"Capt Lou" wrote in message

"A member of the Auxiliary while assigned to duty shall be deemed to be a
Federal employee for the purposes of the following:

(1) Chapter 26 of title 28 (popularly known as the Federal Tort Claims
Act).
(2) Section 2733 of title 10 (popularly known as the Military Claims Act).
(3) The Act of March 3, 1925 (46 App. U.S.C. 781-790; popularly known as
the
Public Vessels Act).
(4) The Act of March 9, 1920 (46 App.U.S.C. 741-752; popularly known as
the
Suits in Admiralty Act).
(5) The Act of June 19, 1948 (46 App. U.S.C. 740; popularly known as the
Admiralty Extension Act).
(6) Other matters related to noncontractual civil liability.
(7) Compensation for work injuries under chapter 81 of title 5.
(8) The resolution of claims relating to damage to or loss of personal
property
of the member incident to service under the
Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claims Act of 1964 (31U.S.C.
3721).
(c) A member of the Auxiliary, while assigned to duty, shall be deemed to
be a
person acting under an officer of the United States or an agency thereof
for
purposes of section 1442(a)(1) of title 28.

Now what do you think?

I made reference to this in my response above to Gene, when I said "...There
are some few and intermittent times and circumstances when an Auxiliarist
may be treated by the CG in the same manner as a regular CG member..."
There's nothing new in the quote above, but they've apparently codified the
status of Auxiliarists while operating under orders, for purposes of
liability coverage. The CG lawyers have been batting this conundrum about
for about three years now. Apparently, this is their solution. They
consider us "employees" for purposes of liability coverage when we operate
under orders. Maybe housing and exchange privileges are next.