Quote from: colorguard_rifle on June 05, 2008, 01:11:57 AM
Okay let's set this straight this was not a unit or group decision this was a wing decisions. I am going to follow orders and not get chewed out for not having a beret when I show my 101. So lets put it this way I've got what I need this was not intended for a debate and I'd appreciate hateful opinions kept to yourselves. Now I don't care if it looks ridiculous you usually see people with the beret for base and the patrol cap for the field. Another thing National is well aware of this decision which isn't at all new so since I've got what we need could an admin please lock this topic. (before I lose my mind)

Cadet, the above is precisely the reason many of us take issue with these kinds of situations.

There is no "order" on any level in INWG that members with GT ratings will wear a beret, the INWG CC has indicated it is  an >option<, an option that a number us believe he does not have the power to grant, and assuming he has the power, was not granted properly (i.e. a NHQ approved supplement).

You however, have chosen to read something which is optional and change it to mandatory.

Since most of us are not from INWG, we don't have any standing to challenge it officially (nor interest) but since you chose to raise the questions here, it is fair game for comment. 

There is no evidence whatsoever that NHQ is aware of this at all - the supplement is not signed by anyone, nor does it appear to be posted anywhere on NHQ's site.

Quote from: colorguard_rifle on June 05, 2008, 01:11:57 AM
WOW! A simple how to question and I get this explosion of people dissing our orders. Well I don't like it anymore than you guys, but it is hard work earning the beret.

If you don't like it, don't wear it.  You did not "earn a beret", you earned a GT badge and someone decided you can wear a beret because of it.  The only place in CAP where anyone "earns a beret" is NBB.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 05, 2008, 01:24:22 AM
and assuming he has the power, was not granted properly (i.e. a NHQ approved supplement).

We don't know that. Are any wing's 39-1 supplements on the NHQ site?

Quote from: davidsinn on June 05, 2008, 01:42:41 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on June 05, 2008, 01:24:22 AM
and assuming he has the power, was not granted properly (i.e. a NHQ approved supplement).

We don't know that. Are any wing's 39-1 supplements on the NHQ site?

I don't see them, and I was looking pretty hard.  I found the 60-series supplements, but nothing on NHQ's site.

However the document is not signed by anyone, and if I was going to grant special dispensation for something as contentious as a beret, I would get the National CC's sig, which would discussions before it started.

Quote from: colorguard_rifle on June 05, 2008, 01:11:57 AM
WOW! A simple how to question and I get this explosion of people dissing our orders. Well I don't like it anymore than you guys, but it is hard work earning the beret.

A while back there was a very long post on uniforms and changes to CAPM 39-1.  Some of it got a little heated at times.  This is one of those items that some folks have a problem with.  Please understand they are not "dissing" you, or your Squadron.  I think they are trying to make sure people out there in CAPland are following the rules.  I hope you got your answer.  Even at National Blue Beret last year there was a debate on the "right way" to shape a beret.  
Don't let this get you down.  

Except for 60-1 and a few others....supplements do not....do not have to be approved by higher head quarters.

As for "earning" the beret....in INWG it appears you earn the beret along with the GT badge.

Does the INWG/CC have the authority?  Sure he does.....39-1 says he does, national/wing has done nothing to stop this or any other similar actions.

Also, the whole idea that members should be allowed to wear a beret based on their GT status is a hold-over of HWSRN, the INWG supplement was published several months before he was removed from office, and is likely one of the many less visible things that will be corrected once the iCC has a minute to
exhale and worry about less important matters.

Quote from: lordmonar on June 05, 2008, 01:54:59 AM
Except for 60-1....supplements do not....do not have to be approved by higher head quarters.

They do if the change exceeds the Wing CC's authority, and its is at least arguable that this one does.

What if it allowed for the wear of leather A2's over service dress?

This grants a uniform item over an USAF-style uniform, an item which is denied at the national level. You can only make regs stronger at lower echelons, not weaker.

A GT badge is not a "special activity or purpose" it is a standard part of the curriculum nationwide.

Not really a GT badge is not required in the cadet programs the only thing required is Aerospace and Leadership and an ES mission is definately a special event because they don't happen often and that's what the supplemment says so take your pick you can wear it or you may not choose to all I know is that it's highly reccomended.

Here is the key sentence from CAPR 5-4:

CAP REGULATION 5-4 PUBLICATIONS AND FORMS MANAGEMENT   5 FEBRUARY 2007
3. Supplements, Operating Instructions (OI) and Pamphlets. Supplements

(1) .... Publications will not conflict with higher headquarters directives.  ....

Cadet Programs is 1/3 of CAP's mission, Aerospace Education is 1/3 of CAP's mission, and Emergency Services is 1/3 of CAP's mission.   Hard to claim ES is a "special activity".

I meant a mission and ES qulified is not required in CAP.

Quote from: Major Carrales on June 04, 2008, 08:18:59 PM
Such discussion...whoa, I wonder where are priorities really are?

Pot...this is kettle....black....over

Quote from: Major Carrales on June 04, 2008, 08:18:59 PMBerets and Boonies, the latest subjects here, really serve no purpose in the field for CAP.  They are items that traditionally set aside elite units (in terms of the berets) and long deployments in the field (the boonie hats are really an item designed to protect from the elements and exposure in an environment where one seeks to reduce the effect of rain or in an arid environment).  Since we don't have a true "elite" force of full time CAP Officers and Cadets, nor are we exposed in the field for weeks at a time, having them in CAP is simply a matter of personal preference.

Same argument can be made for flight suits, bdus and just about everything we wear in CAP.....so this argument is null and void.

But to rebut it.....boonies are worn by everyone who is authorised by the AOR commander....not just "elite" or "long deployers".

In the USAF cops are the most prominant wearers of berets....and (this is not a cop bash) let's face it....it is not really that "elite" of an organisaiton.  So the beret is not a mark of elite training....but of special purpose duties.....force protection.

Quote from: Major Carrales on June 04, 2008, 08:18:59 PM
I know that this not a popular thing to write here, but I have read all the remarks on "skin cancer" and the like, these are somewhat specious arguments since, as has been pointed out, we roll our sleeves.

Not on my teams....they are authorised to roll them up....but I don't allow it...because of the safety issues...including sun exposure.  

Quote from: Major Carrales on June 04, 2008, 08:18:59 PMIf you want them because you think they make us look cool, then just go with that and hope for the best.  If a Wing allows for them in their approved supplement, then that is policy, just go with it and hope for the best.

That has been my argument all along.  The wing authorised it.  If we disagree, we challenge it up the chain of command and move on.

Quote from: Major Carrales on June 04, 2008, 08:18:59 PMOh, by the
As for the remarks against squadron commanders and the National Commander, Interim; that is uncalled for.

I was not bashing the National Commander....but pointing out that if uniforms were a major problem with her (as was suggested by a poster) then she would have taken action against PAWG a long time ago.

Quote from: Short Field on June 05, 2008, 02:07:05 AM
Here is the key sentence from CAPR 5-4:

CAP REGULATION 5-4 PUBLICATIONS AND FORMS MANAGEMENT   5 FEBRUARY 2007
3. Supplements, Operating Instructions (OI) and Pamphlets. Supplements

(1) .... Publications will not conflict with higher headquarters directives.  ....

Cadet Programs is 1/3 of CAP's mission, Aerospace Education is 1/3 of CAP's mission, and Emergency Services is 1/3 of CAP's mission.   Hard to claim ES is a "special activity".

But 39-1 specifically identifieds ES as a special activity that a wing commander may authorise special uniform items for.

Where is all this "bashing" talk coming from?

I think this actually a pretty civil discussion and the majority of posters are trying to back up their opinions
with a reg or precedence.

If anytime someone disagrees with an opinion or statement we consider it "bashing", we might as well just flip the switch on the internet now.

Quote from: lordmonar on June 05, 2008, 02:11:04 AM
But 39-1 specifically identifies ES as a special activity that a wing commander may authorize special uniform items for.

Yes, in some cases, but that's supposed to be safety or mission related gear, not decorative items like a beret, and certainly not when its in direct conflict with national directives.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 05, 2008, 02:15:48 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on June 05, 2008, 02:11:04 AM
But 39-1 specifically identifies ES as a special activity that a wing commander may authorize special uniform items for.

Yes, in some cases, but that's supposed to be safety or mission related gear, not decorative items like a beret, and certainly not when its in direct conflict with national directives.

What directive is it in conflict with?

Quote from: Eclipse on June 05, 2008, 02:15:48 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on June 05, 2008, 02:11:04 AM
But 39-1 specifically identifies ES as a special activity that a wing commander may authorize special uniform items for.

Yes, in some cases, but that's supposed to be safety or mission related gear, not decorative items like a beret, and certainly not when its in direct conflict with national directives.

Such is your interpetation of the reg....but not everyones....and the Chain of Command's opinion and interpetation is the only one that counts in this instance.

Quote from: Bayhawk21 on June 05, 2008, 02:18:48 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on June 05, 2008, 02:15:48 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on June 05, 2008, 02:11:04 AM
But 39-1 specifically identifies ES as a special activity that a wing commander may authorize special uniform items for.

Yes, in some cases, but that's supposed to be safety or mission related gear, not decorative items like a beret, and certainly not when its in direct conflict with national directives.

What directive is it in conflict with?

Berets are currently authorized for a very narrow, specific groups of people, and even the NB cannot agree to a simple definition and specification.

The majority of wing supplements to uniform regulations are flavors of already approved items (color, etc.)

Quote from: colorguard_rifle on June 05, 2008, 01:11:57 AM
WOW! A simple how to question and I get this explosion of people dissing our orders. Well I don't like it anymore than you guys, but it is hard work earning the beret.

No, it's not.

Quote from: lordmonar on June 05, 2008, 02:20:49 AM
Such is your interpretation of the reg....but not everyones....and the Chain of Command's opinion and interpretation is the only one that counts in this instance.

Agreed, and absent a posting here, I would not be trolling INWG email address looking to discuss the situation.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 05, 2008, 02:25:28 AM
Berets are currently authorized for a very narrow, specific groups of people,

As they are in the INWG supplement.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 05, 2008, 02:25:28 AMand even the NB cannot agree to a simple definition and specification.

And until they do it will be left up to others to decide those things.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 05, 2008, 02:25:28 AMThe majority of wing supplements to uniform regulations are flavors of already approved items (color, etc.)

Yes but that is not always the case.  The MDWG berets are specifically forbiden "in order to maintain uniformity for all members throughout the wing."  My assumption is that this was done as a measure to address what 39-1 says and doesn't say.

As I have said before, I do not like the idea of CAP members wearing berets.  The reason I continue to post in favor of the INWG supplement is that it seems to meet the requirements for a supplement to 39-1.  I believe the implication that it is an illegal reg is completly wrong.  It may exploit a possible loophole in what the definition of "special activity" or "special purpose" is but it does not contradict regs put out by NHQ.  My personal belief is that 39-1 should be made more specific to have better standards of who may wear and in what specific activties.  Until that point I believe that the validity of the supplement should be accepted and the implication that it is wrong and that members should not follow it because it is illegal should not happen.  Commenting on whether berets are good things or not is one matter but the validity of the supplement is another.

If I have misunderstood others' comments I apologize.  I'm not trying to argue, just putting in my $0.02

-Jon-