First Sergeant Diamond...?

[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?