(As of 1 February 2012)

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 Chaplain Corps, Commander,
CAP-USAF, the 8 region commanders, and 52 wing commanders.
NATIONAL OFFICERS
*Maj Gen Charles L. Carr, Jr., CAP
*Brig Gen Joseph R. Vazquez, CAP
**Col Paul D. Gloyd II, USAF
*Col Russell E. Chazell, CAP
*Col C. Warren Vest, CAP
*Col Barry S. Herrin, CAP
*Col Edward D. Phelka, CAP
**Col Kenneth W. Parris, CAP
**Ch, Col J. Delano Ellis II, 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. Corps

MIDDLE EAST REGION
*Col Larry J. Ragland, CAP
Col William S. Bernfeld, CAP
Col John M. Knowles, CAP
Col Richard J. Cooper Jr., CAP
Col Roy W. Douglass, CAP
Col Hubbard J. Lindler Jr., CAP
Col David A. Carter, CAP
Col Dennis D. Barron, CAP

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

NORTHEAST REGION
*Col, Christopher J. Hayden CAP
Col Cassandra B. Hutchko, CAP
Col Daniel M. Leclair, CAP
Col William H. Meskill, CAP
Col William J. Moran, CAP
Col David L. Mull, CAP
Col Jack J. Ozer, CAP
Col Sandra E. Brandon, CAP
Col Benjamin F. Emerick, CAP
Col Michael G. Davidson, CAP

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

GREAT LAKES REGION
*Col Robert M. Karton, CAP
Col Rickey L. Oeth, CAP
Col Richard L. Griffith, CAP
Col Robert J. Koob, CAP
Col Leo J. Burke, CAP
Col Gregory L. Mathews, CAP
Col Clarence A. Peters, CAP

3

Region Commander
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin

ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION
*Col Donald G. Cortum, CAP
Col Earl Sherwin, CAP
Col Frederick H. Thompson, CAP
Col Herbert C. Cahalen, CAP
Col Jerry E. Wellman, CAP
Col John E. Mitchell, CAP

SOUTHEAST REGION
*Col Alvin J. Bedgood, CAP
Lt Col Jack B. Lynn, CAP (Interim)
Col Michael N. Cook, CAP
Col Tonya R. Boylan, CAP
Col Carlton R. Sumner, Jr., CAP
Lt Col Luis A. Cubano, CAP (Interim)
Col Bill G. Lane, CAP

Region Commander
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Mississippi
Puerto Rico
Tennessee

PACIFIC REGION
*Col Larry F. Myrick, CAP
Col Charles R. Palmer, CAP
Col Jon L. Stokes, CAP
Col Roger M. Caires, CAP
Col Timothy F. Hahn, CAP
Col Brian L. Bishop, CAP
Col David G. Lehman, CAP

NORTH CENTRAL REGION
*Col Sean P. Fagan, CAP
Col Ronald J. Scheitzach, CAP
Col Regena M. Aye, CAP
Col Gerald P. Rosendahl, CAP
Col Erica R. Williams, CAP
Col David E. Plum, CAP
Col William E. Kay, CAP
Col Teresa L. Schimelfening, CAP

Region Commander
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming

Region Commander
Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota

Region Commander
Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington

SOUTHWEST REGION
*Col Frank A. Buethe, CAP
Col Brian N. Ready, CAP
Col Lewis D. Alexander, CAP
Col Cecil A. Scarbrough, CAP
Col Mark E. Smith, CAP
Col Joe H. Cavett, CAP
Col Brooks A. Cima, CAP

Region Commander
Arizona
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas

*Voting Members of National Executive Committee - 14
** Nonvoting members of NEC and National Board - 3

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

Executive Director
Assistant Executive Director
Director, Operations
Chief Financial Officer
Assistant to Executive Director for Fleet Management
Director, Educational Programs
General Counsel
Director, Logistics & Mission Resources

4

March 2012 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 1

CS

DRAFT

REPORTS

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

Perfunctory Reports:
Detailed reports, if available, will be provided to National Board members in advance of
the meeting.
1.

(Staff) CAP National Safety Officer

Col Diduch

2.

(Executive) Finance Committee Report

Col Vest

3.

(Executive) Chaplain Corps Report

Ch, Col Ellis

4.

(Executive) National Legal Officer’s Report

Col Herrin

5.

(Executive) Inspector General

Col Parris

6.

(Executive) National Controller

Col Phelka

7.

(Advisor) Deputy Chief of Staff, Support

Col Guimond

8.

(Advisor) Deputy Chief of Staff, Operations

Col Murrell

9.

(NHQ) Regulations Update Report

Mr. Rowland

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

Brig Gen du Pont

11. (Advisor) National Cadet Advisory Council

C/Col Brennan

12. (Staff) Historian Report

Col Blascovich

13. (Staff) National Health Services Officer

Col Seoane

14. (Committee) Hall of Honor

Maj Gen Wheless

15. (Committee) Constitution and Bylaws

Col Herrin

16. (Committee) Public Trust

Col Kavich

17. (Committee) Governance Committee

Col Verrett

18. (Other) Overseas Units Report

Lt Col Timm

5

March 2012 National Board Minutes

DRAFT

CS

Action

AGENDA ITEM 2

SUBJECT: Approval of the August 2011 National Board Minutes
CAP/CS – Col Chazell

Author: Col Chazell

OPR: EXA

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
The minutes of the August 2011 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 August 2011 National Board Meeting minutes.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
None.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
None.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
None.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
None.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
None.
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL CHAZELL/CS MOVED and COL KARTON/GLR seconded that the National
Board approve the August 2011 National Board minutes amended to change rank
of Col to Lt Col and correct the spelling of Lt Col Cubano’s name on page 30.

THE MOTION CARRIED with abstentions by commanders who were not present at
the August 2011 meeting.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Change grade from Col to Lt Col, correct the spelling of the
name of LT COL CUBANO on page 30, and remove the word “DRAFT” from the August
2011 National Board Minutes.

6

March 2012 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 3

DRAFT

DO

Action

SUBJECT: Aircrew Emergency Training Course A Hands-on Mission Observer Training Course
Author: Lt Col Vazquez

CAP/CS – Col Chazell

OPR: DO

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
Some of the duties of the mission observer are to assist the pilot with tasks that can
reduce the workload within the cockpit, providing a better environment for cockpit
resource management (CRM) and operational risk management (ORM). If the observer
is also a trained pilot, the additional knowledge and skill-sets further enhances effective
CRM and ORM in normal flight, as well as, in emergency conditions.
The very nature of many of our SAR/DR/CD/HLS missions makes them inherently more
hazardous than our other flying tasks, in that, they are usually prolonged flights,
sometimes over challenging geography, at lower altitudes, with more pilot “heads-down”
concentration on instruments while accomplishing accurate tracking tasks. Having
another pilot on board would, undoubtedly, provide a safer environment, especially in an
emergency; however, only about 50% of our observers are pilots.
The CAP pilot incapacitation incident in 2010 has raised questions. What would happen
if a pilot was suddenly incapacitated by an unknown medical condition, a bird strike, or
some other event? Who would land the airplane? It raises another question. Should
we give our non-pilot observers the opportunity to get training on what to do if
confronted by pilot incapacitation?
The Air Crew Emergency Training Course (ACET) will be a new course for CAP to offer
some of its membership. The training will offer non-pilot Mission Observers hands-on
time on the aircraft controls, with the goal of making a survivable landing, if the pilot
becomes incapacitated during flight. Due to the physical and emotional rigors
associated with the tasks included in the training, we believe that this course is not
appropriate for cadets, except for those cadets 18 years of age or older with a current
Mission Observer rating.
The number of members qualified to take the course will be limited to Non-pilot Mission
Observers on a one time basis only. No re-currency is required and participation is
voluntary. This will be an optional course offered for review on the CAP NHQ website
and available for downloading by the course certified instructors.
The course will be conducted over two days with a total of 8 hours of classroom
instruction and 3 flight hours allowing the student hands on manipulation of aircraft
controls. Similar courses exist in professional aviation (e.g. AOPA “Pinch Hitter”
Course) but they only offer ground school training. This course will not only integrate
the aeronautical information necessary to familiarize the student with the procedures
and equipment, but increase the student’s understanding and retention of that
information by including actual aircraft handling experience.
7

March 2012 National Board Minutes

DRAFT

Although Certified Flight Instructors (CFIs) are trained to teach primary flight students,
training for survival requires specialized focus. Therefore, an online Train-the-Trainer
course has been developed to provide guidance in this area and will be required before
participation in the program. In order to maintain instructor integrity, Wings will be
required to place “extremely qualified” and “authorized” Course Certified Instructors on
Orders with the concurrence of the Wing DOV/DO and CC. Two criterion to be
considered during this selection process are a) recent experience instructing primary
flight students and b) total flight experience. Although, the students will receive handson experience manipulating the controls of an aircraft, the Course Certified Instructor
will always maintain control of the aircraft during take-offs and landings.
Although this course is mission related, flight hours will be scheduled as “C” missions
only. The course will be voluntary and unfunded.
As designed, the addition of this training will not only enhance aircrew proficiency, CRM,
ORM, and mission capability; we believe these additional skills may provide increased
survivability for the aircrew in the case of unexpected pilot incapacity.
The 2010 October NEC approved course development. The 2011 Winter National
Board was presented a detailed preview of the course structure and material during the
National Operations Report. CAP-USAF and the National Headquarters staff have
participated in the final review of this course.
PROPOSED NB ACTION:
That the National Board approve the implementation of the Air Crew Emergency
Training course and request CAP-USAF to reconsider B AFAM status.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Minimal.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS COMMENTS
Concur. Recommend that the ground training be modified to include a discussion of
flight characteristics of various CAP aircraft as well as addressing night and IMC factors
and challenges.
CAP-USAF COMMENTS
While we appreciate CAP taking the initiative on this program, we cannot grant Bmission status for this training. CAP-USAF has to clearly articulate a rationale for each
Air Force non-combat mission flown by CAP. AFI 10-2701, para. 2.2.11 (Training
Mission) states, "CAP may perform training missions to prepare its members to execute
AFAMs. Normally, only training missions that are necessary to prepare CAP members
to perform specialized or unique Air Force non-combat missions may be approved as

8

March 2012 National Board Minutes
DRAFT
AFAMs. However, when necessary to meet specific Air Force requirements, training
missions may include proficiency and upgrade training to FAA airman's ratings."
Mission observers are already trained and qualified to fulfill AFAMs. However, ACET
training does not prepare CAP members to perform any specialized or unique AF noncombat mission.
Additionally, flying skills are perishable. As such, suggest CAP not limit participation to
one time only. Members desiring to participate in this program should be afforded a
“refresher” opportunity, if nothing more than the ground training portion.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
DCS-OPS: Concur. Although medical incapacity has created at least one incident and
presents a potential, albeit rare, hazard to flight, there are a number of other potential
incapacitation hazards including bird strikes, of which there have been 12 non-injury
occurrences since 2008. Regardless of mission status, providing non-pilot mission
observers with the opportunity to gain the knowledge, both ground school and hands-on
airplane manipulation, that could give them the opportunity to successfully attempt a
survivable landing, is an option we should be able to offer those members.
DCS/Support: Concur with the AI and CAP-USAF comments affording “refresher”
opportunity on an appropriate time schedule.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 60-1, CAP Flight Management

NB ACTION:
COL CHAZELL/CS, on behalf of the National Staff, MOVED and COL
BEDGOOD/SER seconded the PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
LT COL LESLIE VAZQUEZ/Project Officer presented a slide briefing explaining the Air
Crew Emergency Training course.

THE MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Implementation of the Air Crew Emergency Training Course,
notification to the field, and change to CAPR 60-1, CAP Flight Management

9

March 2012 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 4

DRAFT

DO

Action

SUBJECT: CAP G-1000 Training Course
Author: Lt Col Vazquez

CAP/CS – Col Chazell

OPR: DO

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
The existing mechanism for transitioning pilots into G1000 flying in Civil Air Patrol is
based on following Cessna’s SEP/G1000 Scenario-based Training Course. The
Cessna Course is designed to transition an IFR proficient pilot, already familiar with
C182 flying, directly into C182 G1000 IFR operations. It consists of ground training,
follow by three flights – VFR cross country, IFR cross county and partial panel VFR/IFR
flight. All flights are encouraged to use the autopilot from shortly after takeoff to landing
approach (or coupled IFR approach), including vertical navigation and flight plan
tracking. Time spent on the normal aspects of VFR and IFR check outs (visual flight
maneuvers, unusual attitude recovery, etc) is minimal. Most training is directed at cross
country navigation using the G1000 and the autopilot.
Cessna’s course does not adequately address CAP’s primary mission flight
requirements:
1. If pilots are trained to use the autopilot for every operation of the aircraft, the
temptation to “stop flying” could go hand in hand with the temptation to “stop
looking outside”. Hands on the flight controls in VMC promote flying outside the
cockpit.
2. Knowledge of flight planning, instrument procedures and autopilot vertical
navigation are not “must have” items for CAP VFR-only pilots to fly the G1000.
VFR flying of the G1000 aircraft requires that pilots understand how to read the
PFD with just enough knowledge of the MFD system to accomplish “to-from”
navigation” and effectively operate weather, terrain and traffic functions.
3. The current training options for G1000 instruction have been expanded in
CAPR 60-1 from factory trained instructors only to also allowing CAP instructors
trained in-house. At this point in time, however, factory trained instructors are
most likely still conducting most of the in-house training. These Factory trained
instructors attend the Cessna course only once and although wings are provided
Cessna G1000 FITS Course updates each year including a Pilots Information
Manual, G1000 transition PowerPoint presentation and the Garmin PC trainer,
over time standardization may be compromised and may not necessarily provide
proper quality control of the instruction process.
A CAP standardized G/1000 training curriculum option has been created to provide
CAP mission oriented training to build upon the factory course and offer an alternative
to those who do not qualify for the factory course or are unable to attend it. This CAPspecific curriculum minimizes use of autopilot during VFR instruction and makes a clear
distinction between VFR and IFR operation while also providing a CAP G1000 Instructor
10

March 2012 National Board Minutes
DRAFT
Course (attachment 1). The revision of the curriculum on the National level will provide
a standardization of the training and, at the same time, improve the course focus on
CAP-specific flying operations that is not addressed in Cessna’s G1000 transition
course.
In order to accomplish our objectives, we believe the flight curriculum required a
complete rewrite, especially when stressing less reliance on use of the autopilot early in
the training. The revision of the curriculum on the National level will provide a
standardization of the training, while at the same time improve the course to avoid some
of the pitfalls that exist in the present G1000 transition course.
The Ground School course will consist of five (5) instructor led learning modules:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

CAP G1000 VFR Course
CAP G1000 Autopilot VFR Course
CAP G1000 IFR Course
CAP G1000 Autopilot IFR Course
CAP G1000 Instructor Course

Modules 1 and 2 will include the VFR ground training and modules 3 and 4 will
comprise the IFR ground training. The VFR Sortie(s) will require a minimum of 1.5 flight
hours. There will be two (2) IFR Sorties (3.0 hours). The Instructor Course training will
include two (2) sorties (3.0 hours), one for G1000 VFR instructor techniques and one for
IFR instructor techniques.
This course is not intended to replace the instructors' Cessna factory training, which will
still be available for those who wish to or can take it in-house, but rather would provide a
more readily available standardized in-house training curriculum that highlights CAP
needs; thus allowing wings to better manage the G1000 flight training program for their
pilots wishing to transition.
PROPOSED NB ACTION:
That the National Board approve the implementation of the Civil Air Patrol G1000
training course for both VFR and IFR pilots and Ops Quals be adjusted to reflect both
VFR and IFR G1000 qualifications. Additionally, those who have previously completed
the Cessna factory course or any other course in accordance with CAPR 60-1, section
3.6, para 4c and are currently G1000 qualified, will not be required to take this course.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Flight Costs.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS COMMENTS
Concur. This training will provide opportunities for more CAP pilots to qualify in G1000
aircraft and should result in increased utilization of G1000 aircraft. NHQ-funded Cessna
factory training will continue to be available for qualified instructors who can spend a
11

March 2012 National Board Minutes
DRAFT
week at the course in Independence, Kansas. We must ensure that this course does
not infringe on Cessna’s copyrighted training material without their permission.
CAP-USAF COMMENTS
Concur with NHQ comments. Further, CAP-USAF will review the final course prior to
implementation.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
DCS-OPS: Concur. Having a standardized course available to our pilots that is tailored
to CAP requirements not only makes sense, it will increase wing opportunities to
provide more G1000 transition courses. As for CAP instructor and check pilots, it will be
an alternative to the Cessna Factory Training for those who are unable to attend, not a
replacement. Tracking both G1000 VFR and IFR pilots in Ops Quals is going to be an
important component.
DCS/Support: Concur. IT will make the necessary modifications to Ops Quals
including ensuring that previous training is properly documented.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 60-1, CAP Flight Management
NB ACTION:
LT COL LESLIE VAZQUEZ/Project Officer presented a slide briefing explaining the G1000 Training Course. She added that the course has been successfully beta tested by
nine teams across the country. She summarized that this training course provides
alternative G-1000 training for CAP needs; it creates a G-1000 VFR category for the
transition process; and it establishes the instructor course be available on-line for
download.
COL SUMNER/MS MOVED TO AMEND to add the following: “This course would
replace the Cessna Factory Course.”

THE AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
In response to a question, it was clarified that the proposed training course is optional,
but can be taken in lieu of the Cessna Course. It was also clarified that the Train the
Trainer Course is mandatory—instructors have to take that course.
In response to a question about funding for this course, there was clarification that
funding would depend on CAP-USAF approval as an A or B Mission, which would first
require a legal review.
COL HERRIN/NLO MOVED TO POSTPONE and COL BURKE/MI seconded the
postponement of this agenda item for reconsideration following a review by
Cessna of the curriculum.
12

March 2012 National Board Minutes

DRAFT

It was determined, that since CAP is not using any of the slides or copyrighted materials
of Cessna, there is no need for review by Cessna.

THE MOTION TO POSTPONE DID NOT PASS
DCS/Operations, Col Murrell, gave two clarifications on this agenda item: One, the
instructor side, and two, the pilot. (1) On the instructor side, these pilots are allowed to
go to Wichita, KS to take the Cessna Course, which is a resident course. Not every
instructor can afford to be off work to take the Cessna course. For those who can’t go,
this proposed course is an alternative option. Whether they go or not won’t impact the
cost, which is included in the purchase of the aircraft. For those who do take the
Cessna Course, it is recommended that they also take this course which has different
emphasis for CAP operations. (2) On the pilot side, this proposal results in more
classes for more people to get the G-1000 ground school and be able to transition to
VFR if they are not IFR pilots. Then they can fly the G-1000 and work on their
upgrades.
COL LEHMAN/WA MOVED TO AMEND and COL BUETHE/SWR seconded the
amendment that, in addition to the 15-hour PIC requirement, that an instructor be
required to take the instructor module as proposed in this agenda item.
COL LEHMAN/WA withdrew his motion in deference to an amendment to be
proposed by Col Herrin/NLO; COL BUETHE/SWR agreed.
COL CHAZELL/CS stated that, as the maker of the original motion, it appeared that
there is still work to be done with this proposal, and withdrew his motion.
COL SUMNER/MS stated that as the seconder of the original motion he did not concur
with the withdrawal.
After the morning break, the following motion was made:
COL KARTON/GLR MOVED TO TABLE and COL SCARBROUGH/LA seconded the
motion to table Agenda Item 4 and send it to the Stan-Eval Committee for further
evaluation with a report back to the May 2012 NEC meeting.

THE MOTION TO TABLE CARRIED (9 no votes; 1 abstention)
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Referral to the Stan-Eval Committee with a report back to the
May 2012 NEC meeting. Include in the May 2012 NEC agenda.

13

March 2012 National Board Minutes

DRAFT

Attachment 1
G1000 Training Curriculum
IAW with CAPR 60-1, CAP should develop the following courses:
MODULE 1: CAP G1000 VFR
A. VFR G1000 Ground School (instructor led only).
B. VFR Sortie (1.5 hour flight). Consists of:
1) Use and configuration of the PFD
2) Takeoffs and Landings
3) Slow flight/stalls/steep turns
4) Use of “to-from” navigation, nearest airport function
5) MFD information – terrain, weather and traffic
6) Use of autopilot for straight and level, direct to navigation

MODULE 2: CAP G1000 AUTOPILOT VFR
A. Basic use of autopilot

MODULE 3: CAP G1000 IFR
A. IFR G1000 Ground School (instructor led only).
B. IFR Sorties 1 and 2 (3.0 hours). Consists of:
1) Configuration of MFD for IFR – Flight Plans – Procedures
2) Instrument enroute and IFR maneuvers
3) Approaches and Holding
4) Use of autopilot for approaches, go-arounds, departures
5) G1000 partial panel enroute and approach.

MODULE 4: CAP G1000 AUTOPILOT VFR
A.

Advanced use of autopilot

MODULE 5: CAP G1000 Instructor
A. Ground school on how to teach the CAP G1000 VFR and IFR Courses
B. VFR and IFR Sorties (3.0 hours). Consists of:
1) G1000 VFR instructor techniques (1 flight)
2) G1000 IFR instructor techniques (1 flight)

14

March 2012 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 5

DRAFT

IG

Action

SUBJECT: Creation of a National Inspection Tracking System
Author: Col Karton

GLR/CC – Col Karton

OPR: EX

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
Over the last ten years Civil Air Patrol has made tremendous strides in meeting partner
and oversight agency expectations through web-based process monitoring, web based
document storage, and electronic tracking of action items and requirements. These
tools transformed programs as diverse as finance and accounting, mission
management, operations training qualifications, safety reporting and fact finding,
logistics inventories, and repeater site approval and monitoring.
Our compliance (CI) and subordinate unit inspection (SUI) processes have not made
this transition. The program is dependent on locally developed tracking tools,
document-based reporting, and distribution of “restricted” reports through unsecure
nation-wide email lists. The results are that commanders at all levels are challenged to
monitor SUI or CI findings, marginal consistency exists at the Wing-level in program
management, and usable tools are not available to help National Board members
assess the impact of policy and procedures we approve.
In just one Region in 2010, more than 40 local squadrons and flights across multiple
wings were suspended from activities due to insufficiencies in managing the
Subordinate Unit Inspection program. Similarly, a recent Inspector General Team
newsletter showed CI findings from across the country open more than four years after
the inspection. These data seem to indicate CAP cannot demonstrate we are meeting
our obligations under the Statement of Work, and does not provide adequate tools for
helping commanders at any level assess the effectiveness, efficiency or safety of our
organization.
PROPOSED NB ACTION:
That the National Board approve the high priority development of an Inspection
Tracking System designed by the National Headquarters staff and the National
Inspector General team to automate the CAPR 123-3 inspection process. This new tool
must provide web-based data entry, tracking of unit compliance with self-assessments
and inspection timelines, online document storage, electronic coordination of inspection
findings and responses, and trend analysis of both findings and best practices for
commanders at all levels.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
To be determined.

15

March 2012 National Board Minutes

DRAFT

CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS COMMENTS
Concur. The NHQ IT department, in concert with the CAP IG community, has been
working on a project to provide this capability for some time and the results are now in
testing. Once testing by the IG and staff are completed, the module will be available
within eServices.
CAP-USAF COMMENTS
Concur. Such a tool will certainly assist Commanders in overseeing their programs,
ensuring compliance, identifying trends and remedying deficiencies. Further, the
sharing of benchmark and best practice information will help wings improve their
programs and promote consistency across CAP.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
CAP/IG - I concur with the NHQ comment. NHQ IT in cooperation with the CAP and
CAP-USAF IG communities has been working on a project to automate inspection
findings for both CI and SUI. NHQ IT has encountered a number of significant technical
issues that has delayed the implementation of this program.
Automation of inspection finding clearance would greatly benefit all stakeholders.
However, an agenda item making this a priority would be redundant and would
circumvent the National Commander’s and Executive Director’s authority to establish
the priorities for Civil Air Patrol’s limited IT resources.
As a note of comment, no Estimated Funding Impact was provided with this agenda
item. Being familiar with “off the shelf” software systems for tracking this kind of data, I
know the hours required to modify these systems to meet CAP’s needs would be
significant. Developing this system with in-house IT resources limits CAP’s financial
exposure in the acquisition of such a system.
DCS/Support: Concur.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 123-3, Civil Air Patrol Compliance Assessment Program
NB ACTION:
COL KARTON/GLR MOVED and COL SUMNER/MS seconded the PROPOSED NB
ACTION.
In response to a request from Col Parris/IG, Mr. Dean/DO reported that this proposal
has been on-going for about a year and is about 80 percent completed. Mr. Dean
recommended completing this project in phases: Phase I would be to accommodate
the CI process and those issues, and then move into the self-assessment and other
16

March 2012 National Board Minutes

DRAFT

types of inspections as possible. He stated that everything that is requested in this
proposal can be accomplished.
There was discussion on the IT priorities. The projected completion of Phase I is by the
summer 2012 National Board, depending upon whether additional IG items are added.
There was clarification that IT priorities are worked regularly by the DO in conjunction
with the IT Committee under the DCS for Support.
COL HAYDEN/NER MOVED that the National Board table this agenda item until
past minutes have been researched to determine if this is a duplication.

THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
COL MESKILL/MA MOVED and COL LE CLAIR/ME seconded that this agenda item
be dismissed.
THE PARLIAMENTARIAN ruled that there is a process to move to postpone indefinitely,
but what the maker of the motion appeared to be asking for was a motion to defeat and,
therefore, a no vote on the motion.
Col Karton/GLR raised a Point of Order and respectfully submitted that the motion was
improperly stated; that the intent was that it be a no vote; it was not a motion to
postpone and asked the chair to find that the motion was out of order.

THE CHAIR RULED THAT THE MOTION WAS OUT OF ORDER
THE ORIGINAL MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Implementation of policy, notification to the field, and change
to CAPR 123-3, Civil Air Patrol Compliance Assessment Program. Periodically, an
update of IT priorities will be provided by NHQ/DO.

17

March 2012 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 6

DRAFT

IG

Action

SUBJECT: IG Investigation Clarification
Author: Col Karton

GLR/CC – Col Karton

OPR: EX

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
The intent of this agenda item is to clarify that the IG may only investigate complaints
against senior level CAP officials if and when specifically tasked by a commander in the
senior level CAP officials’ chain of command and clarify the role of the NLO when
personal misconduct or moral turpitude is alleged against National Commander or
National Vice-Commander.
CAPR 123-2.7 & 8 provide that Complaints against senior level CAP officials shall be
submitted to the commander or inspector general of the unit to which the complaint is
assigned, that a complaint analysis shall then be made by the IG and, if the IG
determines that an investigation is warranted, the National region or wing commander
will appoint, in writing, an IG and/or IO. An IG may not conduct an investigation without
having been appointed by an appropriate commander through an appointment letter.
There is an exception: pursuant to 123-2.7.e, complaints against senior level CAP
officials shall be submitted directly to the CAP/IG who notifies National Headquarters
CAP/EX, CAP-USAF/IG, the Chair of the CAP BoG and the CAP National Commander.
Thereafter, the IG is charged with ensuring that the allegations of misconduct, fraud,
waste and/or abuse are investigated. There is no requirement that the IG proceed only
after he has received a written, letter of appointment from an appropriate commander in
the chain of command as is required in other cases. The IG should not have greater
discretion and authority with less oversight and control when investigating a senior level
CAP official than when investigating any other CAP member.
Furthermore, CAPR 123-2.7e (5) provides that the CAP/IG or an IO, appointed by the
BoG, will handle all complaints against the national Commander or National ViceCommander in accordance with this regulation. Any allegations of personal misconduct
or moral turpitude will be promptly turned over to the National Legal Officer in
accordance with the CAP Constitution and bylaws. The CAP National Legal Officer will
determine if any action is warranted under CAPR 35-7, Removal of National
Commander or National Vice-Commander. This provision is confusing in that it
authorizes that all complaints against the National Commander or National ViceCommander shall be made by the CAP/IG or an IO appointed by the BoG. It then
directs any allegations of personal misconduct or moral turpitude will be promptly turned
over to the National Legal Officer in accordance with the CAP Constitution and Bylaws.
This should be clarified so that it is clear that the NLO will review every complaint
against the National Commander or National Vice-Commander to evaluate if it contains
allegations of personal misconduct or moral turpitude which might mandate action
pursuant to CAPR 35-7. The legal analysis should be made by the NLO. The NLO
should not be bound by delay or inaction on the part of the IG or IO appointed by the
BoG or by delays by the BoG. The NLO should be able to comply with CAPR 35-7
independently of any action of the IG or IO appointed by the BoG or, indeed, any action
18

March 2012 National Board Minutes
DRAFT
taken by the BoG unless the BoG specifically provides that its action preempts that of
the NLO and NB.
PROPOSED NB ACTION:
That the National Board approve an amendment to CAPR 123-2.7.e to provide as
follows:
e. Complaints against senior level CAP officials shall be submitted directly to the
CAP/IG. Upon receiving such a complaint, the CAP/IG will:
(1) Notify National Headquarters CAP/EX, CAP-USAF/IG, the Chair of the CAP BoG,
and the CAP National Commander.
(2) Ensure the allegations of misconduct, fraud, waste and/or abuse are investigated;
however, before any such investigation may commence, the IG shall have obtained an
appointment letter in writing from a commander in the chain of command of the person
who is to be investigated or from the Chair of the CAP BoG after authorization of such
investigation by a majority of the BoG given at a regular meeting of the BoG or a special
meeting called for that purpose.
(3) The CAP/IG or an IO appointed by the BoG will handle all complaints against the
national Commander or National Vice-Commander in accordance with the regulation.
The CAP NLO shall receive prompt notification of any such complaints and shall be
promptly provided with a copy of all complaints and any evidence submitted in support
of the allegations. The CAP NLO shall determine if there are allegations of personal
misconduct or moral turpitude and, if so, will determine what, if any, action is warranted
under CAPR 35-7, Removal of National Commander or National Vice-Commander. The
actions by the CAP NLO pursuant to this section may proceed simultaneously with and
are independent from any other investigation or administrative procedures subject only
to the specific direction to the contrary from the BoG by authority duly given at a regular
or special meeting of the BoG called for that purpose.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Minimal.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS COMMENTS
There is no mention of Senior Level Officials in paragraph 8, Complaint Processing, of
CAPR 123-2. The text “the National region or wing commander will appoint, in writing,
an IG and/or IO” is from a generic procedural step in the complaint handling process,
delineated in paragraph 8, that prescribes actions for complaints at all organizational
levels of CAP. It does not specifically list actions to be taken in resolving complaints
against CAP Senior Level Officials.
CAPR 123-2 paragraph 7, Complaint Submission, discusses what is done when a
complaint is received naming a senior level official. Said paragraph mandates that the

19

March 2012 National Board Minutes
DRAFT
CAP/IG will ensure all senior level official complaints are investigated and what will be
done with completed reports of investigation. It does not override the provisions of

paragraph 8 which indicates when an IG determines as investigation is warranted, the
National region or wing commander will appoint, in writing, an IG and/or IO.
The draft CAPR 123-2, which was recently available for 30-day comment on the CAP
website, refines the text in question to read, “When complaints against CAP senior level
officials (see definition in CAPR 123-1, The Civil Air Patrol Inspector General Program,
attachment 1) are determined to require investigation, the CAP Inspector General shall
notify the CAP National Commander, the Chairman of the BoG, CAP-USAF/IG, and
CAP National Headquarters General Counsel (NHQ/GC) of the pending investigation”
and that the CAP/IG will “ensure the complaints of misconduct, fraud, waste and/or
abuse against CAP senior level officials receive a thorough complaint analysis and are
investigated or transferred to the appropriate investigation level as specified in
paragraph 8c (3). Paragraph 8c (3) requires an appointment letter prior to the initiation
of a complaint.
CAPR does 123-2 state, “The CAP/IG or an IO, appointed by the BoG, will handle all
complaints against the National Commander or National Vice-Commander in
accordance with this regulation.” However, in accordance with CAPR 123-2 the first
step in handling a complaint is to complete a complaint analysis. An analysis may result
in a complaint 1) being dismissed due to not meeting the criteria of a complaint, 2) being
referred to other channels more appropriate to address the issue, 3) being transferred to
a more appropriate jurisdiction (in this case the NLO), 4) being resolved through
assistance provided by the IG or IO, or 5) being investigated. This is well described in
CAPR 123-2. There is confusion due to the age of CAPR 35-7. This regulation has
long been in need of updating, to include some guidance as to what constitutes
“personal misconduct or moral turpitude.” Providing copies of all complaints involving
the National Commander and Vice Commander, regardless of the allegation, to the
National Legal Officer could result in a violation of the confidentiality provisions of the
CAP complaints program.
The proposed National Board Action places specific criteria upon the BoG prior to
appointing an IO for complaints against the National Commander/Vice Commander.
The National Board may recommend but not mandate procedures/practices for the
BoG.
CAPR 123-2 is currently being revised by the CAP/IG through eSSS coordination with
NLO, GC, as well as other directorates and advisors.
In addition, CAPR 35-7 predates the creation of the Board of Governors and review of
said regulation was referred to the Governance Committee.
Therefore, it is recommended that the proposed clarification be brought to the attention
of the CAP/IG and the Governance Committee so that they may consider it as part of
their ongoing tasks.

20

March 2012 National Board Minutes

DRAFT

CAP-USAF COMMENTS
Concur with NHQ comments. Given the potential for changes to CAP’s governance
structure, this action should be sent to the CAP/IG and Governance Committee for
thorough review.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
CAP/IG – Concur with the comments by the NHQ. Furthermore, the CAP/IG is
entrusted by the National Commander upon his/her appointment and confirmation by
the CAP National Board to maintain the integrity and high ethical standards of the Civil
Air Patrol Investigations Program. Conduct of the CAP Investigations Program is clearly
enumerated as the responsibility of the CAP/IG.
The CAP Inspector General Program is a command program. The CAP Constitution
and Bylaws already provides sufficient oversight of the CAP/IG by the National
Commander and the Board of Governors. (See Bylaws Section 10.7, paragraph f.
below)
The CAP Constitution and Bylaws clearly state the CAP/IG is a corporate officer and is
designated the “principal Inspector General of the corporation.” Bylaw Section 10.7
defines the CAP/IG’s responsibilities as follows:
“Section 10.7 National Inspector General
The National Inspector General shall:
a. Serve as the principal Inspector General of the corporation;
b. Serve as an advisor to the Board of Governors, the National Commander, the
National Board, the National Executive Committee, and the Executive Director;
c. Develop and supervise the Civil Air Patrol Inspector General Program;
d. Develop and supervise the Civil Air Patrol Inspection Program:
e. Develop and operate a Civil Air Patrol Complaints Program to prevent, detect
and correct any fraud, waste, mismanagement or deficiency, cadet protection
issue, or abuse of authority, to include protection from reprisal of persons utilizing
the Complaints Program;
f. Conduct such investigations as may be assigned by the Board of Governors, the
National Commander, or as otherwise provided by the Civil Air Patrol regulations,
and prepare reports thereof;
g. Conduct training programs for Inspectors General, Investigating Officers,
Commanders and general membership of Civil Air Patrol;
h. Appoint and remove Assistant National Inspectors General and Investigating
Officers as required by the nature of the office; and
i. Perform such other duties as the nature of the office may require.”

21

March 2012 National Board Minutes
DRAFT
Approving this agenda item would amend the roles and responsibilities of the CAP/IG
as stated in the CAP Constitution and Bylaws. Authority to amend the CAP Constitution

and Bylaws rests solely with the CAP Board of Governors and is outside the powers
entrusted to the CAP National Board.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 123-2, Complaints
NB ACTION:
COL KARTON/GLR MOVED and COL FAGAN/NCR seconded that the National
Board reaffirm its policy that before any investigation of any complaint at any
level may commence, the IG or IO shall have obtained an appointment letter in
writing from a commander in the chain of command of the person(s) who is (are)
to be investigated, or, in the case of the national commander or vice national
commander, from the Chair of the BoG.
COL PARRIS/IG MOVED TO AMEND and COL HERRIN/NLO seconded to remove
the words “or vice commander.”

THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED
There was clarification that, if an immediate commander is unwilling to sign an
appointment letter for an investigation, that a higher level commander in the chain of
command may do so.

THE AMENDED MOTION CARRIED
The amended motion reads:
“That the National Board reaffirm its policy that before any investigation of any
complaint at any level may commence, the IG or IO shall have obtained an
appointment letter in writing from a commander in the chain of command of the
person(s) who is (are) to be investigated, or, in the case of the national
commander, from the Chair of the BoG.”
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Notification to the field, implementation of policy, and change to
CAPR 123-2, Complaints.

22

March 2012 National Board Minutes

Old Business

AGENDA ITEM 7

DRAFT

Action

A. February 2010 NB Minutes: Item 3a
Uniform Change Approval Process
CAP/CS – Col Chazell

Presenter: Col David Braun

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.

23

March 2012 National Board Minutes

DRAFT

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
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-officio 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 Force-

24

March 2012 National Board Minutes

DRAFT

type 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:
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.

25

March 2012 National Board Minutes

DRAFT

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.
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

26

March 2012 National Board Minutes
DRAFT
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
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
______________________________________________________________________

August 2011 NB Action:

27

March 2012 National Board Minutes
DRAFT
In the absence of Col David Braun, Chairman of the Uniform Committee, Col Guimond
presented the Interim National Uniform Committee Report and recommended actions.
All old National Board uniform business items were closed. The Moratorium on uniform
items continues to August 2012. Appreciation was expressed to the members of the
Uniform Committee for all their great work.
COL CHAZELL/CS MOVED and BRIG GEN CARR/CV seconded that the National
Board accept the Report of the Uniform Committee as presented, that the work
continue as outlined in the presentation, and that all action items be disposed of
as recommended in the report.
There was clarification that the only alternate corporate style uniform is the blazer
slacks/skirt combination. There was also clarification that ribbons on aviator shirt is not
authorized; however, former military members do wear military decorations on aviator
shirt on the Fourth of July and other national holidays.

THE MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Work of the National Uniform Committee continues. Report
back to the Winter 2012 National Board meeting. Include in Summer 2012 National
Board agenda.

______________________________________________________________________

March 2012 NB Action:
COL LECLAIR/ME presented the National Uniform Committee Comprehensive Uniform
Review (slide briefing) in the absence of the Committee Chair, Col Dave Braun.
Col Leclair noted that with reference to the 2-year moratorium on major uniform
changes, the committee requested and the summer 2011 National Board approved an
extension until the summer 2012 National Board meeting.
COL GLOYD/USAF was asked to comment on the status of USAF approval for CAP to
wear the new AF ABU uniform. He stated that, while the initial response appeared to be
a denial, he is pursuing approval and the door is not closed yet. He added that when he
gets an answer from the Air Staff, if it is a “Yes” then the proposal will be submitted
through the normal chain of command to get it to the Air Staff.
COL LECLAIR summarized that Phase I of the Comprehensive Uniform Review is
completed; Phase II is being presented here (will not act on AF style uniforms until
response from CAP-USAF on the ABU wear); Phase III, which is on specialized
uniforms will be presented at the Summer 2012 National Board meeting, in Baltimore.

28

March 2012 National Board Minutes
DRAFT
COL CHAZELL/CS clarified that, with the assistance of Ms. Parker/DP, all change
letters to CAPM 39-1 have been consolidated into one letter incorporating all changes to
date that have not been incorporated into the manual. That letter will be issued shortly

and can be used to supplement the CAPM 39-1 as it stands now. After the completion
of the Comprehensive Uniform Review, CAPM 39-1 will be rewritten and updated.
COL HERRIN.NLO asked to revisit the issue of the 2-year moratorium with respect to
some of the outstanding Uniform Committee items. He stated that there are three items
on the list that are “payroll” items—not major items—that have been deferred for two
plus years. He asked those three items be considered now and made the following
motion.
COL HERRIN/NLO MOVED and COL PLUM/NE seconded that the National Board
direct the Uniform Committee to begin the immediate implementation of their
items numbered 9, 33, and 34 — the Air Patrol Ribbon, the Professional Military
Education Faculty Ribbon, and the Recognition Ribbon for persons who receive
National of the Year recognition — because they are not major uniform items.
COL HERRIN’S restated motion: “That this body directs the Uniform Committee
to remove from the 2-year moratorium, as extended the committee’s items 9, 33,
and 34 and begin the process of implementation.”
COL HERRIN’S second restatement of the motion: “That this body directs the
Uniform Committee to consider its items numbered 9, 33, and 34 and begin the
process of implementation, notwithstanding the 2-year moratorium.”
By CS request, Ms. Parker responded that, while these appear to be simple items, the
design, wear policy, the placement in the order of precedence, etc. are all issues that
the Uniform Committee considers which makes this matter considerably more involved
than a simple approval. She expressed an opinion that these issues are the reason Col
Chazell and most of the committee felt that waiting to consider approval of these items
was the best option. She also added for consideration of the board, that approval of this
motion would change the order of precedence charts in all the current regulations and
would require members to then redo their ribbon racks which may change anyway if
there are other additional changes to the uniform.

THE MOTION DID NOT PASS
National Uniform Committee Comprehensive Uniform Review will
brief the final recommendations to the National Board at the meeting
in August 2012.

29

March 2012 National Board Minutes

DRAFT

B. August 2011 NB Minutes: Item 9
Safety Compliance Interval
MER/CC – Col Vazquez

Presenter: Col Greg Cortum, Committee Chair

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
Presently, CAP members are required to attend mandatory safety education training
once a month. Such classes may be online or given face to face at a local meeting.
Online courses are automatically credited to the CAP Online Safety Education module
in eServices, whereas local safety class attendance must be manually entered into that
module by either the unit commander or safety officer. The privilege to enter safety
class attendance is not assignable by a WSA, only by a duty assignment as either
commander or safety officer.
Failure to attain the monthly safety education credit in e-services results in the following
actions:
1. The member’s qualifications (ES and Pilot) in OPS Quals are temporarily revoked.
2. That member is subject to an abrupt dismissal from any CAP activity when the
activity director does not find a recent (last 30 days) entry for safety education credit.
There are two problems with the current system. While the present system guarantees
that any CAP member has completed the monthly safety education requirement, it does
not guarantee that the member received credit for safety training not entered into the
system. The privilege to validate very important training is assignable to multiple
individuals by a WSA (OPS Quals Validation for ES or Pilot), yet the privilege to enter
safety training is restricted to only two persons for any given unit.
The second problem is the interval required. Civil Air Patrol has made great strides in
promoting a safety first culture, to include ORM briefings at all activities, advanced
safety training for activity leaders, and an expanded accident investigation system that
will lead to accident avoidance through lessons learned. Adding too many mandatory
training classes threatens to dilute that message.
The typical ratio of time devoted to regular safety training/meetings versus time on the
job in industrial settings is about 1:330 (30 minutes a month for a 40 hour work week).
Given active CAP members volunteer 3 hours of time a week, a typical 15 minute safety
class every month yields a ratio of 1:50. For less active members (1 hour a week), that
ratio becomes 1:16. And unlike their industrial counterparts, CAP members do not daily
report to a work site to have multiple opportunities meeting a monthly requirement.
30

March 2012 National Board Minutes

DRAFT

To alleviate these problems, the privilege to input safety training should be assignable
to any member the unit commander designates, and the interval of mandatory training
changed from monthly to quarterly (resulting in a more realistic ratio of 1 hour training
for every 150 hours of volunteer time). Given ORM, the flight release system and other
checks and balances already present within CAP, reducing the mandatory interval will
give commanders more flexibility to ensure members are getting the safety education
they need.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve changing the interval of mandatory safety education
compliance from monthly to quarterly, and that WSAs have the option to grant the
Safety Education Input privilege to as many CAP members as deemed appropriate by
the unit commander.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
The cost needed to change CAPR 62-1, and any programming changes necessary in
eServices.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur with changing the interval of safety education to quarterly. Other professional
organizations, such as AOPA, require quarterly formal safety education for their full-time
professional aircrews.
Regarding increasing the number of people who can enter safety education completion,
currently all unit commanders, deputy/vice commanders, and any member appointed as
a safety officer or assistant safety officer can make these entries. If additional members
are needed, unit commanders can always assign additional individuals these duty
assignments as long as they meet the training requirements for the position.
Safety education completion is recorded automatically for members who complete the
training online via the CAP website. Another possible way to do it for members who
complete safety education via another non-online method would be to allow the member
to enter safety education completion themselves much like is done for Ops Qual items
and then require someone from the same group of people (commanders, vice
commanders, safety officers, assistant safety officers) to validate completion.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
CAP-USAF supports increasing Safety Education Input privilege commensurate with the
size of the unit/wing.
We do not concur with increasing the training interval from monthly to quarterly. While
we agree that CAP has taken great strides in promoting a safety culture, changing the

31

March 2012 National Board Minutes
DRAFT
training interval not only sends the wrong signal about the importance of safety, but is
counter to why the interval should be increased. Individuals involved on a full-time
basis, such as the 40 hour per week employee, are daily immersed in the work
environment and safety culture. Conversely, CAP members that participate on a less
frequent basis are more reliant on recurring training to maintain their safety focus and
perishable skills. The less frequent a CAP member participates, the more vulnerable
they become to mission related risks.

ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
Sr Advisor Support: Concur with the comments made by the NHQ Staff.
Senior Advisor-Operations – Concur with National Headquarter comments.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 62-1
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
The gavel was passed to Brig Gen Carr/CV for this item because the chair stated a
desire to participate.
COL VAZQUEZ/MER MOVED and COL SUMNER/MS seconded the PROPOSED
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION, as read to include changing the word “quarterly” to
read “every 90 days.”
COL HERRIN/NLO MOVED TO AMEND and COL MILLER/NV seconded the
amendment to divide to consider separately the frequency for safety education
and the issue of safety education.

THE MOTION TO DIVIDE CARRIED
PART I
COL HERRIN/NLO MOVED and COL RUSSELL E. CHAZELL/CS seconded the
National Board approve that WSAs have the option to grant the Safety Education
Input privilege to as many CAP members as deemed appropriate by the unit
commander.
COL MILLER/NV MOVED TO SUBSTITUTE that members input their own safety
achievement and entry would be validated as suggested by the National Staff
Comments.

THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
THE PART I MOTION CARRIED
32

March 2012 National Board Minutes

DRAFT

PART II
COL VAZQUEZ/MER MOVED and COL LEE/PA seconded that the National Board
approve changing the interval of mandatory safety education appliance from
monthly to every 90 days.

MAJ GEN COURTER/CC MOVED TO TABLE and COL PARRIS/CA seconded the
table until later in the meeting to allow time for board members to hear more
insight from the advisors.

THE MOTION TO TABLE CARRIED

LATER IN THE MEETING
COL VAZQUEZ/MER MOVED TO REFER TO COMMITTEE and COL ROBINSON/AL
seconded the referral and to bring back to the Winter 2012 National Board
meeting

THE MOTION TO REFER TO COMMITTEE CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Refer to committee. Include in Winter National Board agenda.

______________________________________________________________________

March 2012 NB Action:
BRIG GEN VAZQUEZ/CV noted the report of the safety committee entitled, “Safety
Committee Recommendation on Safety Education Interval,” included in the agenda.
The committee recommends no change, at this time, to the safety education training
interval.
BRIG GEN VAZQUEZ/CV MOVED and COL SUMNER/MS seconded to remove from
the table Agenda Item 9, Safety Compliance Interval, Part II, Aug 2011 National
Board.

THE MOTION TO REMOVE FROM THE TABLE CARRIED

33

March 2012 National Board Minutes
DRAFT
NOTE: The motion on the floor reads: “That the National Board approve changing the
interval of mandatory safety education compliance from monthly to every 90 days.”

COL COOK/FL emphasized that CAP needs to have a program that addresses the
safety culture, not just getting a safety education talk each month. He added, “Metrics
are important because they tell us how we are doing, but they shouldn’t be driving the
issue. We have to develop a culture and that culture has to be that every member
thinks about safety all the time in everything they do.”
COL CORTUM/RMR endorsed Col Cook’s comments and recommended that the
Safety staff should look into a reward program of some type, an incentive for positive
reinforcement for safety.
MAJ GEN CARR/CC reminded that the safety program belongs to the commanders.
He added “Whether you want to call it checking the box or filling a square, it is your
program and is left up to you to ensure that your people are safety briefed. You as
commanders need to do whatever you possibly can to encourage and enhance safety.”

THE MOTION DID NOT PASS
THIS ITEM IS CLOSED

34

March 2012 National Board Minutes

DRAFT

C. March 2011 NB Minutes: Agenda Item 13 A.
Commander’s Guide for Performance Improvement
SER/CC - Col Rushing

March 2012 NB Action:
COL CHAZELL/CS reported that this Old Business item from the March 2011 National
Board meeting was not included in the agenda, and called on Col Rushing, Chairman of
the Adverse Action Committee, for an update.
COL RUSHING, COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN reported that the pamphlet that was
presented earlier was started as the Adverse Action Handbook The committee had
changed the emphasis and reoriented it to what is called the “Commander’s Guide for
Performance Improvement” pamphlet. After the March 2011 meeting, the pamphlet
was distributed electronically with a request for comments. The returned comments
were incorporated into the product, and it is now ready for use as soon as it is placed
on-line. The pamphlet is an on-line pamphlet rather than printed because it contains
active links to the basic regulations.
COL CHAZELL/CS noted that since this product is a pamphlet, it is not directive in
nature and does not need board approval. It will be published shortly on eServices.

THIS ITEM IS CLOSED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Notification to the field, and post Commander’s Guide for
Performance Improvement pamphlet in eServices.

35

March 2012 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 8

DRAFT

New Business

Action

A. Executive Session Matter
COL HERRIN/NLO stated that, in view of discussions on Friday regarding command
transparency, he made the following motion:
COL HERRIN/NLO MOVED and COL CORTUM/RMR seconded that the National
Board consent to remove the content of two of the discussions in the Executive
Session on Friday: (1) The briefing by Col Gloyd, USAF, and (2) Remarks by Col
Parris/IG with the exception of those comments related to specific personnel.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
MAJ GEN CARR/CC clarified that the reason the board went into such a lengthy
Executive Session on Friday was because there was a scheduled IG briefing on the
agenda but the sensitivity of the contents were not totally known. He added that we
always want to have transparency in everything that we do whenever possible.

B. Request to Change “Religious Endorser” to “Character Reference”
for CDI Appointment
CHAP, COL ELLIS MOVED and COL FAGAN/NCR seconded that the National
Board approve removing the requirement for “Religious Endorser” (in any form
or by any designation) from regulations as a qualification for “CDI appointment.”
Also, to change the regulation to require CDI Applicants to be “Recommended”
by a community member of repute.
COL SUMNER/MS MOVED TO TABLE and COL BEDGOOD/SER seconded the
motion to table until after lunch to allow for informal discussion.

THE MOTION TO TABLE CARRIED
FOLLOWING LUNCH, THE MOTION WAS BACK ON THE FLOOR AS MOVED
COL KARTON/GLR stated that he did not see anything in this motion that is an
emergency that needs to be addressed without having been put on the agenda with an
opportunity to consider it like all the other agenda items in advance, and made the
following motion:

36

March 2012 National Board Minutes

DRAFT

COL KARTON/GLR MOVED TO TABLE and COL MYRICK/PCR seconded the
motion to table and refer this item to the Chaplain’s Committee for a report back
to the May 2012 NEC meeting.

THE MOTION CARRIED (7 no votes)
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Referral to committee for proper staffing, with a report back to
the May 2012 NEC meeting. Include in the May 2012 NEC agenda.
THE CHAIR reminded commanders of the need to respond to the call for agenda items
for the National Board and NEC meetings so they can be fully staffed in advance of the
meeting. The only exception should be emergency items.

CH, COL, ELLIS, provided the benediction.

THERE WAS A MOTION TO ADJOURN BY ACCLAMATION

37

March 2012 National Board Minutes

DRAFT

Administrative Remarks
THE NATIONAL BOARD WAS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION FROM 1410 – 1700 ON
FRIDAY, 2 MARCH 2012.

THE NATIONAL BOARD ADJOURNED AT 1405, SATURDAY, 3 MARCH 2012.

ADMINISTRATIVE ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Update remarks and slide briefings were presented by Maj Gen Carr, National
Commander; Mr. Rowland, Executive Director; and Col Gloyd, USAF, CAP-USAF
Commander.
Distinguished members and guests were recognized including members of the head
table; other members of the NEC; Members of the Board of Governors, Chairman, Brig
Gen Richard Anderson and past CAP National Commander; and Vice Chairman, Maj
Gen John Speigel, USAF (Ret); other Past National Commanders, Maj Gen Dwight
Wheless, Brig Gen Hal DuPont, and Brig Gen Paul Bergman; and Commander of CAPUSAF, Col Gloyd, USAF.
Brig Gen Vazquez/CV announced the following named new commanders attending the
National Board for the first time. Maj Gen Carr presented their National Board badges:
NER
MER
GLR
SER
NCR
RMR
SWR
PCR

Col Sandra E. Bandon, PA Wing
Col William S. Bernfeld, DE Wing
Col Rickey L. Oeth, IL Wing
Col Luis A. Cubano, PR Wing
Col Gerald P. Rosendahl, MN Wing
Col Frederick H. Thompson, ID Wing
Col Brian N. Ready, AZ Wing
Col Jon L. Stokes, CA Wing
Col Timothy F. Hahn, NV Wing, and
Col Ken Parris, National Inspector General

Brig Gen Vazquez/CV announced that Col Regina M. Aye, Kansas Wing is the only
National Board member attending the meeting for the last time, and expressed
appreciation for her service.
The Paul E. Garber Award and the A. Scott Crossfield Award were presented to Colonel
Charles E. Lynch, Jr. of the Montana Wing.
Mr. Rowland/EX announced that Skip Dotherow has joined the National Headquarters
staff as the new Development Director. He has already met many NB members is
38

March 2012 National Board Minutes
DRAFT
looking forward to hearing everyone’s ideas, learning more about the organization, and
helping CAP develop successful campaigns in the future.

BRIG GEN RICH ANDERSON, Chairman of the BoG, and MAJ GEN JOHN SPIEGEL,
USAF (Ret), Vice Chairman of the BoG, in open session, in the spirit of transparency,
discussed the constitutional issues affecting Civil Air Patrol—the Governance process,
which has been in a working stage for a very long time and now is in a formalized
process moving toward addressing and resolving a number of these issues. Gen
Anderson stated that Gen Spiegel, one of the Secretary of the Air Force designated
representatives to the Board of Governors, is leading the BoG effort of the governance
process in his capacity as Chairman of the BoG Governance Committee. Also serving
on the committee is Brig Gen Sandy Schlitt, USAF (Ret) who represents the industry
segment of the board membership, and Gen Carr represents the CAP category of
membership. Gen Anderson noted the commissioning of an outside organization,
BoardSource, which specializes in governance issues regarding non-profits. They have
done a study and made their recommendations to the BoG. Going parallel with that has
been the process known as the CAP Ad hoc Governance Committee which Gen
Courter appointed, is chaired by Col Verrett, and consists of a number of key leaders
throughout the organization. The BoG Governance Committee has had one meeting at
Maxwell AFB and soon with meet again at Maxwell to move to the next step. Gen
Anderson emphasized that he wanted to talk to the board and get feedback, but more
importantly to let the board members understand the flight path for the way ahead.
MAJ GEN SPIEGEL explained how the coordination process will move along with due
diligence in the finalization of the recommendations provided. After the presentation of
the recommendations at a regular BoG meeting, they will go to the Secretary of the Air
Force. After receiving feedback on that meeting, the BoG would meet again to make
needed adjustments, after which they will come back to the CAP Constitution and
Bylaws Committee to work out the remainder of the details.
MAJ GEN SPIEGEL admitted that this is a tough issue and the data points will be
worked in a deliberate manner with healthy discussions among all the key stakeholders
in this process. He added that the BoG wants to protect and preserve the years of
tradition and the volunteer nature of CAP.
GEN ANDERSON noted that there were six members of the BoG present and opened
the floor for questions or comments. There were several questions, some of which
surrounded how this process will impact the members. The answer was that this
governance process will be almost completely transparent to the members. He added
that as things began to firm up, he will work to provide an avenue to give board
members more feedback and be ready to answer questions.
At the close of the National Board meeting, Gen Carr thanked all the board members for
assisting with Legislative Day and for fulfilling their responsibilities as commanders.

39