Membership Action Review Panel – Congratulations, You’re Screwed!

Civil Air Patrol

By Ray Hayden | CAP Insights

In CAPR 35-8, dated 1 November 2012, it clearly says that MEMBERS who feel like they had been, oh, let’s say “wronged,” by someone who festered into a position of some perceived authority must appeal, timely and properly… let’s have a look-see, shall we?

Page 1, Number 1. Policy, (a.) The Membership Action Review Panel (MARP) is independent from the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) Chain of Command.

[OKaaaayyyyy… completely, totally, undeniably INDEPENDENT from CAP’s “Chain of Corruption.” Got it… let’s continue, shall we?]

Page 2. Number 3. MARP MEMBERS. (b.). The eight active senior members specified under paragraph 3a above will be appointed by the National Commander, [it gets better!] from a list of candidates provided by each Region Commander.

I have to introduce you to the Self Licking Ice Cream Cone of Corruption, the Criminal Air Patrol. The NATIONAL COMMANDER puts the REGION COMMANDERS in place, got it? The REGION COMMANDERS put the WING COMMANDERS in place… have you got that?

Seriously, if you do not see the automatic Self Licking Ice Cream Cone of Corruption…

[See page 1. Number 1 above… something smells fishy in Denmark folks!]


Let’s take a look at Membership Terminations, CAPR 35-3, Paragraphs 7 and 8.

Page 3. Section D – Appeal Procedures. Number 7. Member’s Appeal Action. (a.) … must notify… within 30 days

[Seems fair enough, 30 days… must… within 30 days… must notify… got it.]

Page 3. Section D – Appeal Procedures. Number 8. Action to be taken on appeal. Normally, within 10 days… will appoint an appeal board on orders…

[Alright… Under Number 7, the MEMBER MUST, yet, under number 8, CAP “Normally“… will, well that seems like a double standard, doesn’t it? Member MUST, CAP… sort of kind of “normally,” but whenever we kind of get around to it… OK, it is making a bit more sense… let’s continue, shall we?]

Page 3. Section D – Appeal Procedures. Number 9. Appeal Board Procedures. (a.) (2) …normally should not be more than 30 days

[Wait, what?!?… the member, who files the appeal “must” within very strict time frames, or be lost forever, yet, the CAP gets to take their sweet time?]

OK, I get it – for the General Membership, you must jump through the appropriate hoops at the specified time limits, certainly that is fair… but the CAP gets to take their sweet time with sort of – kind of time frames?

Now, let’s assume, for grins and giggles, that the MARP had set a precedent of, oh, let’s say the following…

“The MARP found that in the timeliness of the appeal proceedings resulted in a lack of due process and could be considered a material failure to follow applicable CAP regulations.  Based on this, the MARP voted to reverse the termination action and reinstated membership with credit for the time since termination being given.”

RESULT: [The MARP reversed the termination & reinstated the member].

Now, the MARP says, in the above, that CAP really blew it with the timeliness issue, and that – because of that – it resulted in a lack of due process for the member, and they had been reinstated, with all time due.

It would make sense, totally, if the Member blew the statute (rule), that they would be, in essence, fucked. So, if it is good for the General Membership, it should be good (sort of – kind of) for CAP, it makes sense.

And, in this scenario, the MARP did indeed find that a delay in time would be detrimental to the General Membership if the CAP blew the statue (time limit), resulting in an unfair condition with lack of due process.

So, it would then be reasonable to presume that the MARP would agree with their decision above, and that it was the most fair and judicious result for the good of the member, and of the CAP. And, I would say that it would be a good and fair, a just, thing for the MARP to due… Kudos to the MARP, job well done.

Further, it would be reasonable to presume that the MARP would follow this precedent in equal and fair administration of application of the rules to the General Membership and the Criminal Air Patrol… what’s fair is fair – for all, blow the statue, you lose… above, CAP lost – fair.

Well, what if, say, for example, hypothetically, not all that long AFTER the above case, the MARP said something along the lines of… oh , I don’t know… maybe… “Rules, we don’t need no stinkin’ rules!”


Maybe that isn’t exactly what they said, but what if what they said went against the very precedent that they just set in the above case? Would that seem very fair, just, or reasonable?

What did they actually say… word for word?

“The MARP agreed that the deadlines set forth in CAPR 35-3, Paragraph 7, were not followed…”

OK, the MARP says, word for word, written by the Deputy Chief, CAP Legal Officer Corps, so it is a legal opinion, by an attorney, that the MARP agreed that the deadlines set forth in CAPR 35-3, Paragraph 7, were not followed. This is non disputable, because I have the guys signature on the document… an attorney, for CAP, wrote a legal opinion of factual information that…

“The MARP agreed that the deadlines set forth in CAPR 35-3, Paragraph 7, were not followed.”
His words, not mine, or anyone else, an attorney representing the Civil Air Patrol, signed off on those very words. In the above case, “The MARP found that in the timeliness of the appeal proceedings resulted in a lack of due process and could be considered a material failure to follow applicable CAP regulations.”

Then, an attorney for the Civil Air Patrol clearly stated, under signature in the course and scope of his duties to the corporation…

“The MARP agreed that the deadlines set forth in CAPR 35-3, Paragraph 7, were not followed.”

YET, in this newer case, the MARP changed the very logic of their earlier argument, and said the following:

“The MARP concluded that these deadlines are not mandated and, the failure of the board to conduct the hearing within the guidelines suggested by CAPR 35-3 did not constitute a failure to follow applicable CAP regulations.”

RESULT:  [The MARP upheld the termination.]


Here is the transparency – in part – that YOU, as a General Member of the CAP do not get, and they COUNT on this very fact, they do NOT follow their own rules, and they IGNORE then as they please, and even an attorney who represents the Corporation of the Civil Air Patrol will sign off on the LIE before your eyes.

Read More

1 Comment on "Membership Action Review Panel – Congratulations, You’re Screwed!"

  1. Avatar inqRayHayden | March 1, 2019 at 01:09 | Reply

    What ever happened to Ray Hayden? Was he abducted by the Civil Air Patrol white vans? Just kidding.

    I am asking because the scurrilous reports out of CAP National about Chief Operating Officer John Salvador and Civil Air Patrol’s inept Board of Governors are still standing on his website. What say you?

    [Admin: The two editors who know the most about Ray Hayden’s Civil Air Patrol experiences are NORDO. We confirm that the accusations made against John Salvador and the Board of Governors being inept are still present on his website. AuxBeacon has additional information which is held in reserve at this time, and may be the reason there has been no change in Ray’s presentation.]

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.