Over the past several years, I have documented a growing and troubling trend across cadet programs: drill and ceremonies standards being altered, replaced, or hybridized without clear doctrinal authority.
These changes are often justified with phrases such as:
- “This is how we do it now,”
- “Program leadership approved it,” or
- “Our manual supersedes the service manual.”
What is almost never provided is the one thing that matters:
a citation to parent-service doctrinal authority.
That absence prompted a necessary step.
Why I Sent Formal Letters
Within the last few days, I sent two formal letters requesting written doctrinal clarification:
- One to HQ AFJROTC
- One to Civil Air Patrol leadership
Both letters were narrowly focused, non-accusatory, and deliberately structured to require a doctrinal response, not a policy explanation or cultural justification.
The core question in both cases is simple:
Do cadet program governing authorities possess the power to add to, replace, or supersede United States Air Force drill and ceremonies doctrine absent explicit delegation from the Department of the Air Force?
Everything else flows from that.
What This Is — and Is Not
This is not:
- A personal grievance
- An attack on instructors or volunteers
- A demand for immediate policy change
- An argument about which service “looks better”
This is:
- A request for clarification of authority
- A challenge to doctrinal ambiguity
- An effort to protect instructional integrity
- A defense of standards over preference
If changes to doctrine have been formally delegated, that delegation should be cited.
If they have not, that distinction must be acknowledged.
There is no middle ground.
Administrative Authority vs. Doctrinal Authority (Briefly)
Cadet programs absolutely possess administrative authority to:
- Adapt training for safety and age
- Restrict techniques
- Clarify instruction
- Establish program rules and evaluations
What they do not possess—absent explicit delegation—is authority to redefine what is doctrinally correct.
Administrative permission does not equal doctrinal legitimacy.
That distinction is the heart of this challenge.
Why This Matters
When doctrinal boundaries are blurred:
- Cadets receive conflicting instruction
- Instructors argue policy instead of reference
- Judges and evaluators apply inconsistent standards
- Incorrect practices become normalized
- Errors harden into “tradition”
Over time, ceremonial accuracy erodes—not because people are careless, but because authority was never clearly defined.
What Happens Next
I have sent the letters quietly and professionally.
I am allowing appropriate time for written responses.
When responses are received, one of four outcomes will occur:
- Doctrinal authority is cited – That citation becomes the controlling reference going forward.
- Limits of authority are acknowledged – That clarification restores doctrinal boundaries.
- An administrative response avoids doctrine – That avoidance will be noted and addressed publicly.
- No response is provided – Silence, too, communicates institutional position.
In all cases, the outcome will be documented carefully and factually.
What I Am Not Asking Others to Do
I am not encouraging mass letters, campaigns, or pressure tactics.
Volume does not produce clarity.
Doctrine does.
Individuals who encounter conflicts should work through their chain using published references, not emotion or opinion.
The Governing Principle
Cadet programs manage education and training.
Parent services define doctrine.
Confusing the two produces error.
This challenge exists to restore that line—not to erase it.
Further updates will follow once responses are received.
This article addresses doctrinal authority and administrative governance in cadet programs generally. It does not supersede parent-service regulations, formally delegated exceptions, or lawful command authority. Program-specific publications may adapt or restrict drill and ceremonies procedures for cadet use, but such adaptations do not constitute independent doctrine unless explicitly authorized by the parent military service.