Forming GTM beret

[maverik]

I was wondering how to form the Ground Team Member beret. Yeah but I think only certain wings have it.

Title spelling.  Moved topic - MIKE

[♠SARKID♠]

...there's a GTM beret?  You sure about that?  Last I checked, the only beret authorized for wear was the blue beret for attending NBB.

[Flying Pig]

Oh please......please say it isnt so   I had a nightmare that started like this once.........

[_]

Does that mean I get one too?  Woohoo!!! 

[CASH172]

Can you please describe this beret.  What color, what goes on the front?  And who said it can be worn?

[maverik]

Dark blue,The flight cap insignia, an Indiana Wing. How do they form them at NBB?

[LtCol White]

There is NO beret authorized by NHQ or in 39-1 for wear by groundteam members. The ONLY beret presently authorized in CAP is for those who attend the Blue Beret Encampment. Period.

[♠SARKID♠]

There is NO beret authorized by NHQ or in 39-1 for wear by groundteam members. The ONLY beret presently authorized in CAP is for those who attend the Blue Beret Encampment. Period.

And how!

[maverik]

Sir that's a negative in IN wing GTM2 and above are authorized to wear the beret. I can try and find the reg it may take a few minutes though.

[RiverAux]

1.  Pick up beret
2.  Place 3 cans of spam in beret.
3.  Put beret in garbage can.

[_]

Not saying it's right but he's going by the wing's regs.  Here's Indiana's supliment to 39-1

.pdf

[CASH172]

Isn't Amy Courter supposed to be verify the INWG supplement is authorized.  If not it definitely should be.  A wing commander isn't supposed to have that kind of power.  The supplement has restrictions on wear of the beret, but I'm still not liking it.

[RiverAux]

Well, if nothing else, we now have another Wing whose headgear most of us can hate.  PA is no longer alone. 

Too bad, I had been developing a lot of respect for IN Wing based on their tremendous growth rate -- I thought that they must have been doing something right.  Maybe the increased sunlight to their foreheads stimulated their brains into a higher level of activity?

On the positive side, their supplement does have specific guidelines for unit patches. 

[♠SARKID♠]

Well, before this turns into an "Indiana looks French" thread, can someone answer the cadet's question?

[_]

If you're going to wear it then wear it correctly.  Here's a page with a pretty good basic guide of what to do.

link

[maverik]

 I don't appreciate you guys dissing my home unit! . Thank you Bayhawk

[Stonewall]

Here, after simply typing in "forming a beret" into google, I found this.

[JC004]

1.  Pick up beret
2.  Place 3 cans of spam in beret.
3.  Put beret in garbage can.

Exactly how it's done.

[SSgt Rudin]

Sir that's a negative in IN wing GTM2 and above are authorized to wear the beret. I can try and find the reg it may take a few minutes though.

SSgt, thats a negative. Regardless of what "reg" you can find it violates 39-1 and is therefore irrelevant.

[maverik]

Yes sir I understand. Thank you.

[_]

CAPR 39-1 says:

Only blue berets may be authorized for special purpose wear.  Berets provided
at special activities may be worn at the activity ONLY.

INWG's supplement says berets can be worn

on real/training missions and exercises or unit sponsored ES training.

This could be completely legit.  Personal opinions aside, if you interpret missions and training activities to be "special activities" then the supplement holds up.

I'm not a proponent of berets but the supplement appears to (loosely) follow the word of the regs if not the intent of the regs.

[mikeylikey]

1.  Pick up beret
2.  Place 3 cans of spam in beret.
3.  Put beret in garbage can.

hahahahhaha ahahhaha hah aha  :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Mountain Dew all over Mikey's keyboard!

[SSgt Rudin]

CAPR 39-1 says:

Only blue berets may be authorized for special purpose wear.  Berets provided
at special activities may be worn at the activity ONLY.

INWG's supplement says berets can be worn

on real/training missions and exercises or unit sponsored ES training.

This could be completely legit.  Personal opinions aside, if you interpret missions and training activities to be "special activities" then the supplement holds up.

I'm not a proponent of berets but the supplement appears to (loosely) follow the word of the regs if not the intent of the regs.

I'm not a legal officer (although I'm in school to become one) but on the top of the table you quoted it says "Table 1-3. Additional Items That May Be Authorized by the Wing/Region Commander"

Item three says:

The wing/region commander has authority to approve the following items for
wear within his/her wing: (a) Shoulder cords. Not more than one shoulder
cord will be worn at one time, and it will be worn on the left shoulder (see
Figure 5-2). Color to be determined by the wing commander, EXCEPT all
primary members of Cadet Advisory Councils will wear gold at the National
level, blue at region level, and red at wing level. (See CAPR 52-16, CAP
Cadet Program Management.) National Cadet Competition teams will wear
white shoulder cords. Honor Guardsmen will wear silver shoulder cords; (b)
scarves; (c) white gloves; (d) white and black belts; (e) helmet liners. Color to
be determined by wing commander except that helmet liners authorized for
wear by members participating in emergency services missions will be white
and will be worn with the decal depicted in Figure 6-20

Don't see berets anywhere in there. Item 4 says:

Only blue berets may be authorized for special purpose wear. Berets provided at special activities may be worn at the activity ONLY.

It does not say who has the authority to authorize them, there for it requires approval from the issuer of the regulation in this case NHQ.

[mikeylikey]

This is a reason we need the following added to the rewrite of 39-1

"Any and all supplements, changes, additions or deletions of any an all things remotely related to uniforms MUST be approved by NHQ, Wing and Region Commanders are not permitted to arbitrarily make any changes to 39-1 without the express permission of NHQ, and CAP-USAF for items relating to Air Force style uniforms"

How to wear the beret and shape it..........

http://armynursecorps.amedd.army.mil/army101/beret.pdf  
PAY attention specifically to pages 6 and 7!!!

[_]

It does not say who has the authority to authorize them, there for it requires approval from the issuer of the regulation in this case NHQ.

CAPR 39-1 authorizes wear of berets by all members of CAP as long as the conditions in the reg are met.  INWG is not authorizing it's wear, only specifying a meaning for "special activity" or "special purpose."  Assuming this supplement was approved by national, it would then be reasonable to assume that national allows the interpretation of "special activity"/"special purpose" that INWG uses.

[Duke Dillio]

To the question:

Shave it, then soak it, then wear it until it dries.  That's how you form it.

I always hate it when people just jump in and start dissing people.  I'm not a real big fan of berets.  I'd prefer a good patrol cap any day but I think we just need to understand that some people just really want to wear the berets.  Some will find any reason they can to do so.  I say let them wear it in the field.  Right when it is really wet and nasty or when the sun is beaming down providing a perfect red line to the top of their forehead.  Eventually, people will learn that the berets are cool only to a point and then they will lose interest in them.

I would ask that if any of you are ever wearing a beret in a CAP uniform and it is authorized for you to do so, please pay special attention on how you wear it.  It is very easy to get the "pizza boy" look and will make pretty much all of CAP look really really bad.  I think Kirt had a pic of some officer wearing it the wrong way...

[mikeylikey]

I always hate it when people just jump in and start dissing people. 

23 posts before I answed the Cadets question.  3 more bashings until you added your advice. 

That was uncalled for.  The Cadet did not create the rules or add the beret to Indiana Wing.  If anyone wants someone to bad mouth and bash and call stupid, that would be the Indiana Wing Commander, not the Cadet who is only following orders (which I think are stupid and may be illegal according to 39-1), but I am not a member of Indiana Wing and cant change things there.

[Duke Dillio]

^I'm with you on this one mikey.   :clap:

We might not agree with other wing's policies but then again, we don't have to deal with them normally.  I will answer any question that anyone has.  I'll help any cadet that wants it.  If he has been told to wear it, I just want to make sure that he wears it right regardless of my personal feelings on the matter.

[JoeTomasone]

^I'm with you on this one mikey.   :clap:

We might not agree with other wing's policies but then again, we don't have to deal with them normally.  I will answer any question that anyone has.  I'll help any cadet that wants it.  If he has been told to wear it, I just want to make sure that he wears it right regardless of my personal feelings on the matter.

Personal feelings aside, don't we have a duty to try to correct members who may be violating regulations, even if the member (INWG/CC) is being potentially corrected by proxy (CAPTALK member taking it up the chain of command)?

Now, I'm no CP expert, but my understanding was that "special activities" were CP-oriented activities outside of "normal" CP activities - NCSA's.  (http://www.cap.gov/visitors/members/cadet_programs/activities/national_special_activities/)

I doubt that any normal, routine activity (such as ground team participation) qualifies as a "special" activity or "special prpose wear".  If Ground Team activities are able to be qualified as "special", then there wouldn't be much we couldn't extend that standard to, short of a Squadron meeting, perhaps.  (Well, if it was a "special" meeting, maybe!) 

[Eclipse]

^^ Yes, especially a cadet.

The answer hear is two parts:

1) Here's how you form a beret...

2) But as a matter of fact, you are not allowed to wear it because of reg x, y, z.

The proper action by the cadet should then be to discuss this in detail with his unit CC, which one would then hope would bump things up the chain, etc.

It would not be the first time a cadet or senior got things changed because of an off-handed conversation.

We have core values and rules, they should not be subjective because of the actions of others or their perceived reactions.

[davidsinn]

The beret in question is sort of an award and falls under the

Only blue berets may be authorized for special purpose wear

line. The special purpose is GTM/GTL/GOBD qualification. The next line in the reg

Berets provided at special activities may be worn at the activity ONLY

refers to the National Blue Beret and has since been rescinded by an ICL. If you have a problem with the INWG supplement might I suggest you address it to Col. Reeves INWG Main Page is the wing website. There is a contact us link at the bottom.

[Eclipse]

The beret in question is sort of an award and falls under the

Only blue berets may be authorized for special purpose wear

line. The special purpose is GTM/GTL/GOBD qualification.

No, it doesn't, and its been made very clear at the national level that in any case where a beret is worn by CAP members, the only way it is worn is with the NBB flash, not grade insignia, GT badges, or cadet flight cap insignia.

[davidsinn]

We wear it with senior or cadet flight cap insignia only. Could you please provide a cite? If you're correct I'll send it up to the Colonel thru my group CC this weekend and stop wearing my beret on missions.

[Stonewall]

We wear it with senior or cadet flight cap insignia only. Could you please provide a cite? If you're correct I'll send it up to the Colonel thru my group CC this weekend and stop wearing my beret on missions.

Hold the phone.  I've heard many young, impressionable cadets dreaming of wearing a beret for whatever reason, usually to look cool or "high speed", but never have I heard of anyone, in CAP or anywhere else, wearing a beret on a functional mission.

Talk about your all-time lows.

You're not a former cadet from INWG that I saw wearing a maroon beret at the Grissom air show in 2003 because he went to PJOC are you?

[JoeTomasone]

Well, I got off my butt and checked out the references in 39-1 for myself, and it turns out that INWG is  mostly correct... But the OP may be incorrect. 

Here's what CAPM 39-1, Table 1-3, pp. 13 says:

General: Wing/region commanders may authorize certain items to be worn for specific
purposes within their respective wing/region or within specific units of their
wing/region. Commanders will not use this authority to circumvent National
polices. Examples of purposes of these items are to identify members of
special CAP groups such as drill teams, bands, color guards, and members
participating in emergency services' missions.

(emphasis mine)


So Wing Commanders can authorize items worn by members participating in ES MISSIONS (not anyone who just happens to be qualified as a piece of general uniform wear).    But what can they authorize?

Items that may be authorized: 
The wing/region commander has authority to approve the following items for wear
within his/her wing: (a) Shoulder cords. Not more than one shoulder
cord will be worn at one time, and it will be worn on the left shoulder (see
Figure 5-2). Color to be determined by the wing commander, EXCEPT all
primary members of Cadet Advisory Councils will wear gold at the National
level, blue at region level, and red at wing level. (See CAPR 52-16, CAP
Cadet Program Management.) National Cadet Competition teams will wear
white shoulder cords. Honor Guardsmen will wear silver shoulder cords; (b)
scarves; (c) white gloves; (d) white and black belts; (e) helmet liners. Color to
be determined by wing commander except that helmet liners authorized for
wear by members participating in emergency services missions will be white
and will be worn with the decal depicted in Figure 6-20.

However, the issue clouds a bit:

Berets: Only blue berets may be authorized for special purpose wear. Berets provided
at special activities may be worn at the activity ONLY.

So it doesn't say who can authorize the beret, really.  It's not listed as an item that a WG/CC can authorize (cords, scarves, gloves, belts, & liners), but it's listed in the section that overall deals with what a WG/CC can authorize.   So while that requires clarification, it seems clear that a beret can only be worn under this circumstance while performing an ES mission - not in general just because you hold an ES rating.   Note: the National Board recently voted to allow Blue Beret/Hawk Mtn attendees to wear the beret at all times with BDUs. (http://capnhq.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/capnhq.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1851).


INWG is saying almost the right thing:

Individuals holding an active rating in the following
operational specialty areas are authorized to wear a
dark blue, Air Force style beret on real/training
missions and exercises or unit sponsored ES training.
1) Ground Branch Director
2) Ground Team Leader
3) Ground Team Member Level 1, 2 and 3

So they are being a tad more restrictive (as is their prerogative) in saying that only those rated members can wear berets, but they are saying that it can only be worn during ES missions (correct) and training (not authorized, wording used in 39-1 does not include training).


Barracks Lawyer out!

[davidsinn]

I am not a former cadet at all. I've only been a member since 2006. Some of our best ground teams and leaders wear berets. I can name people from at least 4 units that do (I think one of our Group CCs does). There is no (non regulatory) reason you couldn't wear a beret in the field here in Indiana. We have pretty wide open places and if you use sunscreen you won't get an odd burn. Fact is the members have been authorized by our wing CC to wear them and like to wear them. Whether it was approved by higher command is the question and can't be answered by anyone here right now. If you could please provide me the cite I will address it up the chain this weekend and get back to you.

[Stonewall]

Sometimes regulations (or lack there of) shouldn't guide us, but rather common sense and humility.

Beret in the field = rediculous.  You think you look cool and may feel elite, but in my 21 years in CAP I have yet to see the need for a beret of any color designate one's qualifications, in or out of the field. 

The person who authorized such headgear for field use should have their "man card" taken from them.

[CadetProgramGuy]

[hits head on table]

Berets for GTL's ect.....sounds a little too much like PAWG.....

[/hits head on table]

[davidsinn]

Beret in the field = rediculous.  You think you look cool and may feel elite, but in my 21 years in CAP I have yet to see the need for a beret of any color designate one's qualifications, in or out of the field.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I disagree. I find it to be a comfortable alternative to the patrol cap.

[0]

While I like the look of a beret in the field I think it's a horrible idea myself.  It's too Rambo looking.  Plus it doesn't serve any function.  If you don't like wearing a patrol cap if your wing has also authorized them wear an orange baseball cap.  That's more comfortable and is also actually useful. 

[lordmonar]

I always hate it when people just jump in and start dissing people. 

23 posts before I answed the Cadets question.  3 more bashings until you added your advice. 

That was uncalled for.  The Cadet did not create the rules or add the beret to Indiana Wing.  If anyone wants someone to bad mouth and bash and call stupid, that would be the Indiana Wing Commander, not the Cadet who is only following orders (which I think are stupid and may be illegal according to 39-1), but I am not a member of Indiana Wing and cant change things there.

:clap: Thankes Mikelylike.

[lordmonar]

^I'm with you on this one mikey.   :clap:

We might not agree with other wing's policies but then again, we don't have to deal with them normally.  I will answer any question that anyone has.  I'll help any cadet that wants it.  If he has been told to wear it, I just want to make sure that he wears it right regardless of my personal feelings on the matter.

Personal feelings aside, don't we have a duty to try to correct members who may be violating regulations, even if the member (INWG/CC) is being potentially corrected by proxy (CAPTALK member taking it up the chain of command)?

No....unless you are in that persons chain of command "my commander told me to" is a legitimate answer to "why are you wearing that pink tutu?".

We have a duty to report violations to the proper person....so we should all be calling up regional and national telling them what INWG is doing.....but we know how that works.

Jumping on a cadet and saying "you can't do that" does not help at all. 

[mikeylikey]

[hits head on table]

Berets for GTL's ect.....sounds a little too much like PAWG.....

[/hits head on table]

So true!

I find it to be a comfortable alternative to the patrol cap.

Really?  I have worn a beret for the better part of 7 years.  I hate it.  Also, no military branch wears the beret into the field.  We trade out for caps/covers.  

:clap: Thankes Mikelylike.

ya.....the cadet did not need to be bashed.  The idea can be bashed to death, but the Cadet was just looking for help, and all of us most likely just pushed him away from ever coming back to CAPTALK.  

[lordmonar]

^^ Yes, especially a cadet.

The answer hear is two parts:

1) Here's how you form a beret...

2) But as a matter of fact, you are not allowed to wear it because of reg x, y, z.

and you would be wrong to do that.....unless you are the INWG/CC, the Regional CC or the National Commander.

Chain of Command, brother...chain of command.

The proper action by the cadet should then be to discuss this in detail with his unit CC, which one would then hope would bump things up the chain, etc.

It would not be the first time a cadet or senior got things changed because of an off-handed conversation.

We have core values and rules, they should not be subjective because of the actions of others or their perceived reactions.

But this is not an obvious rules violation....it is a reg interpretation difference.  And you don't encourage subordinates to question orders....you take it the origin of those orders and challenge them.  

NVWG used to authorize berets for GTs....we are in the process of doing it again.  The regs are gray on this issue and so.....everyone dissing this cadet is 100% WRONG!  I SAY AGAIN....100% WRONG!

[lordmonar]

We wear it with senior or cadet flight cap insignia only. Could you please provide a cite? If you're correct I'll send it up to the Colonel thru my group CC this weekend and stop wearing my beret on missions.

No, what you should do is send up your concerns (if you have them) and continue to wear it until you are told otherwise by YOUR chain of command.

Some yahoo on the web (and this includes me) cannot countermand a written order (39-1 sup).  His opinions and interpretation of the regulation may....may....be valid, but he is not in your chain of command and he cannot countermand you wing CC's orders.

This particular order is NOT clearly in violation of the regulation.....and it is definitely not illegal....ergo your duty is to challenge up and follow it to the best of your ability.

[isuhawkeye]

I hate to stik my nose in this one,

but I thought that general courter was going to make CAP more professional and accountable.  why do we see more and more cases of

do what I want syndrome from unit commanders?

[davidsinn]

It's not an order, it's an optional piece of gear. So my not wearing it wouldn't be countermanding an order. It would simply be choosing to go with the standard gear.

[lordmonar]

I hate to stik my nose in this one,

but I thought that general courter was going to make CAP more professional and accountable.  why do we see more and more cases of

do what I want syndrome from unit commanders?

I don't think it is an increase in the "do what I want sysndrome"....just more of the same.

As for the National Commander trying to make CAP more professional and accountable........she's been in power a year now.....and PAWG still has orange T-shirts, ascots and pistol belts.

And finally, this is not a violation of the regulations but a difference in interpretation.  Berets are authorised...for special purposes.....we just differ on if ES is special enough.

[JoeTomasone]

Personal feelings aside, don't we have a duty to try to correct members who may be violating regulations, even if the member (INWG/CC) is being potentially corrected by proxy (CAPTALK member taking it up the chain of command)?

No....unless you are in that persons chain of command "my commander told me to" is a legitimate answer to "why are you wearing that pink tutu?".

We have a duty to report violations to the proper person....so we should all be calling up regional and national telling them what INWG is doing.....but we know how that works.

Jumping on a cadet and saying "you can't do that" does not help at all. 

I never said he "can't do that" - I pointed out their supplement isn't 100% in line with 39-1.  If he chooses to do something about it (not wear the beret, question it through the chain of command, etc) that's his decision.    We are supposed to follow legal orders and have a functioning brain to question orders that are not in line with regulations or are unsafe, etc.    CAP does not want robots.   If I encounter someone wearing a pink tu-tu and am told that whatever commander authorized it, I'm going to tell that person that it's not in the regulations and that should be taken under advisement.  If it's at an activity in which I am in the chain of command, I will put a stop to it.   And hey, if a beret looks bad in the field, imagine it with a tu-tu!

[JoeTomasone]

And finally, this is not a violation of the regulations but a difference in interpretation.  Berets are authorised...for special purposes.....we just differ on if ES is special enough.

And no, we don't differ on ES being special enough.  As I said above, berets are authorized for ES mission wear with BDUs per 39-1 when authorized by the WG/CC.   They are NOT authorized for general wear (unless earned at Blue Beret or Hawk Mtn) or for training.

[Major Carrales]

Such discussion...whoa, I wonder where are priorities really are?

Berets 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.

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.  

If 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.

Oh, by the way, I think all that can ever be said on the matter has been written here at CAPTALK.

As for the remarks against squadron commanders and the National Commander, Interim; that is uncalled for.

[D2SK]

I've been a member of CAP for a short time, and a lurker on CAP talk for even shorter.  In this time, I've seen a lot of arm chair commandos gripe about a few issues over and over again.  Do you guys have *anything* better to do?  I just don't get it, but it seems to be contrary to the spirit of CAP.

That's my .02 cents.

[davidsinn]

I'm confused on why it's ok for REDCAPs but not ok for SAREXs and the like.

[JoeTomasone]

I've been a member of CAP for a short time, and a lurker on CAP talk for even shorter.  In this time, I've seen a lot of arm chair commandos gripe about a few issues over and over again.  Do you guys have *anything* better to do?  I just don't get it, but it seems to be contrary to the spirit of CAP.

That's my .02 cents.

In any organization, especially a volunteer one, there will always be clashes, gripes, and issues.  In your unit, you may hear of one per year; on CapTalk, you get a lot more due to the reach of the Internet.

You should read some of the message boards started by employees of large corporations.   You think this is bad?  Imagine if people's livelyhood depended on some of the things we debate on here and you can imagine how bad it gets.

Debate is always healthy; it's derision and divisiveness we should avoid.

[davedove]

I'm confused on why it's ok for REDCAPs but not ok for SAREXs and the like.

I'm a bit confused on that as well.  If it says "Emergency Services Missions" that means all missions, actual and training.  Basically, if you have a mission number, it qualifies.

Now, that would not apply to ES training classes.

[RiverAux]

Just who bashed the cadet or dissed people?  However, many of us did critisize the wing policy which is very fair game for this board.

[JoeTomasone]

I'm confused on why it's ok for REDCAPs but not ok for SAREXs and the like.

I'm a bit confused on that as well.  If it says "Emergency Services Missions" that means all missions, actual and training.  Basically, if you have a mission number, it qualifies.

Now, that would not apply to ES training classes.

That was my take on it. 

The wording is "ES Missions" - last I knew, a training mission was a mission, a class was a class.

[mikeylikey]

And no, we don't differ on ES being special enough.  As I said above, berets are authorized for ES mission wear with BDUs per 39-1 when authorized by the WG/CC.  they are NOT authorized for general wear (unless earned at Blue Beret or Hawk Mtn) or for training.

I would like to see the CAP-USAF approval for berets worn with BDU's.  I think they gave it for Blue Beret and that was it. 

[davidsinn]

And no, we don't differ on ES being special enough.  As I said above, berets are authorized for ES mission wear with BDUs per 39-1 when authorized by the WG/CC.  they are NOT authorized for general wear (unless earned at Blue Beret or Hawk Mtn) or for training.

I would like to see the CAP-USAF approval for berets worn with BDU's.  I think they gave it for Blue Beret and that was it. 

Fortunately that doesn't affect fat guys like me.  However I have a goal of being back in green by August.

[maverik]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

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.

[davidsinn]

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?

[Eclipse]

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.

[RickFranz]

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.  

[lordmonar]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[maverik]

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.

[Short Field]

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".

[maverik]

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

[lordmonar]

Such discussion...whoa, I wonder where are priorities really are?

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

Berets 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.

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.  

If 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.

Oh, 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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[_]

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?

[lordmonar]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.)

[JayT]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[_]

Berets are currently authorized for a very narrow, specific groups of people,

As they are in the INWG supplement.

and 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.

The 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-

[Eclipse]

and 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.

...except that's not how it works with military regulations, that which is not explicitly approved is not allowed.

As to exploiting loopholes to do as you please, I'm not sure how you sync that with CAP cores values.

[FW]

I think another review of the regulation is in order.  Here is a short summary of the pertinate section.

From CAPR 39-1:

Table 1-3. Additional Items That May Be Authorized by the Wing/Region Commander
1 General
Wing/region commanders may authorize certain items to be worn for specific purposes within their respective wing/region or within specific units of their
wing/region. Commanders will not use this authority to circumvent National
polices. Examples of purposes of these items are to identify members of
special CAP groups such as drill teams, bands, color guards, and members
participating in emergency services' missions.

4 Berets. Only blue berets may be authorized for special purpose wear. Berets provided at special activities may be worn at the activity ONLY.

If the wing commander authorizes the wear of a blue beret, I guess it's OK.  But only in the wing and only during the activity. (unless earned at NBB).  

This might be a broad interpretation of the reg. but, it does seem to comply.

[lordmonar]

And that is exactly what INWG/CC did.

[FW]

However, I rather wear an orange CAP baseball cap.  

[RiverAux]

Not all supplements have to be reviewed by higher headquarters.  Though they don't have to be "approved" by higher headquarters, the implication is that if the higher HQ reviews the supplement and doesn't like what they see, they will order that the supplement be revised. 
CAPR 5-4(3)(a)(1)

In addition, a copy of each publication must be forwarded to the next higher level of command for review immediately upon publication.

However, I suppose I do have to agree with the intrepreation of 39-1 Table 1-3 that says that Wing Commanders can authorize blue berets for "emergency services missions" as "special purpose wear".  I don't like it, but it seems to be legal. 

However, Note 3 to this table does specifically say that Region "in coordination with" NHQ must approve any items authorized by a wing commander based on this table.  I ASSume this has been done....

I do wonder if the blue beret clause was really meant for such broad use or whether it was meant to accomodate the NBB folks? 

[MIKE]

Round and round we go... And I think the actual purpose of this thread was answered 4 pages ago.