You need to consider firstly whether the matter relates to Armed Services or not, and without question the RAFAC does not come under the Armed Forces Act. It is a civilian organisation, and although sponsored by the MOD, it is civilian. Any monies originating from the Treasury are required to be accounted as such, whereas non-public funds are entirely different, and as is evident the Civcom only handles non public funds. It is also relevant to point out that Civcom do not receive any allowance from HQAC for their work.
That is why the ATC function has always been supported by Charities, which are supposed to be independent - ie a separation between those who manage the organisation, and those who fundraise and manage what are non-public funds being monies not accountable to the Treasury.
I am sure you will agree that all CFAVs are recompensed out of public funds or they are salaried, which does not make them independent, in as much as they have the full range of responsibilities in managing Cadets.
There is good illustration of Treasury requirements with the SCC. Each year the MSSC is given a grant in aid by the Treasury. This is then public funds and the Treasury has to be assured that it is managed and applied properly. So the MSSC is a registered charity and all SCC units are also registered charities with the equivalent of a Civcom - charity law thereby providing certain safeguards that there is proper management because there are Trustees who are accountable under that Law.
If you read ACP11, CFAVs are specifically excluded from being an active member of the Civcom and having voting rights, on account of the fact they are aid out of public funds, and it is this which ensures independence for the Charity.
Yes some service personnel have responsibility for non public funds - RAF Mess Funds for example where acting as a Trustee is a secondary duty, - but they are still subject to the requirements of the Charity Law. The Charity Commission was required to open a public inquiry over some issues which arose - alerted by a failure to properly account for monies.
Whatever, if the source of monies is not from the Treasury, it is not accountable in that direction, and what is more, no part of those funds (including assets) can never be transferred to the Treasury or its servants (or sequestrated) and that has been proven in court in the recent past.
This is why I referred to blurring - it is not entirely clear where boundaries lie and in some ways the RAFAC is to blame for that, because as Charity regulation has moved on to protect donor and beneficiary interests, and to promote transparency, the RAFAC has moved in the other direction.
Also not changed is the definition of what constitutes public funds if HM Treasury is to be believed.