First Sergeant Diamond...?

[Luis R. Ramos]

I remembered reading rather skimming the topic of "First Sergeant Diamond" dated 2008 when having a conversation with my unit's CDC. He said the diamond was still authorized. So I did a search of the current 52-16 published December 2012.

No mention of diamonds, unless my searcher did not work.

What, exactly, is the status of the diamond? Are they still authorized?

Before someone posts "what is your concern whether a diamond is allowed?" as has happened other times I have posted a question regarding my positions at the squadron.

I am Personnel Officer, and CAP pubs state "it is the Personnel Officer the person that implements wear of the uniform."

Flyer

[Sapper168]

Just a couple from the search option.....


http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=15881.msg288047#msg288047

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=14079.msg254423#msg254423

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=10961.msg200827#msg200827

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13180.msg241124#msg241124

[EMT-83]

I remembered reading rather skimming the topic of "First Sergeant Diamond" dated 2008 when having a conversation with my unit's CDC. He said the diamond was still authorized. So I did a search of the current 52-16 published December 2012.

No mention of diamonds, unless my searcher did not work.

What, exactly, is the status of the diamond? Are they still authorized?

Before someone posts "what is your concern whether a diamond is allowed?" as has happened other times I have posted a question regarding my positions at the squadron.

I am Personnel Officer, and CAP pubs state "it is the Personnel Officer the person that implements wear of the uniform."

Flyer

Flyer, I never would have questioned why you asked the original question if not for your bold-text comment. Perhaps I can offer some clarity.

Responsibility for proper uniform wear rest squarely on the shoulders of the commander. Reference CAPR 20-1, page 21. That responsibility is sometimes delegated to the deputy commander(s).

The personnel officer's involvement in regards to uniforms is limited to "associated administrative procedures" according to CAPR 20-1, page 38.

In regards to the First Sergeant Diamond, there are conflicts in various documents. If your commanders have determined it will be worn, so be it. Unless responsibility for uniform wear has specifically been delegated to you, let it go.

A much better guide for performing the duties of the personnel officer would be CAPP 200.

[arajca]

1. The first sergeant diamond is not authorized. It was removed from the latest version of CAPR 52-16. There is no conflict in the regs - it's not there.
2. It is not in CAPM 39-1 or any of the ICLs related to it. If National meant to authorize it, they would have added it somewhere along the line. They've had enough opportunities.
3. It's really not a big enough issue to get into a urination contest over.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Yet I see C/MSgt - C/CMSgt grades with the diamond.

[a2capt]

..and our official enabl, er, um, supplier .. sells it. Go figure.

[Майор Хаткевич]

The argument always comes down to
"Why do you need the diamond?"
"So my cadets know who the first sergeant is"
"They should already know who the first sergeant is, without seeing a diamond"
"Well new people won't know who I am"
"New people will have no clue what the diamond is"
"..."

[Garibaldi]

How will people know I'm the boss?

Introduce yourself as such.

[Eclipse]

How will people know I'm the boss?

Introduce yourself as such.

Unfortunately, in CAP that sometimes includes 1/2 the room.

[Luis R. Ramos]

EMT 83-

I guess there is room for arguing.

Here is what I base my comments. From CAPP 200, section d on page 10:

One particularly important area of concern is the proper
wear of the CAP uniform. Although unit commanders are
ultimately responsible for ensuring that all members of their
unit observe the standards of dress and appearance,
personnel officers should be the most knowledgeable
members of the squadron regarding CAP uniform matters. If
a discrepancy is noted, the personnel officer should point it
out to the member concerned. If members repeatedly violate
the regulation or do not correct...

Flyer

[Eclipse]

As Personnel Officer, you certainly have input, at least locally, however yo have no authority to implement or interpret policy, only make recommendations.

To the topic at hand, at least in the current state of the regulations, the diamond is no longer authorized, why isn't relevant.  However you could be
"right" in this, but still ultimately "wrong" if you push too hard or exceed your authority.

Since the CDC is allowing the wear, presumably with the acquiescence of the Commander, and assuming you've made a professional recommendation to the CC, it's pretty much a closed discussion.  And, not saying it has been, but certainly not one that should be had in front of the cadets.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Ground-

Thank you very much for all those links.

I did a search before I posted, but I only got a 2008 thread. I guess I must always resort to several searches using different keywords.

Thank you all for your comments.

Flyer

[Luis R. Ramos]

Eclipse-

No, it has not been implemented yet. It was a discussion we were having before he became CDC.

I beg to differ about...

...no authority to implement... or interpret policy...

From CAPP 200, page 10:

...One particularly important area of concern is the proper
wear of the CAP uniform. Although unit commanders are
ultimately responsible for ensuring that all members of their
unit observe the standards of dress and appearance,
personnel officers should be the most knowledgeable
members of the squadron regarding CAP uniform matters. If
a discrepancy is noted, the personnel officer should point it
out to the member concerned. If members repeatedly violate
the regulation or do not correct...

Or are you going to say now this is in direct conflict with CAP regulations?

Flyer

[Eclipse]

For starters, that's a pamphlet, not a regulation, and even if that were not the case, the very verbiage you cite reserves
the authority to the commander.

[Luis R. Ramos]

...yet it still states the Personnel Officer implements and recommends uniform policy...

Flyer

[Eclipse]

...yet it still states the Personnel Officer implements and recommends uniform policy...

Correct, policy approved by the commander, just as with any staff officer.  You have no authority to interpret without his approval.

[Luis R. Ramos]

...or as in this case, interpret and recommend if it is not approved yet...

Flyer

[Eclipse]

Yes, no issue there, but the interpretation is upstream, not to the membership, and once the CC makes the decision, that's the
end of it.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Yep, just like the discussion our squadron had on wear of the NRA badge.

When we discussed it, I said "it is not authorized." The CC said "I still would like our members to wear it, what can we do?" I said "you can authorize wear of the NRA badge locally at our events and meetings as long as cadets do not wear it to events out of our unit." And that is what we do.

Flyer

[Eclipse]

Yep, just like the discussion our squadron had on wear of the NRA badge.

When we discussed it, I said "it is not authorized." The CC said "I still would like our members to wear it, what can we do?" I said "you can authorize wear of the NRA badge locally at our events and meetings as long as cadets do not wear it to events out of our unit." And that is what we do.

Except that he can't, unless you can cite otherwise.

Local CC's are not allowed to simply "make things up", or re-craft the regs as they wish them to be on their own whim.  In this case, either the OI or the supplement would need higher HQ approval, which they are not likely to get.

[EMT-83]

1. The first sergeant diamond is not authorized. It was removed from the latest version of CAPR 52-16. There is no conflict in the regs - it's not there.
2. It is not in CAPM 39-1 or any of the ICLs related to it. If National meant to authorize it, they would have added it somewhere along the line. They've had enough opportunities.
3. It's really not a big enough issue to get into a urination contest over.

According to the Knowledgebase, the First Sergeant Diamond is authorized. That's the conflict I was referring to. I would agree that the KB is not regulatory, and the actual regulations should be followed.

[arajca]

The Knowledgebase also says they meant to include it, however, they've had ample opportunities to include it somewhere along the line. We've had a dozen or so ICLs regarding uniforms, plus it was removed from the latest version of CAPR 52-16. Both which indicate (to me at least) they did NOT mean for it to be authorized.

[coloncapfl]

First on this subject I see a lot of peoples perspective and not a definate answer. Question, Doesn't National sends a change when an item gets Phase out and what is whe Phase out date? Has there ever being one for that item? Second the 1st Sgt diamont is not an achievemnt grade but rather a position grade, just as the military has the 1st, Sgt Major and Cmd Sgt Major. Those are the same pay grade but just have different duties. I believe that until there i an official document stating that the diamont has been phase out, then there is no definate authority to say that has been officially out, specially when the position is still reflected (although vague) in some regs. the 1st Sgt position responsibility is shown on the pamphet but not on the regs. I beliebve because is an optional position. When I was a cadet my squadron was 60 and at a time was 150 cadets and we always had 1st sgts. I just honestly believe I e no harm in letting a cadet wear the diamond.

That is my humble opinion.

[lordmonar]

If national was doing their job.....and updating the regulations in a timely manner and making changes as they see errors....this would not be a problem.

39-1 is mute on the subject  52-16 used to authorise it and is now mute on the subject.  KB authorises them. 

Bottom line is that the world is not going to end one way or the other.....if in doubt ask your chain of command.

[Private Investigator]

Well my opinion really does not count because we have Regulations.

BUT the First Sergeant Diamond is really cool and Cadets like to be called FIRST SERGEANT   

[Luis R. Ramos]

Eclipse-

How is it wearing the First Sergeant diamond different than wearing the NRA badge?

In both cases, some regulation says it is authorized.

In both cases, Knowledge Base says they are authorized.

So how come that in one case, you appear to support the commander's decission to wear one to the exclusion of the other.

Flyer

[Pylon]

In both cases, some regulation says it is authorized.

In both cases, Knowledge Base says they are authorized.

Wrong assumptions here on both parts.  Here's the reality of that summary:

Regulations & Manuals: 
First Sergeant Diamond:  None mention the first sergeant diamond.  CAPM 39-1 however does state in Section 1 that it is exclusionary in nature and that anything not specifically authorized in 39-1 for wear is completely forbidden for wear throughout CAP.
NRA Badge:  A specifically named NRA badge tied to a specific program is authorized in CAPM 39-1.  That NRA program in its entirety no longer exists.  The NRA badges being issued today are different badges.  They are not specifically mentioned by badge name, program name, or any other form of equivalency provision.  If we can take an authorization for a specific, defined, named badge and then just wear a similar one at our own discretion, I guess I can wear Naval Observer Wings instead of CAP Observer Wings if Vanguard runs out of them or if CAP eliminates the observer rating.  Close enough, right?

Knowledgebase:  In both cases, the Knowledgebase can say whatever it wants yet it doesn't impact this discussion.  There is no provision in any CAP regulation anywhere that says: "Do X, Y, and Z, but if you read a CAP Knowledgebase entry that says otherwise, disregard this regulation at your own pleasure."   CAP Knowledgebase is maintained by NHQ paid staff members; staff members do not have the authority to change any regulations.  Those powers are now reserved to the National Commander/CEO and the BoG.   It's pretty easy for NHQ to issue a change letter.  They've issued nearly a dozen on the uniform manual alone in recent years, and many of those had a laundry list of changes.  The Knowledgebase has been saying "they forgot" the diamond for YEARS.  At least 6 ICL's to CAPM 39-1 have come out since then (if not more) and yet not a single one of them addressed it.  Therefore the assertion by a staff member that the National Commander (or previously the NB) "forgot to authorize the diamond" seems much more dubious; if those authorized to do so wanted to authorize the diamond, it sure is suspicious that they've had a dozen opportunities to do so and chose not to.

and for good measure:
Vanguard: Just because Vanguard (a for-profit corporation) sells something on its website doesn't mean its authorized for CAP uniform wear.  They sell polished metal grade insignia under the Senior Member grade insignia category.  That doesn't mean its authorized for wear by any SM, at any time, in any CAP uniform.  Because its not.

[arajca]

flyer333555, what reg authorizes the first sergeant diamond? The position is in CAPR 20-1 and 52-16, but the diamond is not. The knowledge base is not regulatory and does not trump the regs.

CAPM 39-1 does include positional devices such as the commander's badge and NEC (now CSAG - see ICL) badge. It does not include the first sergeant diamond.

Phase out periods are to spread the replacement cost out. Since there is no replacement for the first sergeant diamond and the cadets should already have the standard grade insignia, a phase out period is not warranted.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Ok, you are correct. I missed it in that the diamond is not allowed in any regulation. But it seems that KB is saying "it can be worn." Like the NRA badge.

But when I take the position about upholding the regulation despite what the squadron commander says, every message I read here says "you are wrong."

And when I take the position of making local policy following what the commander wants, everyone here says "you are wrong."

Reread Eclipse's messages. I cannot do anything right!

Despite 12 years in CAP, and being Personnel and Admin in about 10 of those years, and Deputy Commandert of two different squadrons for about 4 of those years.

When will I be right?

I am not trying to please everyone, yet...

Flyer

[RogueLeader]

Second the 1st Sgt diamond is not an achievemnt grade but rather a position grade, just as the military has the 1st, Sgt Major and Cmd Sgt Major. Those are the same pay grade but just have different duties.

In the Army, MSG and 1SG are both E-8's. SGM and CSM are both E-9's.  MSG and SGM are staff NCO's while 1SG and CSM are over troops.

[Eclipse]

Flyer - the only person in a unit who can interpret regulations and direct action is the commander, everyone else is an adviser.
You have an opinion on this, you tell the CC.  He acts or directs action.  Just because he's the CC doesn't mean he will make the proper decision, happens all the time to the detriment of the membership.  Sometimes bad decisions are honest mistakes, sometimes they are willful.  The reasoning doesn't make them "ok", only explains how a person got there.

Toss aside what the KB says, it has no weight of authority and is frequently held to be wrong, or posting interpretations by people
outsider their designated scope and authority.  The fact that an "SME" might be privy to work-product discussions on a given topic,
or know "what is coming", etc., doesn't change the state of the regs today, any more then an insider trader or legislator on a committee
who knows the direction of discussion would.  At best the KB is a short-hand to find a quick answer, but any time the answer conflicts with
regs, or comes up gray, then it has no authority.

Same goes for VG, what they produce is irrelevant unless supported by regulation.

Now, that doesn't mean a CC might not factor in intention and KB answers into a decision.  CC's need something to go on, and thanks to
the ambiguous, cross / internally conflicting nature of our regulations, you have to really pay attention and connect the dots to know the real score.

In this specific case, based on the current state of the regulations, there is no basis of support for the wear of the diamond or the NRA badge. None.  Maybe there was, maybe there will be, but not today.  That happens all the time, too.  If the intention is for the diamond to be worn,
it will be corrected (someday).

You advise your CC as to correct state, and then he will make his decision.  Wrong or right, it's his call.  If it's wrong, he may well have consequences
from higher HQs - anything from "what were you thinking" to "out the door", especially if there are other issues with decisions and this is part of a pattern.

When a decision by the CC is incorrect, you can choose to simply implement and move on, file a complaint (if warranted, which in this case it wouldn't be), or move on yourself to other pastures.

But at the end of the day, right or wrong, the CC is the one who makes the mistakes, your job is to see that he has the information he needs to
avoid most of them, but sometimes people will do what they will do, "because".

[coloncapfl]

I ask that question to Ask the Commander due to the difference in opinions and their answer was a refence to the knowledge base answer ID 1383.

[Eclipse]

Posted today:
http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/library/1sgt/

ERRATA - CADET FIRST SERGEANTS

Local commanders may continue to permit Cadet First Sergeants to wear the Cadet First Sergeant insignia that has been available for nearly 20 years.

Nearly twenty ago, CAP policy makers authorized cadet first sergeants to wear a special diamond insignia. For whatever reason, that rule never made its way into the CAP Uniform Manual where it properly belongs.

In response, a few years ago our team (NHQ/CP) inserted language into CAPR 52-16 to clarify that indeed the diamond is authorized. This was intended as a stopgap administrative solution until a new Uniform Manual could be published. Instead of resolving the problem, that language raised even more legalistic debate because CAPM 39-1 states that only it can speak to uniform matters. And so the diamond language was removed from CAPR 52-16.  But at that same time, via a document in our files dated October 2010, CAP/CC re-confirmed a command intent of using the special diamond insignia to identify cadet first sergeants in the senior NCO grades of C/MSgt, C/SMSgt, and C/CMSgt.

In summary:
Language authorizing the diamond will be incorporated into the next version of CAPM 39-1, which everyone is eagerly and patiently awaiting.
Local commanders are empowered to use their discretion and permit cadet first sergeants to wear the diamond insignia that CAP has long made available.  Such a drawn-out explanation for a very minor matter, but hopefully a satisfactory one... My thanks to everyone in the cadet community for their flexibility in making do with an imperfect solution.

-curt

CURT LAFOND
Deputy Director for Cadet Programs
CAP National Headquarters

[RogueLeader]

Well, that settles that. . .

[Майор Хаткевич]

FINALLY.

[Garibaldi]

So when do we get ABUs?

[Cool Mace]

Tomorrow, Maj.

I'm very glad to see this settled once and for all. I can now die a happy man.

[Eclipse]

Rambo Nothing Is Over

[Dad2-4]

Since the regs don't say I can't, and since I'm an NRA instructor, I'm gonna get me an NRA badge with bunches of rockers and wear it on my CAP ABUs.  Hey, where does that diamond go on an oak leaf? Looks cool. I want one.

[coloncapfl]

I am glad that National finally clarify the issue

[JoeTomasone]

I am glad that National finally clarify the issue

It's clarified, but only in that the diamond is NOT authorized.    A memo from NHQ/DCP does not override CAPM 39-1, which states that:

COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY. Any variation from this publication is not authorized.

I don't know how much clearer you can get.   


ICLs are not authorized for routine matters per CAPR 5-4; why National continues to ignore this is beyond me.  In any event, ICLs must be incorporated into their parent regulation within 90 days.   One could argue that all such ICLs were invalid when issued, or certainly are now.

[coloncapfl]

The is a directive from the highest Office that relates to Cadet Program. I dont believe that the organization would allow such a post on the official site unless is backed up. Is time to close the argument and move on with other issues. The explanation is as clear. This is not an issue of a insignia that is not in perspective parallel to what the Air Force wears.
1. The AF has a 1SG insignia, as a matter of fact most Branches has them.
2. Is not an achievement insignia, but a position insignia. therefore it does not belong in the CAPR 52-16
3. There is no official order, regulation, or change making it obsolete either. That is why in the regulations changes there is a section that shows what items are obsolete, you can argue that is not but I can argue that there is no official regs or order removing it either. Nowhere in the regs states that a person can arbitrary make an item obsolete unless is a change notice or a transition.
4. The reason has been stated clear by the National Cadet Programs.
5. There are certain items in the CAPM 39-1 that when it doubt about an item ( i.e. ribbons) to ask National if it is authorized, therefore National can authorize items not listed on the Regs as authorized to wear.
6 And last it has been stated that it will be part of the CAPM39-1, where is suppost to go.

Now, I learn in the military that you might not like a decision of a higher echelon officer, but you just follow the order and file your concerns through the propper channels, but it shows (in my honest opinion) a disrespect to authority and not strong follower skills the fact that we are still questioning a communication clearly authorizing its use. I am not here to offend or upset anybody but I believe in the way that I learn CAP as a cadet which is following the same values and customs of the Air Force.

Until there is another  OFFICIAL communication stating otherwise, I will support the statement that National has stated. I believe that we should show our cadets discipline and military bearing and respect to authority by complying with the order and just file our grievance through the propper channels.

That is my opinion

[JoeTomasone]

I can write a letter "authorizing" use of CB radio for CAP Communications.   That doesn't make it legit, valid, or in any way authorized, since I lack the authority to override CAPR 100-1.    No matter what staff position you may hold at whatever echelon you represent, the CAP Constitution and By-Laws explicitly vest the authority in the regulations, which have a clear and published manner in which they may be properly codified (CAPR 5-4).   I'm admittedly not up to date on the recent governance changes and how they affect this, but even the National Commander didn't (doesn't?) lacks the authority under the Constitution & By-Laws to act outside published regulations. 

So, with that being said, what does the military say about following an improperly issued order when you know 100% that it was improperly ordered? 

Have you ever read CAPR 5-4?

[coloncapfl]

CAPM 30-1 does say that you cant do what is not in the Reg, however the Reg states the BOG, National Commander AND/ OR NHQ can authorize changes not stated in the regs, also there are examples of other decorations not specify in the CAPM 39-1 that states to contact NHQ for clarification. If we were to send a change letter on every item that is allowed too be worn in the uniform the reg would be over 300 pages, Also, the First Sergeant diamont is not a Grade in itself but an emblem that diferentiates a COMMAND position, not a GRADE position, this insignia is an insignia that was made up by CAP but an insignia that ALL Armed Forces have for not only 1SGT but CSM. A MSG and a MSG that it is the 1SG are the same grade the only difference is that one holds a position of COMMAND and to make a difference andadditional emblem is in the rank.

1-4
New or changed uniform items may not be
authorized without approval of the National Commander/National Board and/or National Headquarters
(except as specified in Table 1-3 of this manual).

Note under table 6-5 Before wearing any badge not listed in Table 6-5, contact National Headquarters/LMM for
clarification.

The 39-1 authorizes NHQ to authorize changes to the uniform that are not in the Regs.

Again if you have any grievances, then follow them through your chain of Command to National.

Again NHQ is authorizing Unit COmmanders to allow the wear of the 1SG insignia, The same way that authorizes Region and Wing Commanders to allow within their command certain items.

An order can be wrong, but unless is a criminal or immoral order, disobeying and order (at least in the military) is consider insubordination. There are ways to bring your points to the National attention, but publicly questioning a higher echelon post is like a Military General questioning the President, you might have your opinion but the proper and responsible way of doing it is by sending it through the chain of command, otherwise I consider it defiance.

[coloncapfl]

In the answer to the military order, If the order is not illegal or would constitute danger of lives, then you follow the order under protest to that authority and send a complaint to the higher echelon for investigation.

In the CAP Regs you will find Regs that may contradict each other, in those cases those contradictions are considered or vied as exceptions to the rules. If a GENERAL rule tells you that something is prohibited but another rule tells you that in this case is alowed then, it is allowed in that particular issue, in other issues is not. Therefore if 39-1 allows NHQ to authorize changes not posted on the Regs then for the 39-1 purposes then is allowed, for other purposes is not. Until a new change comes to play. That is why Regs have to tell when something is obsolete and give a Phase out date, otherwise is illegal to phase out an item without informing it and give people time to take it out of the system.

[coloncapfl]

to answer your question about  me reading CAPR 5-4

This are parts of CAPR 5-4. Clearly authorizes NHQ staff to make changes. ICL should be ussed when immediate action due to an EMERGENCY is deemed. This is a trivial issue that could be addopted by a communique clarifying a point, The Director of Cadet Program represents the National Commander when it comes to Cadet Program issues.

I think the point is clarified, the Reg allows the CP to post changes,

All of the following are from the NEW CAPR 5-4

h. "OPR" (office of primary responsibility) means the National Headquarters directorate having primary responsibility for the issuance and maintenance of a publication or the office at the region, wing or unit responsible for the issuance and maintenance of a publication. The OPR also has the authority to waive the provisions of a publication it is responsible for unless specifically prohibited in that, or any other, publication. Each publication shall be assigned an OPR.

1) The NHQ office of primary responsibility (OPR) may also implement non-policy publications or changes to publications (e.g., address changes, points of contact, Air Force or other DoD mandated changes, statutory or other legal requirements) as needed.

4. Interim Change Letters (ICL). Situations requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency, an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, or other contingencies that may require prompt action may result in an interim change letter being issued outlining immediate policies.

[johnnyb47]

You know, it just occurred to me.
CAPM 39-1 does not specifically show the Senior Member, 1st Lt (or 2d Lt)  epaulette sleeves in figure 6-1.
I'll go take mine off.

[Pylon]

Notwithstanding the fact that, correct, a staff member cannot authorize the diamond -- Mr. LaFond was not stating that he or his office was authorizing it.  He stated that his office has written authorization from the National Commander authorizing the diamond.  That's what makes this statement different from all the others.  The national commander is the approving authority for these things, therefore, it has been properly approved.  I would constitute this posting on the National site as sufficient notice that said approval has been made.

[coloncapfl]

Thank you pylon for your comment.

I also believe that this issue was more a change in placement of an insignia, the fact that the insignia was already stablished at the moment of the removal from 52-16 did not meant that it was a new atiem therefore be classified as a "change" to an stablished doctrine or process.

I am not saying that it it what it happened in this situation but is what I believe happened. I might be wrong though.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Up until today when I read the memo from the Cadet Programs directorate I was against allowing wear of the Diamond myself. After reading that memo, now I consider the issue closed. Cadets can wear the Diamond.

Colon makes compelling arguments, and again, if the memo by NHQ/CP had not been issued, I would still have found arguments to debate him.

Not now.

Flyer

[johnnyb47]

I think a 'uniform' discussion just came to a logical conclusion on Captalk.
I'm scared.

[JoeTomasone]

And here is where we run headlong into the difference between a POLICY and a REGULATION, and who can decide policy.

Yes, while the may be the POLICY of the CAP/CC to permit the First Sergeant Diamond, the CAP/CC does not have the authority to make such policies per the CAP Constitution ("These regulations will be based on policies established by the Board of Governors, the United States Air Force, or law.").

Yes, CAPR 5-4 states that "The Board of Governors, United States Air Force or the CAP National Commander shall establish policies, in accordance with the Constitution and Bylaws of Civil Air Patrol or law." - but fails to take into account that the National Commander has no policymaking authority granted by the Constitution.

Once a policy is decided on by the proper body (primarily the BoG), the CAP/CC "shall establish and maintain regulations which shall be applicable to all members of Civil Air Patrol."

The process for codifying policies into regulations is found in CAPR 5-4:

"The NHQ staff shall incorporate all policies, or changes to existing policies, into drafts of CAP regulations, manuals or revisions thereof. These regulations shall be based on polices established in accordance with the Constitution and Bylaws of Civil Air Patrol or law."


As Mr. LaFond points out, they IMPROPERLY tried to codify that into the WRONG publication.  When they discovered the error, they REMOVED it.   Mr LaFond doesn't himself have the authority (as someone suggested), with the CAP/CC's intent or not, to alter regulations.  An OPR can only "implement non-policy publications or changes to publications (e.g., address changes, points of contact, Air Force or other DoD mandated changes, statutory or other legal requirements) as needed."   The approval of a uniform item is a policy decision. 

Now, if the BoG has indeed approved the First Sergeant Diamond - and they may well have - the PROPER way to make it official for the membership is to codify it into CAPM 39-1 -- WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE.

The BOG and CAP/CC can make policies all day long - but until they are properly codified into the proper regulation, they are not binding on the membership.   And, as the newly revised Constitution again makes clear, ICLs CANNOT be used for routine matters. 

ARTICLE XX
REGULATIONS

1. To further the orderly administration of the activities, business, and affairs of the Corporation, the National Commander shall establish and maintain regulations which shall be applicable to all members of Civil Air Patrol. These regulations will be based on policies established by the Board of Governors, the United States Air Force, or law.

2. The National Commander, upon declaration of a situation requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency or an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, may promulgate interim change letters or emergency regulations.

3. The Board of Governors may direct the National Commander to issue, modify or rescind interim change letters, regulations or portions of regulations.

Intent by itself means nothing.  Properly formulated policy and properly promulgated regulations do.

[johnnyb47]

But 39-1 isn't a regulation.
Perhaps that's the whole reason they chose to write is solely as a 'manual'... so the national commander can change it when he wants to.
(ok, now I'm just being mean)

[Ned]

As an aside, the BoG doesn't really care about cadet first sergeant diamonds.  We have never discussed them, and almost certainly never will.

Because a specific badge or insignia is not a policy.  It is way too far down in the weeds to be policy.

As far as the BoG is concerned, our policy is that Cadets will wear Air Force style uniforms as part of their outstanding cadet leadership program, unless otherwise prohibited by the h/w restirictions.

We leave it to our appointed commanders and staff officers to worry about specific insignia issues, and to issue regulations and guidance necessary to carry out the policy.  Commanders and staff officers have all of the authority they need to create and modify the necessary regulations and guidance.

[JoeTomasone]

But 39-1 isn't a regulation.
Perhaps that's the whole reason they chose to write is solely as a 'manual'... so the national commander can change it when he wants to.
(ok, now I'm just being mean)

Nice try, but he/she can't:

The NHQ staff shall incorporate all policies, or changes to existing policies, into drafts of CAP regulations, manuals or revisions thereof. These regulations shall be based on polices established in accordance with the Constitution and Bylaws of Civil Air Patrol or law.

Not only are revisions based on policies, but it seems clear that manuals are afforded the same strength as regulations.   

[JoeTomasone]

As an aside, the BoG doesn't really care about cadet first sergeant diamonds.  We have never discussed them, and almost certainly never will.

Because a specific badge or insignia is not a policy.  It is way too far down in the weeds to be policy.

As far as the BoG is concerned, our policy is that Cadets will wear Air Force style uniforms as part of their outstanding cadet leadership program, unless otherwise prohibited by the h/w restirictions.

We leave it to our appointed commanders and staff officers to worry about specific insignia issues, and to issue regulations and guidance necessary to carry out the policy.  Commanders and staff officers have all of the authority they need to create and modify the necessary regulations and guidance.

That clashes with the direction in 39-1 that prohibits deviation thereof; so local commanders don't have the option to authorize something that 39-1 does not.   

Playing Devil's Advocate here; if the First Sergeant Diamond is not worthy of policymaking, then why was policy made on dual cadet-enlisted insignia on BDUs versus grade insignia & CAP cutout, or SM Grade Insignia on the BDU cap, etc, etc, etc?

How can this NOT be policy?  All regulations and manuals are based on policy per the CAP Constitution...

[arajca]

I think a 'uniform' discussion just came to a logical conclusion on Captalk.

NEVER! Uniform discussions never come to a logical conclusion. Never I tell you! Never!

They just wind down when the horse has been beaten into dust and no one can find anything to beat anymore. Until some adventurous soul gathers the dust into a horse-shaped structure to be beaten again.

[Ned]

How can this NOT be policy?  All regulations and manuals are based on policy per the CAP Constitution...

I suspect this is just a semantic difference, then.  But surely you do not think that the BoG is required to specifically consider each of the several hundred CAP insignia, badges, devices, ribbons, and patches as matters of "policy," do you?

From where we sit, at least, policy is "CAP members should wear uniforms when performing duties" and not "We declare as a matter of policy that members can wear the following four different kinds of tie bars: CAP Crest, Air Force coat of arms, grade, or Hap Arnold device.  And these four only.  And they must be centered the knot and bottom of tie.  So it is written, so shall it be done (on USAF-style uniforms.)"

I suppose there will always be some grey area when we start trying to draw the line about where BoG level policies begin and end.

But cadet first sergeant diamonds are nowhere near that theoretical grey area. 

Hence the comment about being "down in the weeds."

[lordmonar]

Joe.....you can scream at the wind all you want.

The National Director of the CP says it is okay....it is not up to you or me to say "no you can't do that" at least not here.  If you have doubts about whether he has the authority to stat said policy....take it to the national commander....or the BoG.....but when a member of the BoG says "we don't care" I think you aught to just call this one a loss and wait for the new 39-1 to come out.

In the mean time I suggest you take your blood preasure pills and look into yoga or meditation.

An I too am glad we finally put this one to rest.

[arajca]

And if the new CAPM 39-1 fails to mention it, is it still authorized?

[Майор Хаткевич]

Then we get to do another one (or dozen) of these topics!

[lordmonar]

How can this NOT be policy?  All regulations and manuals are based on policy per the CAP Constitution...

I suspect this is just a semantic difference, then.  But surely you do not think that the BoG is required to specifically consider each of the several hundred CAP insignia, badges, devices, ribbons, and patches as matters of "policy," do you?

From where we sit, at least, policy is "CAP members should wear uniforms when performing duties" and not "We declare as a matter of policy that members can wear the following four different kinds of tie bars: CAP Crest, Air Force coat of arms, grade, or Hap Arnold device.  And these four only.  And they must be centered the knot and bottom of tie.  So it is written, so shall it be done (on USAF-style uniforms.)"

I suppose there will always be some grey area when we start trying to draw the line about where BoG level policies begin and end.

But cadet first sergeant diamonds are nowhere near that theoretical grey area. 

Hence the comment about being "down in the weeds."

+1  This has always been the problem with the NB as it was run for so long.  The CAP-USAF reps I talked to always brought up that they thought it was silly that the NB had to consider each and every little change to the regulations, manuals, pamplets, SQTR, etc....instead of doing the job of running their wings/regions.

Yes it is currently against 39-1....curt said so in his policy memo.  He also said it would be fixed in the next 39-1.....so take this as an ICL to 39-1 until it is published in 39-1.

And as a BTW.....the USAF did the same thing with their uniform regs since forever!  And they too are not shy about making their feelings known about uniform issues.....and since they have not said anything about it for the last 20 years or so.....I think we call all agree that we are good and press on.

If you really, really, really feel that this is wrong.....feel free to contact the National Commander and/or Bog and IG as is your right and duty.  Have fun!

[JoeTomasone]

Joe.....you can scream at the wind all you want.

The National Director of the CP says it is okay....it is not up to you or me to say "no you can't do that" at least not here.

Well, it's not like I expect anything to get changed by ranting here on CT OR by taking it up the CoC.   Just venting, mostly.  All I want is NHQ to follow the regulations that are binding on them and that they write.. Too much to ask?

  If you have doubts about whether he has the authority to stat said policy....take it to the national commander....or the BoG.....but when a member of the BoG says "we don't care" I think you aught to just call this one a loss and wait for the new 39-1 to come out.

No doubt about it - he doesn't have the authority, nor does the National Commander.  The Board does.   

Obviously they can't debate every little point of every single regulation, but that's why they have committees to hash this stuff out and make proposals for the Board to approve/disapprove.  When the Board does so, it becomes policy, which then should be codified into regulations.   Do I expect the Board to debate the Diamond?   No.  Do I expect that when they accept a written recommendation from a committee that DID hash it out that NHQ codifies it properly?  Yeah, I kinda do.   Why should we at the lower echelons be held to a higher standard than the NHQ folks?

[JoeTomasone]

Yes it is currently against 39-1....curt said so in his policy memo.  He also said it would be fixed in the next 39-1.....so take this as an ICL to 39-1 until it is published in 39-1.

Except that you can't do that....  Oh, forget it.  Now I remember why I took a break from CT.

[Ned]

One last note:

One of the major reasons for governance reform was the realization that it was clearly impractical to have a policy-making body word-smith individual regulations.  The NB had difficulty with this.  And in all fairness, the BoG probably wouldn't be much better at it.

So we created a system whereby the National Commander will issue and maintain regulations, manuals, and other guidance that supports policy established by the BoG or other authorities.  The BoG will not routinely review and approve each and every regulation or change.  Indeed, we hope never to see them unless there is a problem. 

As a practical matter, the National Commander will routinely use the staff and subordiinate commanders to draft and vet proposed regulations and changes.  When necessary, Gen Carr can refer matters to the CSAG for their advice.  But that's pretty much it.  Staff recommends, and if appropriate, Gen Carr will sign the regulation into effect.

The BoG has the authority to direct the National Commander to enact, rescind, or modify particular regulations when necessary.

So if it turns out that a majority of the BoG believes that the dreaded cadet first sergeant diamond is somehow a violation of existing policy, we will figure out a way to change it.  But as I mentioned, that is extremely unlikely.

[a2capt]

What happened to the draft periods for feedback/proposals on all these recent things?

[LGM30GMCC]

CAPR 5-4 2 c. National Headquarters (NHQ) staff, which includes both paid and unpaid (volunteer)
personnel, shall act on behalf of the National Commander, who is responsible for the adoption
and maintenance of CAP regulations and manuals.  The NHQ staff shall incorporate all policies,
or changes to existing policies, into drafts of CAP regulations, manuals or revisions thereof

There is no requirement as to when this needs to be done.

A2Capt, there is no requirement for them to give a draft period for feedback/proposals. NHQ can now just DO these types of things. Folks may not like that, but it makes sense and since it's easier to fix issues if one comes up, they can do that to.

Joe, the CAP/CC CAN set policy. It needs to get into a regulation, but there isn't a time line for doing so. It isn't the best way to do it with a policy letter like this one, but it is allowable. In many ways CAP has become a lot more like active duty where the word of the commander is law. He has empowered his staff, that's awesome. If they get out of line I have no doubt he'll snap 'em back but I also doubt it will come to that.

This is definitely a different era for a lot of folks in CAP. In may ways it harkens back to the days pre-national board and all that jazz. I don't know why folks have such a difficult time understanding that we now have commanders that can command and lead their appropriate level organizations. There are checks and balances in place to prevent abuse of it, and I have no doubt if the CAP/CC starts going hog-wild the BoG will ensure that is taken under control.

[Eclipse]

It isn't the best way to do it with a policy letter like this one, but it is allowable.

Cite please.

[Pylon]

No doubt about it - he doesn't have the authority, nor does the National Commander.  The Board does.   

Obviously they can't debate every little point of every single regulation, but that's why they have committees to hash this stuff out and make proposals for the Board to approve/disapprove.  When the Board does so, it becomes policy, which then should be codified into regulations.   Do I expect the Board to debate the Diamond?   No.  Do I expect that when they accept a written recommendation from a committee that DID hash it out that NHQ codifies it properly?  Yeah, I kinda do.   Why should we at the lower echelons be held to a higher standard than the NHQ folks?

Joe, we've been debating this in circles.  The BoG has the authority over everything in CAP.  Under the new governance structure, the BoG has --completely within their rights to do so-- delegated the authority to do much of this routine regulation updating to the National Commander.  Under the new governance structure, approved and implemented by the BoG, the National Commander can make changes to these regulations if, when, and whenever he or she sees fit to do so.  He does not need board approval to make each of these changes and a member of the BoG has already visited this thread and tried to explain that.  I can't think of anybody more authoritative to have clarified that.  It's cut and dry clear.

[Eclipse]

^ I agree 100%, in which case this should have been a memo written and signed "for the commander", which then invokes a delegated authority.

[lordmonar]

^ I agree 100%, in which case this should have been a memo written and signed "for the commander", which then invokes a delegated authority.

No....by appointing someone to a the position you delegate their authority.  You don't sign "for the commander" anymore unless the regulation specifcally calls for "commander's signature" on the form/letter/what ever.

[Eclipse]

^ Nope, but a common misconception.

A staff officer may not make or change policy, only administer current programs.

[lordmonar]

^ Nope, but a common misconception.

A staff officer may not make or change policy, only administer current programs.

I don't know what organisation you are in.....but really?

[RogueLeader]

^ Nope, but a common misconception.

A staff officer may not make or change policy, only administer current programs.

WIWAD in the Safety Office.  I helped write the Brigade Safety/OSHA/Fire Marshall SOPs.  The Brigade Commander just signed it.

Also, I wrote the Company Safety/OSHA/Fire SOP's.  My Company Commander didn't bother reading it, because I wrote it.  (Not sure it was the wisest thing, but it made my head swell a bit.)

[edit]
Oh, this was as a PFC.

[Eclipse]

^ Nope, but a common misconception.

A staff officer may not make or change policy, only administer current programs.

I don't know what organisation you are in.....but really?

Yes, really.  And seriously, especially in a CAP context, you don't want it any other way.

Unless you're suggesting that random staffers can direct action on their own whim?

Staff officers are supposed to be subject matter experts in their respective area of assignment, administer the programs
as they exist, and provide input and advice to commanders, the only ones with actual authority.

Certainly they routinely draft documents, provide process guidance, and in some cases are formally delegated actual authority (as was the case
a few years back in CAWG), but they certainly can't change things codified by regulation on their whim, nor direct anyone to to any action.

WIWAD in the Safety Office.  I helped write the Brigade Safety/OSHA/Fire Marshall SOPs.  The Brigade Commander just signed it.

Yes, you helped, however it does not become enforceble until it has the Commander's signature on it.

[SamFranklin]

And no offense to our remarkable cadets or to be too blunt but lets get a bit of perspective here.... We are talking about a 1 sq cm piece of plastic that a teenager will wear on their shirt. Really folks this is no big deal. Breathe.

Just read what the HQ guy wrote. He called it a "very minor matter" and thanks people for their cooperation. 98% of CAP is probably just fine with that and are patiently waiting for 39-1 but at Captalk you'd think someone just revoked the Magna Carta.

Perspective.

[lordmonar]

^ Nope, but a common misconception.

A staff officer may not make or change policy, only administer current programs.

I don't know what organisation you are in.....but really?

Yes, really.  And seriously, especially in a CAP context, you don't want it any other way.

Unless you're suggesting that random staffers can direct action on their own whim?

Staff officers are supposed to be subject matter experts in their respective area of assignment, administer the programs
as they exist, and provide input and advice to commanders, the only ones with actual authority.

Certainly they routinely draft documents, provide process guidance, and in some cases are formally delegated actual authority (as was the case
a few years back in CAWG), but they certainly can't change things codified by regulation on their whim, nor direct anyone to to any action.

WIWAD in the Safety Office.  I helped write the Brigade Safety/OSHA/Fire Marshall SOPs.  The Brigade Commander just signed it.

Yes, you helped, however it does not become enforceble until it has the Commander's signature on it.

First things.....they are NOT random staffers....they are appointed by the commander to do their job.   Deputy Commander of Cadets....it is his job to issue policy with-in the scope of his authority.  Sure he can't tell ops how to do things....but withing the cadet program he is god answerable only to the commander.

So that is what is going on here.  Curt is the Director of Cadet Programs....he clarified a point about CADET uniforms.....it is policy...not FOR THE COMMANDER but his policy.

And Eclipse....don't be telling us military and ex-military types how the military is run.  It is getting kind of old....in my 22 years on AD and the last six working contractor for the military....I have seen "for the commander" maybe three or four times.....and that was very specific situations.

[Eclipse]

So that is what is going on here.  Curt is the Director of Cadet Programs....he clarified a point about CADET uniforms.....it is policy...not FOR THE COMMANDER but his policy.

And Eclipse....don't be telling us military and ex-military types how the military is run.  It is getting kind of old....in my 22 years on AD and the last six working contractor for the military....I have seen "for the commander" maybe three or four times.....and that was very specific situations.

Staff Members do not make policy, they recommend things for the approval of a commander.  Anything they do is either "for" the commander because the commander was unable to send his own memo, or needs a commander's approval before it is enforceable, unless a commander has formally delegated and published authority to a respective staffer.

Period.

PM Sent on the other nonsense.

[LGM30GMCC]

So that is what is going on here.  Curt is the Director of Cadet Programs....he clarified a point about CADET uniforms.....it is policy...not FOR THE COMMANDER but his policy.

And Eclipse....don't be telling us military and ex-military types how the military is run.  It is getting kind of old....in my 22 years on AD and the last six working contractor for the military....I have seen "for the commander" maybe three or four times.....and that was very specific situations.

Staff Members do not make policy, they recommend things for the approval of a commander.  Anything they do is either "for" the commander because the commander was unable to send his own memo, or needs a commander's approval before it is enforceable, unless a commander has formally delegated and published authority to a respective staffer.

Period.

PM Sent on the other nonsense.

That is your view of how CAP functions, I understand this. To a limited degree I can understand how one could interpret this being how authority works in the military.

However, EFFECTIVELY, staff officers routinely set policy. It is not signed by the commander, how much direct knowledge of the staff-accomplished policies commanders have is up for some debate. I can tell you there are many regulations in 20th AF that come from the A-staff with A-staff directorate signatures, not 20th/CC signatures. I guess I should ignore these as illegal orders, however doing so would certainly be detrimental to my career to say the very least.

I understand you don't like this idea, especially in CAP. However, I feel it is definitely a more efficient and effective way of carrying out the day-to-day operation of an organization that numbers in the tens of thousands. It does mean a high level of trust must be given to those staffers because the commander is still ultimately held responsible for the decisions of the staffers. However, it does allow the commander to focus on higher/strategic vision. This is an area CAP has miserably failed at over the years when we had our wing commanders haggling and fighting for hours over the wording of regulations.

Ideally we will see much more efficient changes to our regulations while still maintaining the best interests of the folks in the field. This is one reason cross-flow of communication among staffers is even more important. The non-command relationships are one of the best ways for these types of concerns to be raised and brought eventually to commanders if necessary.

[Eclipse]

However, EFFECTIVELY, staff officers routinely set policy. It is not signed by the commander, how much direct knowledge of the staff-accomplished policies commanders have is up for some debate.

Thank you for adding clarity to my point.

Lots of people up and down have effective authority, and that's the problem.  Further, citing that it is routine that commanders are unaware
or apathetic about what their staffers are doing makes the point even more.

An example.

A wing-level staff ES Officer who decides that some members are not "worthy" of being SETs until they have had two years of active participation, even though they have been properly approved by the command chain.   Certainly he could recommend things in this regard, but he has no authority to implement or direct based on his opinion unless it is approved by a commander.

But this ESO has the keys to the kingdom, he's the final click for most approvals, so that puts him in effective authority of this situation, and until
someone challenges him, no one knows.  "Effective authority" "authority"

Radar O'Reilly was in "effective authority" over the whole camp, that doesn't give him actual authority.  Maybe this isn't perceived to be a problem in the military, but it is an real, objective issue in CAP, and causes plenty of issues every year, including more then a few good people leaving the organization.

[Offutteer]

Obviously they can't debate every little point of every single regulation, but that's why they have committees to hash this stuff out and make proposals for the Board to approve/disapprove.

There's your problem, highlighted in bold.  Every time a change to the uniform manual is suppose to be done, they send it to a committee.  They then want to look at the entire manual and make more suggestions before revising it.  And after beating every idea to death and beyond, but before they finish, Poof, more changes are made and then we start the whole process over again with a new committee.  It would be much simpler to give it to ONE and only ONE person and say, you are the OPR, please to rewrite this with the revisions we have now, but that hasn't happened.

[abdsp51]

I'm going to chime in here a little bit.  When I was a Flt Chief I had full control over setting policy for my flt period end of story.  There were three people who could overturn my decisions. 

I ran special projects @ Bagram AB a few years ago and guess what I had full authority based off of my position to run my operations as I saw fit, to include staffing, equipping etc.  Oh and I did this all as an NCO and when I was in Korea my Flt Lead who happened to be a Lt had full control over establishing flt policy for us and the same when I was in Iraq. 

Policies at least in the AF are not just set at higher headquarters levels but at the squadron and even flight levels as well.  Even now as a NCOIC for my section I have the authority to set policy for my section as long as laws and regulations are not violated in the process.

Bottom line at the end of the day not every policy needs the commanders direct say so and signature to be established.  As in this case the DCP was empowered via his position to establish such policy and did.  Now we can accept it as is or wait for the new manual to come out.  At the end of the day it will be the Sq CC decision to allow wear of the diamond or not and it is the duty and responsibility of the staff to support said decision.

(disclaimer: last sentence does not mean support unlawful or unethical behavior)

[Luis R. Ramos]

 

As the OP, can I request from a moderator this thread be closed?

I consider the issue settled with the letter from the Deputy, Cadet Programs.

If others want to continue with the issues of "who has authority to set policy," it may be better to start a new thread.

However, almost all threads in CAP Talk do end up in such discussions... 

And thank you to all that answered!  :clap:

Flyer