CAP Talk

I heard through my squadron and read in the new 39-1 that NRA marksmanship qualification awards are now authorized for wear on the service uniform.  I go to check and I see that it is authorized for cadets only, even though the qualification program spans all ages http://goo.gl/sN8Rmh (http://goo.gl/sN8Rmh) (page 2).  Why is it that a senior member can't wear a qualification badge, and hypothetically would a cadet full colonel with a Distinguished Expert qualification badge, who turns 21 and must become a senior member, be ordered to remove his or her badge upon promotion?

With the old "youth" marksman program I have read about here, this regulation may have made sense if adults didn't qualify in youth shooting quals in the first place, but with the new NRA program this doesn't seem to make any sense.

Is that really what 39-1 stipulates?

Quote from: williamburdge on July 10, 2014, 07:43:20 PM
I heard through my squadron and read in the new 39-1 that NRA marksmanship qualification awards are now authorized for wear on the service uniform.  I go to check and I see that it is authorized for cadets only, even though the qualification program spans all ages http://goo.gl/sN8Rmh (http://goo.gl/sN8Rmh) (page 2).  Why is it that a senior member can't wear a qualification badge, and hypothetically would a cadet full colonel with a Distinguished Expert qualification badge, who turns 21 and must become a senior member, be ordered to remove his or her badge upon promotion?

With the old "youth" marksman program I have read about here, this regulation may have made sense if adults didn't qualify in youth shooting quals in the first place, but with the new NRA program this doesn't seem to make any sense.

Is that really what 39-1 stipulates?

Yes, just like he would have to take off his rocketry badge, and his shoulder cord as these are not authorized for wear on a Sr member uniform.

That's what doesn't make sense to me, the Rocketry Program is specific to cadets, the NRA Marksmanship program is open to all ages, per the NRA's rules.  It makes sense that only cadets wear badges for cadet-only programs, but this isn't a cadet-only program.  This just looks like someone didn't pay attention when the NRA changed the program, and this regulation should have changed with the NRA.  Now we would be ordering qualified marksmen to remove awards and I can't see a valid reason why.

Quote from: williamburdge on July 10, 2014, 07:54:29 PM
That's what doesn't make sense to me, the Rocketry Program is specific to cadets, the NRA Marksmanship program is open to all ages, per the NRA's rules.  It makes sense that only cadets wear badges for cadet-only programs, but this isn't a cadet-only program.  This just looks like someone didn't pay attention when the NRA changed the program, and this regulation should have changed with the NRA.  Now we would be ordering qualified marksmen to remove awards and I can't see a valid reason why.

Yes, the NRA program is open to anyone, but CAP considers firearms training a cadet-only activity.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 10, 2014, 07:58:02 PM

Yes, the NRA program is open to anyone, but CAP considers firearms training a cadet-only activity.

Well, that's obviously a mistake in the regs, as the youth-only program doesn't exist and has been replaced by the current program.  If the regs are going to authorize the new medals they should be authorized for anyone who has earned them.

CAPR 52-16 authorizes firearms training for cadets.

Please cite any regulation that authorizes firearms training for senior members.

2nd Amendment US Constitution.  Senior members don't need regs to authorize their own participation in firearms training and that is NOT the question here.  The question here is why is an award that both cadets and senior members can earn only permitted on a cadet uniform?  This is not a question of authorization to participate in firearms training.

Quote from: williamburdge on July 10, 2014, 07:54:29 PM
That's what doesn't make sense to me, the Rocketry Program is specific to cadets, the NRA Marksmanship program is open to all ages, per the NRA's rules.  It makes sense that only cadets wear badges for cadet-only programs, but this isn't a cadet-only program.  This just looks like someone didn't pay attention when the NRA changed the program, and this regulation should have changed with the NRA.  Now we would be ordering qualified marksmen to remove awards and I can't see a valid reason why.

You don't have to agree, but you can always suggest a modification to 39-1 as outlined in the manual

Quote from: williamburdge on July 10, 2014, 08:12:23 PM
2nd Amendment US Constitution.  Senior members don't need regs to authorize their own participation in firearms training and that is NOT the question here.  The question here is why is an award that both cadets and senior members can earn only permitted on a cadet uniform?  This is not a question of authorization to participate in firearms training.

You can do whatever you want on your own time.

CAP does not authorize senior members to participate in firearms training as members, nor do they recognize any awards you
may receive completing that training on your own time.

The 2nd amendment does not apply.

39-1  specifically states that it is designed to  follow the Air Force Regs as closely as possible. Marksmanship badges are not worn on the USAF uniform, ergo not on the SM uniform.

Wait, did you just invoke the 2nd amendment as a reason for allowing marksmanship badges on the uniform? No. I'm sure I didn't read that right.

Because that would be like saying it's part of my 1st Amendment right to wear a pink tutu with my uniform. Free speech and all that. Freedom to exercise my religion. You know the one that requires me to wear a pink tutu.

Quote from: MSG Mac on July 10, 2014, 08:16:56 PM
39-1  specifically states that it is designed to  follow the Air Force Regs as closely as possible. Marksmanship badges are not worn on the USAF uniform, ergo not on the SM uniform.

Actually, with the the new updated instruction which allows the wear of all other US Service badges on the USAF uniform, Marksmanship Qualification badges are authorized.

Just not NRA ones.

Quote from: williamburdge on July 10, 2014, 08:12:23 PM
2nd Amendment US Constitution.

Not applicable to this situation, as CAP is a private, not governmental, organization.

The Constitution regulates (with the exception of the 13th Amendment and the 18th Amendment as modified by the 21st Amendment) relations between private parties and governments, or governments and governments.  It has no applicability to relations between private parties and other private parties.

The NRA program is not a CAP program and it's certainly not a senior member program. You can't wear the badge is if you're not a cadet. Period.

Sounds like a white paper with a suggestion to expand the badge wear is in the works

Quote from: lordmonar on July 10, 2014, 09:30:56 PM
Sounds like a white paper with a suggestion to expand the bra badge wear is in the works

((*snicker*))

Your Freudian Slip is showing...

Quote from: Eclipse on July 10, 2014, 09:36:13 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on July 10, 2014, 09:30:56 PM
Sounds like a white paper with a suggestion to expand the bra badge wear is in the works

((*snicker*))

Your Freudian Slip is showing...

thanks fixed :)

Quote from: lordmonar on July 10, 2014, 09:30:56 PM
Sounds like a white paper with a suggestion to expand the badge wear is in the works

Do we really need another badge?

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 10, 2014, 09:51:58 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on July 10, 2014, 09:30:56 PM
Sounds like a white paper with a suggestion to expand the badge wear is in the works

Do we really need another badge?

Badges? We don't need no steenkin' badges!!! :D

No we don't need another badge.  36-2903 authorizes sister service badges yes and I would have to look but I do not believe marksmanship badges are authorized.  The Excellence in Competition badge is authorized for wear. 

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 10, 2014, 09:51:58 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on July 10, 2014, 09:30:56 PM
Sounds like a white paper with a suggestion to expand the badge wear is in the works

Do we really need another badge?

williamburdge thinks so

Quote from: abdsp51 on July 10, 2014, 10:13:42 PM
No we don't need another badge.  36-2903 authorizes sister service badges yes and I would have to look but I do not believe marksmanship badges are authorized.  The Excellence in Competition badge is authorized for wear.

The new USAF Uniform Instruction authorizes all sister Service badges, awards and decorations for wear on the uniform.

It seems pretty cut and dry.

But not NRA badges.

Quote from: shuman14 on July 10, 2014, 10:51:38 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on July 10, 2014, 10:13:42 PM
No we don't need another badge.  36-2903 authorizes sister service badges yes and I would have to look but I do not believe marksmanship badges are authorized.  The Excellence in Competition badge is authorized for wear.

The new USAF Uniform Instruction authorizes all sister Service badges, awards and decorations for wear on the uniform.

It seems pretty cut and dry.

But not NRA badges.

Not true; all "sister service" badges are not authorized on the USAF uniform. For "shooting badges" the Air Force only authorizes the Excellence-in-Competition shooting badge and no others.  For example, if I "went blue" I could not wear my Marine Corps Expert Rifle Marksmanship badge.

Quote from: shuman14 on July 10, 2014, 10:51:38 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on July 10, 2014, 10:13:42 PM
No we don't need another badge.  36-2903 authorizes sister service badges yes and I would have to look but I do not believe marksmanship badges are authorized.  The Excellence in Competition badge is authorized for wear.

The new USAF Uniform Instruction authorizes all sister Service badges, awards and decorations for wear on the uniform.

It seems pretty cut and dry.

But not NRA badges.

No it is not cut and dry it states qualification badges and not marksmanship badges.  See as follows:

AFI36-2903 Para: 10.5.

Qualification and Miscellaneous Badges and Patches.
Qualification badges are defined as badges earned and permanently awarded that reflect special skills that an Airman has demonstrated proficiency or qualification in that complements their primary mission. Wear of other services' qualification badges, if earned and awarded, is authorized. Award criteria for other services' qualification badges will be in accordance with awarding Service's directives (Army MilPERCEN; Navy; BUPERS, etc.). Temporary qualification badges and those not related to an Airman's current primary mission are not authorized for wear on the uniform.

Refer to attachment 5 for a listing of qualification badges and patches authorized (not inclusive).

Ergo other service marksmanship badges are not authorized for wear on the AF uniform.  The EIC badge is authorized for wear by members.  Please stay in your lane.

Well, as others have pointed out, 39-1 is trying to mold itself as much as possible to AF uniform regs.

On a meta level, and this is just my personal opinion with absolutely nothing to back it up, I always just figured that with a large part of CAP being a youth organization, CAPHQ didn't want SMs in uniform in schools and other youth-heavy locations wearing weapon qualification badges.

Nobody here got the point.  NRA badge is authorized by 39-1 for cadets.

None need authorization to seek firearms training, it is a guaranteed right of any person in these United States, some may call it guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.  That point is irrelevant.  The actual question without the above game of telephone is THIS:

If the NRA badge permitted by CAP 39-1 can be earned by cadets and senior members, why do only cadets get to wear it?

I have my answer now, and that is for no reason.  I will put in my request for a modification of the regulations as this is clearly a relic from the age of the "youth" shooting badges and not adapted to the new NRA program.  If you don't like what I think, keep posting here.  This will be my last post on CAPtalk.  Happy trolling.

Quote from: williamburdge on July 11, 2014, 05:10:27 AMIf the NRA badge permitted by CAP 39-1 can be earned by cadets and senior members, why do only cadets get to wear it?

The NRA badge cannot be earned by Senior Members - that's the flaw in your premise.

You're certainly welcome to put in your request, but the fact that seniors can't wear the badge is not for "no reason" as you state. The NRA program is not a senior program. Why should seniors get to wear the badge then? What relevance does it have to CAP?

Ill chime in..... although I see you arent coming back though... Its a badge for KIDS and you will look ridiculous as an adult walking around with it.   I didnt give it a second thought when I wasn't able to wear my 4th award USMC rifle and pistol expert badges on my CAP uniform. 

Under the current system I do not see this going past his unit.

What is it lately with people citing the constitution when trying to validate an issue regarding CAP?

Quote from: Flying Pig on July 11, 2014, 09:00:42 AM
What is it lately with people citing the constitution when trying to validate an issue regarding CAP?

I plead the 5th.

Air Force has a ribbon instead of badge.

Quote from: Flying Pig on July 11, 2014, 09:00:42 AM
What is it lately with people citing the constitution when trying to validate an issue regarding CAP?

A fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution and how it works is my bet.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 05:15:15 AM

Quote from: williamburdge on July 11, 2014, 05:10:27 AMIf the NRA badge permitted by CAP 39-1 can be earned by cadets and senior members, why do only cadets get to wear it?

The NRA badge cannot be earned by Senior Members - that's the flaw in your premise.

The program has changed. It is no longer a youth only program, it is now open to anyone of any age.

http://mqp.nra.org/documents/pdf/education/training/marksmanship/qualbook.pdf (http://mqp.nra.org/documents/pdf/education/training/marksmanship/qualbook.pdf)

http://mqp.nra.org/ (http://mqp.nra.org/)

"The following information applies to the overall qualification program -- all disciplines, all courses of fire.
Eligibility
NRA Qualification courses of fire are open to everyone -- men and women, adults and youth."

No one said adults can't participate in that program.

I said it can't be earned by "senior members", there's a difference.

Firearms training, of any kind, is prohibited for adult members of CAP, what they do on their own time is their own business.

I'm a motorcycle safety instructor, should I get to wear my "proficient rider" pin (with rocker for students taught)?

Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 01:48:57 PM
Firearms training, of any kind, is prohibited for adult members of CAP,

Can you provide a cite for that prohibition?

Quote from: JeffDG on July 11, 2014, 01:51:33 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 01:48:57 PM
Firearms training, of any kind, is prohibited for adult members of CAP,

Can you provide a cite for that prohibition?

No.

Can you provide one that authorizes it?

The only place, in any reg, that mentions the authorization of firearms training for members is 52-16, which explicitly
mentions cadets.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 01:54:11 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on July 11, 2014, 01:51:33 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 01:48:57 PM
Firearms training, of any kind, is prohibited for adult members of CAP,

Can you provide a cite for that prohibition?

No.

Can you provide one that authorizes it?

The only place, in any reg, that mentions the authorization of firearms training for members is 52-16, which explicitly
mentions cadets.

I don't need one that "authorizes" it.  That which is not prohibited is implicitly permitted.

Can you cite a regulation that permits you to go to the bathroom during a mission?  By your logic, it must be prohibited then, right?

Quote from: JeffDG on July 11, 2014, 01:58:40 PM
I don't need one that "authorizes" it.  That which is not prohibited is implicitly permitted.

That's literally the opposite of how it works.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 02:00:03 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on July 11, 2014, 01:58:40 PM
I don't need one that "authorizes" it.  That which is not prohibited is implicitly permitted.

That's literally the opposite of how it works.

OK, where's your bathroom authorization regulation then?  If not, I hope people hold you to your standard next mission.

My impression is there are way too many folks too focused on uniform bling.  Look around, there are more than a few ribbons and badges authorized for cadets that are not allowed for seniors.  There are more than a few older ribbons and badges that were once authorized for seniors that have gone away.  SO WHAT!

There was a time that it seemed almost anything could be worn on the CAP uniform including overseas (combat patches), any and all marksmanship awards, Army Drivers Badge, Vietnamse Armor Advisor Badge, German Army Jump wings, German/NATO Master Gunner Badge and shoulder cord, one individual senior wearing high school JROTC ribbons. and I am sure there were others, many others.
SO WHAT!

There are people out there that need to remember "The man makes the uniform, the uniform does not make the man".

Forget the bling, do the mission.

Quote from: JeffDG on July 11, 2014, 01:51:33 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 01:48:57 PM
Firearms training, of any kind, is prohibited for adult members of CAP,

Can you provide a cite for that prohibition?

Quote from: CAPR 900-31. Firearms. Civil Air Patrol members will not carry, wear or use firearms while engaged in Civil Air Patrol activities.

Quote from: CAPR 900-3 1.a.3Firearms may be used under strict supervision as authorized in CAPR 52-16, Cadet Program Management.

So, since firearms may nut be used, and since the only general exception is provided in 52-16, and since that exception only allows training for cadets; senior members may not participate in firearms training in CAP.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 02:00:03 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on July 11, 2014, 01:58:40 PM
I don't need one that "authorizes" it.  That which is not prohibited is implicitly permitted.

That's literally the opposite of how it works.

When it comes to uniform regulations, if its doesn't specifically say you CAN then you CANT.  20yrs in CAP and served in two branches of the military and its always been that way. 

Quote from: JeffDG on July 11, 2014, 02:01:00 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 02:00:03 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on July 11, 2014, 01:58:40 PM
I don't need one that "authorizes" it.  That which is not prohibited is implicitly permitted.

That's literally the opposite of how it works.

OK, where's your bathroom authorization regulation then?  If not, I hope people hold you to your standard next mission.

Jeders beat me to it, see above.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 02:27:05 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on July 11, 2014, 02:01:00 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 02:00:03 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on July 11, 2014, 01:58:40 PM
I don't need one that "authorizes" it.  That which is not prohibited is implicitly permitted.

That's literally the opposite of how it works.

OK, where's your bathroom authorization regulation then?  If not, I hope people hold you to your standard next mission.

Jeders beat me to it, see above.

But wait.

You said you couldn't cite a regulation prohibiting firearms, and went on to say that if something wasn't specifically authorized, it was prohibited.  The fact that someone else COULD cite a regulation doesn't change the fact that your statement about "that which is not permitted is prohibited" was completely incorrect. 

I'm really waiting for your admission that your contention that things not authorized are prohibited was a complete and utter falsehood.

Alternatively, I'm still waiting for your bathroom authorization regulation.

Quote from: JeffDG on July 11, 2014, 02:41:22 PMI'm really waiting for your admission that your contention that things not authorized are prohibited was a complete and utter falsehood.

Don't miss a Dr's appointment hitting F5.  That is a correct assertion.

And I have to tell you, I'm tired of arguing about the argument.  Take it to Twitspace.

Jeff, you lost that argument, don't be a troll, stop arguing! Show that you are a mature senior member...

Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on July 11, 2014, 02:53:22 PM
Jeff, you lost that argument, don't be a troll, stop arguing! Show that you are a mature senior member...

I asked for a cite of a regulation saying firearms training was prohibited.

Eclipse said there wasn't one, and said that if it wasn't permitted it was prohibited.  Both of those statements were patently and demonstrably false.   If the "if it isn't permitted, it's prohibited" line of reasoning was valid, then Eclipse would need to provide his regulatory guidance permitting him to use the bathroom.  This is called, in logical terms, taking an argument to its conclusion, and it demonstrates that the proposition is false and absurd on its face.

Jeders helpfully provided appropriate regulatory guidance prohibiting the practice.  Fine, it's prohibited.  But it's prohibited because the regulations prohibit it, not because there is no regulation permitting it.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 02:51:56 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on July 11, 2014, 02:41:22 PMI'm really waiting for your admission that your contention that things not authorized are prohibited was a complete and utter falsehood.

Don't miss a Dr's appointment hitting F5.  That is a correct assertion.

Where's your bathroom authorization regulation then?  If it's not permitted, it's prohibited, right?

Quote from: JeffDG on July 11, 2014, 01:58:40 PM
That which is not prohibited is implicitly permitted.

Can you cite a regulation that permits you to go to the bathroom during a mission?  By your logic, it must be prohibited then, right?

CAP does not prohibit leading cadets in group discussions about Ulysses, Naked Lunch, Howl, or Tropic of Cancer – four texts that have been banned by various communities over the years. As a former teacher, I'm not going anywhere near those texts below college level.

Just because a regulation doesn't prohibit a given activity does not mean that that activity is permitted in CAP. The bathroom break example is nonsense. Rules and regs can't anticipate every scenario, but neither do they address every scenario that the writer(s) could anticipate (ie: a need for bathroom breaks).

We need more discernment and temperance around here. 

Quote
But it's prohibited because the regulations prohibit it, not because there is no regulation permitting it.

So fine, the issue is settled. Prohibited because of a regulation. Now you are trying to turn it personal!

Quote from: SamFranklin on July 11, 2014, 03:04:59 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on July 11, 2014, 01:58:40 PM
That which is not prohibited is implicitly permitted.

Can you cite a regulation that permits you to go to the bathroom during a mission?  By your logic, it must be prohibited then, right?

CAP does not prohibit leading cadets in group discussions about Ulysses, Naked Lunch, Howl, or Tropic of Cancer – four texts that have been banned by various communities over the years. As a former teacher, I'm not going anywhere near those texts below college level.

Just because a regulation doesn't prohibit a given activity does not mean that that activity is permitted in CAP. The bathroom break example is nonsense. Rules and regs can't anticipate every scenario, but neither do they address every scenario that the writer(s) could anticipate (ie: a need for bathroom breaks).

There are two potential legal models that exist within the world.

The English Common Law derived concept is called "permissive".  In that model, that which is not prohibited, is permitted.  So, unless there is a rule (statute, regulation, other directive) saying "Thou shalt not do XXX", then XXX is permitted implicitly.  The United States, the United Kingdom, and most of the Commonwealth operates under this permissive system.

The Roman Civil Code system is resrictive.  In it, that which is not permitted is prohibited.  In that model, unless there is a rule permitting something, then you may not do it.  So, unless there is a rule saying "Thou may do XXX", then you may not do it.  This model is common throughout much of continental Europe.

The difference between these two is not just terminology, there are deep philosophical differences between those who follow the two.  My bathroom example is actually one of the absurdities that happens in the restrictive system. 

If you want to argue that CAP is a "restrictive" model, then in order to overrule the default legal mechanism in the US, you need to cite a rule or regulation doing so.  For example, the Federal Aviation Regulations say that "Noone may act as Pilot in Command of a civil aircraft except as permitted in these regulations" (paraphrased).  That effectively reverses the system for anyone performing that activity.  I am aware of no CAP regulation doing so, and were such a regulation such as "No CAP member may perform any action while on duty except as authorized by these regulations." then CAP would be responsible for providing permission in the regulations for such things as the bathroom example.

Quote from: SamFranklin on July 11, 2014, 03:04:59 PM
We need more discernment and temperance around here.

Concur, and that's what I'm trying to demonstrate.  Perhaps some more information about how regulations and laws operate in the world would be helpful, and even asking people to back up their blanket statements with citations and evidence might be in order.

Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on July 11, 2014, 03:07:40 PM

Quote
But it's prohibited because the regulations prohibit it, not because there is no regulation permitting it.

So fine, the issue is settled. Prohibited because of a regulation. Now you are trying to turn it personal!

No, I'm most certainly not.  It is a fundamental issue of the way society is actually structured.

If someone wants to claim a blanket prohibition on everything not explicitly permitted, that's absurd and false, and I'm going to call them on it because it's absurd and false.  Letting such absurdities go unchallenged is why old-wives-tales gain footholds.

Uniform regs are not activities.   We are comparing apples and oranges with that analogy.  Senior Members/Adults CAN take the course.   But the NRA badge is not a uniform item that SMs can wear.   Uniform items very much are written approval.  If it doesn't specifically say you can wear it, then you cant assume that you can.  Thats really the issue.  Just because the 39-1 doesn't specifically say "Seniors cannot wear the USMC rifle qual badges" doesn't mean that I can.   It specifically means that I cannot because its not listed. 

Quote from: JeffDG on July 11, 2014, 03:15:35 PM
There are two potential legal models that exist within the world.

The English Common Law derived concept is called "permissive".  In that model, that which is not prohibited, is permitted.  So, unless there is a rule (statute, regulation, other directive) saying "Thou shalt not do XXX", then XXX is permitted implicitly.  The United States, the United Kingdom, and most of the Commonwealth operates under this permissive system.

The Roman Civil Code system is resrictive.  In it, that which is not permitted is prohibited.  In that model, unless there is a rule permitting something, then you may not do it.  So, unless there is a rule saying "Thou may do XXX", then you may not do it.  This model is common throughout much of continental Europe.

The difference between these two is not just terminology, there are deep philosophical differences between those who follow the two.  My bathroom example is actually one of the absurdities that happens in the restrictive system. 

If you want to argue that CAP is a "restrictive" model, then in order to overrule the default legal mechanism in the US, you need to cite a rule or regulation doing so.  For example, the Federal Aviation Regulations say that "Noone may act as Pilot in Command of a civil aircraft except as permitted in these regulations" (paraphrased).  That effectively reverses the system for anyone performing that activity.  I am aware of no CAP regulation doing so, and were such a regulation such as "No CAP member may perform any action while on duty except as authorized by these regulations." then CAP would be responsible for providing permission in the regulations for such things as the bathroom example.

To bring things a little more full circle on the permissive versus restrictive model:

In the old days, before world wide instantaneous global communications, the Navy's model was "permissive."

A ship captain had a pretty wide framework within which to operate once he "sailed over the horizon."  Pretty much if there wasn't a specific rule preventing an action (ie. "Don't start a war with France, and don't subjugate native populations" or some such), it was within the captain's purview and authority.  Hence the "captain is the ultimate authority" kind of thing.

The Army, OTOH, was on more of a restrictive model. Because you had generals (and colonels and majors and captains) pretty much within visual range of each other down the chain of command, a subordinate commander might have had certain left and right limits to maneuver within, but he also has a lot of "you better ask first" kinds of things.  The Army tells you what you CAN do, in most instances, not what you CAN'T.

Of course, nowadays any commander's actions even 8,000-12,000 miles from the headshed are instantly seen and 2nd guessed, so there isn't a lot of incentive to stray beyond the range limits, or even maneuver close to the range limits, lest you get a "rocket from above."

Quote from: JeffDG on July 11, 2014, 03:15:35 PM
There are two potential legal models that exist within the world.

The English Common Law derived concept is called "permissive".  In that model, that which is not prohibited, is permitted.  So, unless there is a rule (statute, regulation, other directive) saying "Thou shalt not do XXX", then XXX is permitted implicitly.  The United States, the United Kingdom, and most of the Commonwealth operates under this permissive system.

The Roman Civil Code system is resrictive.  In it, that which is not permitted is prohibited.  In that model, unless there is a rule permitting something, then you may not do it.  So, unless there is a rule saying "Thou may do XXX", then you may not do it.  This model is common throughout much of continental Europe.

The difference between these two is not just terminology, there are deep philosophical differences between those who follow the two.  My bathroom example is actually one of the absurdities that happens in the restrictive system. 

If you want to argue that CAP is a "restrictive" model, then in order to overrule the default legal mechanism in the US, you need to cite a rule or regulation doing so.  For example, the Federal Aviation Regulations say that "Noone may act as Pilot in Command of a civil aircraft except as permitted in these regulations" (paraphrased).  That effectively reverses the system for anyone performing that activity.  I am aware of no CAP regulation doing so, and were such a regulation such as "No CAP member may perform any action while on duty except as authorized by these regulations." then CAP would be responsible for providing permission in the regulations for such things as the bathroom example.

Are you going to quote Constitutional amendments next?  I'd go with the 18th.

What the "real world" does, as has been shown time and again, is essentially irrelevant in a CAP context.

Policy, precedent, and regulation are all in favor of my statement.  CAP operates in a restricted model.  That which is not granted, is not permitted.
For most standard, day-to-day activities and operations, the regulations are published as anticipated by the OPR staff, for everything that falls outside
that framework, prior approval is required.

There are more then a few ex-commanders and members who acted in the 'it doesn't say I can't" mode, and learned the hard way that they
in fact "can't".

The semantics and pedantry of this discussion are specific and also support that.

The comments about the bathroom are ridiculous and only serve to argue Ad hominem.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 05:26:02 PM

The comments about the bathroom are ridiculous and only serve to argue Ad hominem.

I love when people use latin phrases like ad hominem in such a way as it demonstrates they have no clue what it means.

But the question stands without any answer.  Probably because you realize you're wrong but refuse to admit same. 

There is no regulation permitting use of the bathroom, so your logic dictates that such use is prohibited.

Quote from: JeffDG on July 11, 2014, 05:30:19 PMThere is no regulation permitting use of the bathroom, so your logic dictates that such use is prohibited.

Agreed - it requires a CAPF-OINEED2P

Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 05:33:47 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on July 11, 2014, 05:30:19 PMThere is no regulation permitting use of the bathroom, so your logic dictates that such use is prohibited.

Agreed - it requires a CAPF-OINEED2P

Followed in some cases, after the morning SAR briefing and coffee, the CAPF OINEED2BM.

Do you mean something like this?

(http://www.camplowdenhistory.org/tour/rifle_range/NRAawards/sharpshooter-medal.jpg)

I earned a similar one as a Boy Scout back in the '70s.  I could wear it on the BSA uniform but, even if I could find the darn thing today, the thought of wearing it on the CAP uniform has never crossed my mind.

Quote from: Flying Pig on July 11, 2014, 04:09:17 PM
Uniform regs are not activities.   We are comparing apples and oranges with that analogy.  Senior Members/Adults CAN take the course.   But the NRA badge is not a uniform item that SMs can wear.   Uniform items very much are written approval.  If it doesn't specifically say you can wear it, then you cant assume that you can.  Thats really the issue.  Just because the 39-1 doesn't specifically say "Seniors cannot wear the USMC rifle qual badges" doesn't mean that I can.   It specifically means that I cannot because its not listed.

The uniform manual actually says, and I quote:

Quote from: CAPM 39-1, para 1.1.21.1.2.1. COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY. This publication is the sole source for wear instructions and authorized items for various uniform combinations as prescribed within. Variation from this publication is not authorized. Items not listed in this publication are not authorized for wear with uniforms. Local commanders do not have the authority to waive grooming and appearance standards.

emphasis mine

Quote from: arajca on July 11, 2014, 07:14:53 PM

Quote from: Flying Pig on July 11, 2014, 04:09:17 PM
Uniform regs are not activities.   We are comparing apples and oranges with that analogy.  Senior Members/Adults CAN take the course.   But the NRA badge is not a uniform item that SMs can wear.   Uniform items very much are written approval.  If it doesn't specifically say you can wear it, then you cant assume that you can.  Thats really the issue.  Just because the 39-1 doesn't specifically say "Seniors cannot wear the USMC rifle qual badges" doesn't mean that I can.   It specifically means that I cannot because its not listed.

The uniform manual actually says, and I quote:

Quote from: CAPM 39-1, para 1.1.21.1.2.1. COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY. This publication is the sole source for wear instructions and authorized items for various uniform combinations as prescribed within. Variation from this publication is not authorized. Items not listed in this publication are not authorized for wear with uniforms. Local commanders do not have the authority to waive grooming and appearance standards.

emphasis mine

Boom! There ya go.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 05:15:15 AM

Quote from: williamburdge on July 11, 2014, 05:10:27 AMIf the NRA badge permitted by CAP 39-1 can be earned by cadets and senior members, why do only cadets get to wear it?

The NRA badge cannot be earned by Senior Members - that's the flaw in your premise.

Yes it can.   Just like a senior member can earn his PADI Open Water Diver certification, USPA Jump Wings, Advanced Basket Weaving Rating or his Security + Certification.

No one as yet has found a reason to let Senior Members advertise this fact on their uniforms.

At some point in the past....someone in the CP shop thought that weapons training through the NRA youth shooter's program was a cool add on to CAP's Cadet Program and got authorization to allow the badge to be worn as way to reward/incentive the cadets to do the program.

Time moved on and the NRA changed their program from a youth only to any anyone program.   CAP went through conniptions over it until it got corrected in the last 39-1 (IIRC).   

Now someone is asking the question....."The NRA program is for anyone....why can't seniors wear it?"

Legitimate question.

Write up a white paper....send it up the chain....maybe we will get it....maybe not.

Quote from: Flying Pig on July 11, 2014, 05:17:46 AM
Ill chime in..... although I see you arent coming back though... Its a badge for KIDS and you will look ridiculous as an adult walking around with it.   I didnt give it a second thought when I wasn't able to wear my 4th award USMC rifle and pistol expert badges on my CAP uniform.

Sorry...not true.  Anyone can earn the NRA Badges.

Quote from: Garibaldi on July 11, 2014, 06:55:58 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 05:33:47 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on July 11, 2014, 05:30:19 PMThere is no regulation permitting use of the bathroom, so your logic dictates that such use is prohibited.

Agreed - it requires a CAPF-OINEED2P

Followed in some cases, after the morning SAR briefing and coffee, the CAPF OINEED2BM.

Filling that one out is a mess...

First sortie in the morning is a low-altitude / over-water drop.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 02:00:03 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on July 11, 2014, 01:58:40 PM
I don't need one that "authorizes" it.  That which is not prohibited is implicitly permitted.

That's literally the opposite of how it works.

We have been down this road before.....as someone who lived and died by regulations and AFIs and DCDICs for 22 years.....you are 100% absolutely emphatically totally wrong on this assertion.

Regs tell you what MUST be done, what should be done, what should be avoided and what CAN'T done........anything not covered by the regs is up to the discretion of the leader involved.

You asset because 52-16 permits cadets to do weapons training and does not mention adult members at all.......then adult members can't do weapons training.

I will speculate then that you are going to have to do a lot of paper work on a lot of senior members who particpated in weapons training while supervising their cadets in weapons training.  :)

That which is not forbidden is allowed.

Quote from: lordmonar on July 11, 2014, 08:15:52 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 05:15:15 AM

Quote from: williamburdge on July 11, 2014, 05:10:27 AMIf the NRA badge permitted by CAP 39-1 can be earned by cadets and senior members, why do only cadets get to wear it?

The NRA badge cannot be earned by Senior Members - that's the flaw in your premise.

Yes it can.   Just like a senior member can earn his PADI Open Water Diver certification, USPA Jump Wings, Advanced Basket Weaving Rating or his Security + Certification.

Not the same thing - it is against regulations for a senior member to use a firearm during CAP activities.
Ergo, it cannot be earned by senior members, nor is it recognized by CAP for adult members.

Based on the program requirements, it can be earned by private citizens who may also coincidentally be members of CAP.

That's not the same thing.

The above is also admittedly worthy of the Pedantic Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords, and Diamonds.

Quote from: lordmonar on July 11, 2014, 08:23:56 PM
I will speculate then that you are going to have to do a lot of paper work on a lot of senior members who participated in weapons training while supervising their cadets in weapons training. 

The above is literally forbidden, explicitly, by clear regulations.

A regulation I have broken myself before it was pointed out to me, and one which continues to be broken at
encampments all over the country.

Quote from: SamFranklin on July 11, 2014, 03:04:59 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on July 11, 2014, 01:58:40 PM
That which is not prohibited is implicitly permitted.

Can you cite a regulation that permits you to go to the bathroom during a mission?  By your logic, it must be prohibited then, right?

CAP does not prohibit leading cadets in group discussions about Ulysses, Naked Lunch, Howl, or Tropic of Cancer – four texts that have been banned by various communities over the years. As a former teacher, I'm not going anywhere near those texts below college level.

Just because a regulation doesn't prohibit a given activity does not mean that that activity is permitted in CAP. The bathroom break example is nonsense. Rules and regs can't anticipate every scenario, but neither do they address every scenario that the writer(s) could anticipate (ie: a need for bathroom breaks).

We need more discernment and temperance around here.

No...it is a perfect example of the argument.

Regulations are there to tell you what you CAN'T do and what you MUST do.   They may offer suggestions about what you should do and should not do.

Everything else is up to us as leaders.    Group discussion of Ulysses.....you think you should avoid that....okay that's exactly why we have you there as a leaser...to make those calls.

But to say "if the regs don't mention it, you can't do it" is absolutely wrong.  It would be impossible to write a reg that covered every eventuality.   Because as we say....where is the bathroom reg?   

If it is not in the reg...you can't do it.   If that is the standard.....I know we do a lot of things in CAP no in the regs.

Quote from: Flying Pig on July 11, 2014, 04:09:17 PM
Uniform regs are not activities.   We are comparing apples and oranges with that analogy.  Senior Members/Adults CAN take the course.   But the NRA badge is not a uniform item that SMs can wear.   Uniform items very much are written approval.  If it doesn't specifically say you can wear it, then you cant assume that you can.  Thats really the issue.  Just because the 39-1 doesn't specifically say "Seniors cannot wear the USMC rifle qual badges" doesn't mean that I can.   It specifically means that I cannot because its not listed.

Yes....because 39-1 is a manual....and it states at the beginning of it.......anything not covered here needs to be sent to NHQ for evaluation....I'm paraphrasing.

No one has suggested that a Senior Member can wear the badge because 39-1 does not forbid it.

The suggestion was made that if the regs don't specifically allow an activity...then you can't do it.   Now in the case of UNIFORMS the manual does in fact say that....If it is not here....you can't do it....ask NHQ....(such as an obscure military badge or a foreign award).

But in 52-16 it does not say I can take my cadets to the movies.   So....can I?   Is if verboten to take my cadets to the movies as a squadron activity?   It's not in there. 

Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 08:25:36 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on July 11, 2014, 08:15:52 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 05:15:15 AM

Quote from: williamburdge on July 11, 2014, 05:10:27 AMIf the NRA badge permitted by CAP 39-1 can be earned by cadets and senior members, why do only cadets get to wear it?

The NRA badge cannot be earned by Senior Members - that's the flaw in your premise.

Yes it can.   Just like a senior member can earn his PADI Open Water Diver certification, USPA Jump Wings, Advanced Basket Weaving Rating or his Security + Certification.

Not the same thing - it is against regulations for a senior member to use a firearm during CAP activities.
Ergo, it cannot be earned by senior members, nor is it recognized by CAP for adult members.

Based on the program requirements, it can be earned by private citizens who may also coincidentally be members of CAP.

That's not the same thing.

The above is also admittedly worthy of the Pedantic Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords, and Diamonds.

Is the same thing....because a cadet can earn the NRA badge........and it not be part of a CAP activity.    It says If he earns it......not if he earns it at a CAP activity.    A senior member can earn his CAP Solo Wings....and he is forbidden by regs to actually do that on CAP time....but he can still earn them.     So.....a Senior Member can in fact earn NRA badges....just not at a CAP activity.   39-1 does not allow him to wear them.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 08:27:29 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on July 11, 2014, 08:23:56 PM
I will speculate then that you are going to have to do a lot of paper work on a lot of senior members who participated in weapons training while supervising their cadets in weapons training. 

The above is literally forbidden, explicitly, by clear regulations.

A regulation I have broken myself before it was pointed out to me, and one which continues to be broken at
encampments all over the country.

900-3 needs to be rewritten.....or maybe clarified because under 52-16 SM could in fact be the ones providing the training to the cadets.....and under the circumstances......the spirit of 900-3 is not being broken if we are allowing the CP senior members to participate too. 

Definitely one of those areas that needs to be corrected. As we unknowing break that reg all the time. 

Quote from: lordmonar on July 11, 2014, 08:23:56 PM
You asset because 52-16 permits cadets to do weapons training and does not mention adult members at all.......then adult members can't do weapons training.

I will speculate then that you are going to have to do a lot of paper work on a lot of senior members who particpated in weapons training while supervising their cadets in weapons training.  :)

I love a good legal debate as much as anyone, but in this narrow area ("participation" in firearms training by seniors supervising cadets) I think you guys are getting caught up in some ambuiguity about what "participation" means.

It sounds like we agree that the two primary regs at issue here are the 900-3 (aptly named  Firearms and Assistance to Law Enforcement Officials (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R900_003_506DC1944BAC9.pdf) clearly permits "Carrying" and use of firearms "under strict supervision as authorized in CAPR 52-16." (Para 1a(3))

And the 52-16 says

Quote from: para 2.9b CAPR 52-16Firearm Training. Cadets may participate in firearm training if the wing commander approves the training facility and sponsoring personnel or agency in advance and in writing. Training must be sponsored and supervised by military personnel qualified as range safety officers; local law enforcement officers qualified as firearms instructors; or National Rifle Association, National Skeet Shooting Association or Amateur Trap Shooting Association firearms instructors.

If by "participating in firearms training" while supervising cadets means sitting down in an open lane and banging away, then Bob is correct.  Seniors are not authorized to be students in firearms training.  (Or shoot for familiarization, or whatever.) 

But if "participation in firearms training" means supervising the cadets who are receiving the training, then Patrick is certainly correct.  The 900-3 requires "strict supervision" and the 52-16 also requires that the firearms training be supervised by qualified military, law enforcement, NRA, etc. personnel.

But don't forget CAPR 52-10 that requires that every cadet activity be supervised by at least two qualified senior members (para 2-3(d)), even if the cadets are also being supervised by non-CAP members like military, law enforcement, etc..


So, seniors have to "participate" in the firearms training as (non-firing) supervisors.  There is certainly nothing wrong with employing seniors as additional safety officers, or even as firearms instructors for cadets as long as the training is also supervised by qualified military, law enforcement, NRA, etc personnel who are responsible for the overall training.

Sorry for the slight off topic diversion.  You may all go back to arguing about what badges we can or cannot wear on our uniforms.

Because that is important stuff.   8)

I certainly agree.

Seniors must be there, buy may not shoot.

Nor could you arrange a "seniors only" day on the range.

Also, if you're a senior member who happens to be an NRA instructor, you're wearing >that< hat while you're teaching,
just as you're wearing the ARC's (or whoever) if you teach first aid.

Quote from: lordmonar on July 11, 2014, 08:51:15 PMSo.....a Senior Member can in fact earn NRA badges....just not at a CAP activity.   39-1 does not allow him to wear them.

If it can't be worn on the uniform, and can't be earned in the uniform, it can't be earned as a member.

What you do in your backyard is irrelevant to what you can do as a member.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 09:26:48 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on July 11, 2014, 08:51:15 PMSo.....a Senior Member can in fact earn NRA badges....just not at a CAP activity.   39-1 does not allow him to wear them.

If it can't be worn on the uniform, and can't be earned in the uniform, it can't be earned as a member.

What you do in your backyard is irrelevant to what you can do as a member.

CPP?  :)

Quote from: lordmonar on July 11, 2014, 09:39:25 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 09:26:48 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on July 11, 2014, 08:51:15 PMSo.....a Senior Member can in fact earn NRA badges....just not at a CAP activity.   39-1 does not allow him to wear them.

If it can't be worn on the uniform, and can't be earned in the uniform, it can't be earned as a member.

What you do in your backyard is irrelevant to what you can do as a member.

CPP?  :)

Touché

Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 09:26:48 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on July 11, 2014, 08:51:15 PMSo.....a Senior Member can in fact earn NRA badges....just not at a CAP activity.   39-1 does not allow him to wear them.

If it can't be worn on the uniform, and can't be earned in the uniform, it can't be earned as a member.

What you do in your backyard is irrelevant to what you can do as a member.

Case in point. I rappelled nearly all my teen-aged years with CAP. Since they changed the rules, sometime after I left the cadet program in 1986, only approved DOD instructors could teach it as a High Adventure activity. It may still be that way, haven't checked, TL&DR the manual.

Even if I had my licensure, or whatever, to teach commercially, I couldn't teach CAP members, while in uniform, as part of a normal FTX.

Quote
First sortie in the morning is a low-altitude / over-water drop.

Isn't there a prohibition against throwing something from airplanes...?

Or flying lower than 1000?

I don't know, I am not a pilot... But remember I had to read those flight operations manuals...

???

Exceptions are granted in "emergencies"...

Also, ewwwww...

Quote from: abdsp51 on July 11, 2014, 12:34:30 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on July 10, 2014, 10:51:38 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on July 10, 2014, 10:13:42 PM
No we don't need another badge.  36-2903 authorizes sister service badges yes and I would have to look but I do not believe marksmanship badges are authorized.  The Excellence in Competition badge is authorized for wear.

The new USAF Uniform Instruction authorizes all sister Service badges, awards and decorations for wear on the uniform.

It seems pretty cut and dry.

But not NRA badges.

No it is not cut and dry it states qualification badges and not marksmanship badges.  See as follows:

AFI36-2903 Para: 10.5.

Qualification and Miscellaneous Badges and Patches.
Qualification badges are defined as badges earned and permanently awarded that reflect special skills that an Airman has demonstrated proficiency or qualification in that complements their primary mission. Wear of other services' qualification badges, if earned and awarded, is authorized. Award criteria for other services' qualification badges will be in accordance with awarding Service's directives (Army MilPERCEN; Navy; BUPERS, etc.). Temporary qualification badges and those not related to an Airman's current primary mission are not authorized for wear on the uniform.

Refer to attachment 5 for a listing of qualification badges and patches authorized (not inclusive).

Ergo other service marksmanship badges are not authorized for wear on the AF uniform.  The EIC badge is authorized for wear by members.  Please stay in your lane.

Doe this mean I can wear my Army MP Regimental crest which is a permanent award upon graduation from the MP School?

Quote from: cap235629 on July 12, 2014, 01:57:29 AM
Doe this mean I can wear my Army MP Regimental crest which is a permanent award upon graduation from the MP School?

Good question.  This will look pretty sweet on my CAP uniform...

(http://co.ng.mil/arng/COARNG%20image%20library/officers/amedd_crest.jpg)

My Engineer Regimental crest looks sweet too. 

Quote from: cap235629 on July 12, 2014, 01:57:29 AM

Quote from: abdsp51 on July 11, 2014, 12:34:30 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on July 10, 2014, 10:51:38 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on July 10, 2014, 10:13:42 PM
No we don't need another badge.  36-2903 authorizes sister service badges yes and I would have to look but I do not believe marksmanship badges are authorized.  The Excellence in Competition badge is authorized for wear.

The new USAF Uniform Instruction authorizes all sister Service badges, awards and decorations for wear on the uniform.

It seems pretty cut and dry.

But not NRA badges.

No it is not cut and dry it states qualification badges and not marksmanship badges.  See as follows:

AFI36-2903 Para: 10.5.

Qualification and Miscellaneous Badges and Patches.
Qualification badges are defined as badges earned and permanently awarded that reflect special skills that an Airman has demonstrated proficiency or qualification in that complements their primary mission. Wear of other services' qualification badges, if earned and awarded, is authorized. Award criteria for other services' qualification badges will be in accordance with awarding Service's directives (Army MilPERCEN; Navy; BUPERS, etc.). Temporary qualification badges and those not related to an Airman's current primary mission are not authorized for wear on the uniform.

Refer to attachment 5 for a listing of qualification badges and patches authorized (not inclusive).

Ergo other service marksmanship badges are not authorized for wear on the AF uniform.  The EIC badge is authorized for wear by members.  Please stay in your lane.

Doe this mean I can wear my Army MP Regimental crest which is a permanent award upon graduation from the MP School?

Does 39-1 say you can? 

Quote from: lordmonar on July 11, 2014, 08:17:08 PM

Quote from: Flying Pig on July 11, 2014, 05:17:46 AM
Ill chime in..... although I see you arent coming back though... Its a badge for KIDS and you will look ridiculous as an adult walking around with it.   I didnt give it a second thought when I wasn't able to wear my 4th award USMC rifle and pistol expert badges on my CAP uniform.

Sorry...not true.  Anyone can earn the NRA Badges.

I am referring to their use in CAP.  Its is a badge for kids to strut around with. 

Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 09:24:31 PM
I certainly agree.

Seniors must be there, buy may not shoot.

Nor could you arrange a "seniors only" day on the range.

Also, if you're a senior member who happens to be an NRA instructor, you're wearing >that< hat while you're teaching,
just as you're wearing the ARC's (or whoever) if you teach first aid.

With only minimal creativity and definitely staying within the regulations, I could figure out a way to have Seniors shoot. Getting them qualified for a NRA badge might even happen. 

But even if they earned the badge, they couldn't wear it on a CAP uniform.

Quote from: abdsp51 on July 11, 2014, 12:34:30 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on July 10, 2014, 10:51:38 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on July 10, 2014, 10:13:42 PM
No we don't need another badge.  36-2903 authorizes sister service badges yes and I would have to look but I do not believe marksmanship badges are authorized.  The Excellence in Competition badge is authorized for wear.

The new USAF Uniform Instruction authorizes all sister Service badges, awards and decorations for wear on the uniform.

It seems pretty cut and dry.

But not NRA badges.

No it is not cut and dry it states qualification badges and not marksmanship badges.  See as follows:

AFI36-2903 Para: 10.5.

Qualification and Miscellaneous Badges and Patches.
Qualification badges are defined as badges earned and permanently awarded that reflect special skills that an Airman has demonstrated proficiency or qualification in that complements their primary mission. Wear of other services' qualification badges, if earned and awarded, is authorized. Award criteria for other services' qualification badges will be in accordance with awarding Service's directives (Army MilPERCEN; Navy; BUPERS, etc.). Temporary qualification badges and those not related to an Airman's current primary mission are not authorized for wear on the uniform.

Refer to attachment 5 for a listing of qualification badges and patches authorized (not inclusive).

Ergo other service marksmanship badges are not authorized for wear on the AF uniform.  The EIC badge is authorized for wear by members.  Please stay in your lane.

What part of "not inclusive" do you not understand? It means there are a plethora of badges, from all Services, now authorized for wear on the USAF uniform, not all of them are displayed pictorially in the attachment.  ::)

I would submit to you that a Marksmanship Qualification Badge is not a temporary badge, it a permanent award, until superseded  by a more recent weapons qualification.

If the USAF is allowing prior Service Navy and Coast Guard members to wear their Marksmanship Qualification Ribbons and/or Medals, as outlined in Chapter 11, why would they not allow the same for prior Service Army and Marine members of their Marksmanship Badges?

That would seem to violate the spirit and intent of the new instructions as stated here: http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/473134/af-uniform-policy-update-welcome-back-morale-t-shirts-badges-and-limitless-athl.aspx (http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/473134/af-uniform-policy-update-welcome-back-morale-t-shirts-badges-and-limitless-athl.aspx)

and I quote:

QuoteThe second is recognizing and valuing Airmen's experiences, qualifications and job performance, allowing Airmen to wear what they have earned. The last area is a group of common sense approach inputs from Airmen in the field that senior leaders thought were great ideas.

Still would not authorize a NRA badge for wear, though.  ;)

Quote from: shuman14 on July 12, 2014, 08:24:56 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on July 11, 2014, 12:34:30 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on July 10, 2014, 10:51:38 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on July 10, 2014, 10:13:42 PM
No we don't need another badge.  36-2903 authorizes sister service badges yes and I would have to look but I do not believe marksmanship badges are authorized.  The Excellence in Competition badge is authorized for wear.

The new USAF Uniform Instruction authorizes all sister Service badges, awards and decorations for wear on the uniform.

It seems pretty cut and dry.

But not NRA badges.

No it is not cut and dry it states qualification badges and not marksmanship badges.  See as follows:

AFI36-2903 Para: 10.5.

Qualification and Miscellaneous Badges and Patches.
Qualification badges are defined as badges earned and permanently awarded that reflect special skills that an Airman has demonstrated proficiency or qualification in that complements their primary mission. Wear of other services' qualification badges, if earned and awarded, is authorized. Award criteria for other services' qualification badges will be in accordance with awarding Service's directives (Army MilPERCEN; Navy; BUPERS, etc.). Temporary qualification badges and those not related to an Airman's current primary mission are not authorized for wear on the uniform.

Refer to attachment 5 for a listing of qualification badges and patches authorized (not inclusive).

Ergo other service marksmanship badges are not authorized for wear on the AF uniform.  The EIC badge is authorized for wear by members.  Please stay in your lane.

What part of "not inclusive" do you not understand? It means there are a plethora of badges, from all Services, now authorized for wear on the USAF uniform, not all of them are displayed pictorially in the attachment.  ::)

I would submit to you that a Marksmanship Qualification Badge is not a temporary badge, it a permanent award, until superseded  by a more recent weapons qualification.

If the USAF is allowing prior Service Navy and Coast Guard members to wear their Marksmanship Qualification Ribbons and/or Medals, as outlined in Chapter 11, why would they not allow the same for prior Service Army and Marine members of their Marksmanship Badges?

That would seem to violate the spirit and intent of the new instructions as stated here: http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/473134/af-uniform-policy-update-welcome-back-morale-t-shirts-badges-and-limitless-athl.aspx (http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/473134/af-uniform-policy-update-welcome-back-morale-t-shirts-badges-and-limitless-athl.aspx)

and I quote:

QuoteThe second is recognizing and valuing Airmen's experiences, qualifications and job performance, allowing Airmen to wear what they have earned. The last area is a group of common sense approach inputs from Airmen in the field that senior leaders thought were great ideas.

Still would not authorize a NRA badge for wear, though.  ;)

That is the verbiage verbatim from the AFI.  Army marksmanship medals are not authorized just like combat patches are not authorized. 

Quote from: abdsp51 on July 12, 2014, 08:31:04 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on July 12, 2014, 08:24:56 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on July 11, 2014, 12:34:30 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on July 10, 2014, 10:51:38 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on July 10, 2014, 10:13:42 PM
No we don't need another badge.  36-2903 authorizes sister service badges yes and I would have to look but I do not believe marksmanship badges are authorized.  The Excellence in Competition badge is authorized for wear.

The new USAF Uniform Instruction authorizes all sister Service badges, awards and decorations for wear on the uniform.

It seems pretty cut and dry.

But not NRA badges.

No it is not cut and dry it states qualification badges and not marksmanship badges.  See as follows:

AFI36-2903 Para: 10.5.

Qualification and Miscellaneous Badges and Patches.
Qualification badges are defined as badges earned and permanently awarded that reflect special skills that an Airman has demonstrated proficiency or qualification in that complements their primary mission. Wear of other services' qualification badges, if earned and awarded, is authorized. Award criteria for other services' qualification badges will be in accordance with awarding Service's directives (Army MilPERCEN; Navy; BUPERS, etc.). Temporary qualification badges and those not related to an Airman's current primary mission are not authorized for wear on the uniform.

Refer to attachment 5 for a listing of qualification badges and patches authorized (not inclusive).

Ergo other service marksmanship badges are not authorized for wear on the AF uniform.  The EIC badge is authorized for wear by members.  Please stay in your lane.

What part of "not inclusive" do you not understand? It means there are a plethora of badges, from all Services, now authorized for wear on the USAF uniform, not all of them are displayed pictorially in the attachment.  ::)

I would submit to you that a Marksmanship Qualification Badge is not a temporary badge, it a permanent award, until superseded  by a more recent weapons qualification.

If the USAF is allowing prior Service Navy and Coast Guard members to wear their Marksmanship Qualification Ribbons and/or Medals, as outlined in Chapter 11, why would they not allow the same for prior Service Army and Marine members of their Marksmanship Badges?

That would seem to violate the spirit and intent of the new instructions as stated here: http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/473134/af-uniform-policy-update-welcome-back-morale-t-shirts-badges-and-limitless-athl.aspx (http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/473134/af-uniform-policy-update-welcome-back-morale-t-shirts-badges-and-limitless-athl.aspx)

and I quote:

QuoteThe second is recognizing and valuing Airmen's experiences, qualifications and job performance, allowing Airmen to wear what they have earned. The last area is a group of common sense approach inputs from Airmen in the field that senior leaders thought were great ideas.

Still would not authorize a NRA badge for wear, though.  ;)

That is the verbiage verbatim from the AFI.  Army marksmanship medals are not authorized just like combat patches are not authorized.

Yes, I can read, and I do not see where it says they are not authorized. They reflect a special skill, they are not temporary badges, they are permanently awarded... they are authorized.

Combat patches (i.e. Shoulder Sleeve Insignia - Former Wartime Service) like the Regimental Duty Insignia are identification badges and not authorized for wear.

Quote from: shuman14 on July 12, 2014, 08:42:59 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on July 12, 2014, 08:31:04 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on July 12, 2014, 08:24:56 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on July 11, 2014, 12:34:30 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on July 10, 2014, 10:51:38 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on July 10, 2014, 10:13:42 PM
No we don't need another badge.  36-2903 authorizes sister service badges yes and I would have to look but I do not believe marksmanship badges are authorized.  The Excellence in Competition badge is authorized for wear.

The new USAF Uniform Instruction authorizes all sister Service badges, awards and decorations for wear on the uniform.

It seems pretty cut and dry.

But not NRA badges.

No it is not cut and dry it states qualification badges and not marksmanship badges.  See as follows:

AFI36-2903 Para: 10.5.

Qualification and Miscellaneous Badges and Patches.
Qualification badges are defined as badges earned and permanently awarded that reflect special skills that an Airman has demonstrated proficiency or qualification in that complements their primary mission. Wear of other services' qualification badges, if earned and awarded, is authorized. Award criteria for other services' qualification badges will be in accordance with awarding Service's directives (Army MilPERCEN; Navy; BUPERS, etc.). Temporary qualification badges and those not related to an Airman's current primary mission are not authorized for wear on the uniform.

Refer to attachment 5 for a listing of qualification badges and patches authorized (not inclusive).

Ergo other service marksmanship badges are not authorized for wear on the AF uniform.  The EIC badge is authorized for wear by members.  Please stay in your lane.

What part of "not inclusive" do you not understand? It means there are a plethora of badges, from all Services, now authorized for wear on the USAF uniform, not all of them are displayed pictorially in the attachment.  ::)

I would submit to you that a Marksmanship Qualification Badge is not a temporary badge, it a permanent award, until superseded  by a more recent weapons qualification.

If the USAF is allowing prior Service Navy and Coast Guard members to wear their Marksmanship Qualification Ribbons and/or Medals, as outlined in Chapter 11, why would they not allow the same for prior Service Army and Marine members of their Marksmanship Badges?

That would seem to violate the spirit and intent of the new instructions as stated here: http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/473134/af-uniform-policy-update-welcome-back-morale-t-shirts-badges-and-limitless-athl.aspx (http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/473134/af-uniform-policy-update-welcome-back-morale-t-shirts-badges-and-limitless-athl.aspx)

and I quote:

QuoteThe second is recognizing and valuing Airmen's experiences, qualifications and job performance, allowing Airmen to wear what they have earned. The last area is a group of common sense approach inputs from Airmen in the field that senior leaders thought were great ideas.

Still would not authorize a NRA badge for wear, though.  ;)

That is the verbiage verbatim from the AFI.  Army marksmanship medals are not authorized just like combat patches are not authorized.

Yes, I can read, and I do not see where it says they are not authorized. They reflect a special skill, they are not temporary badges, they are permanently awarded... they are authorized.

Combat patches (i.e. Shoulder Sleeve Insignia - Former Wartime Service) like the Regimental Duty Insignia are identification badges and not authorized for wear.

Ok, Barney style for you then since you missed it "reflect special skills that an Airman has demonstrated proficiency or qualification in that complements their primary mission."  Marksmanship outside of specific AFSCs do not complement most AF members primary mission.  Ergo read the entire the clause in and of it self states that the marksmanship badges are not authorized.  Is that clear enough for you?

Quote from: shuman14 on July 12, 2014, 08:42:59 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on July 12, 2014, 08:31:04 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on July 12, 2014, 08:24:56 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on July 11, 2014, 12:34:30 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on July 10, 2014, 10:51:38 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on July 10, 2014, 10:13:42 PM
No we don't need another badge.  36-2903 authorizes sister service badges yes and I would have to look but I do not believe marksmanship badges are authorized.  The Excellence in Competition badge is authorized for wear.

The new USAF Uniform Instruction authorizes all sister Service badges, awards and decorations for wear on the uniform.

It seems pretty cut and dry.

But not NRA badges.

No it is not cut and dry it states qualification badges and not marksmanship badges.  See as follows:

AFI36-2903 Para: 10.5.

Qualification and Miscellaneous Badges and Patches.
Qualification badges are defined as badges earned and permanently awarded that reflect special skills that an Airman has demonstrated proficiency or qualification in that complements their primary mission. Wear of other services' qualification badges, if earned and awarded, is authorized. Award criteria for other services' qualification badges will be in accordance with awarding Service's directives (Army MilPERCEN; Navy; BUPERS, etc.). Temporary qualification badges and those not related to an Airman's current primary mission are not authorized for wear on the uniform.

Refer to attachment 5 for a listing of qualification badges and patches authorized (not inclusive).

Ergo other service marksmanship badges are not authorized for wear on the AF uniform.  The EIC badge is authorized for wear by members.  Please stay in your lane.

What part of "not inclusive" do you not understand? It means there are a plethora of badges, from all Services, now authorized for wear on the USAF uniform, not all of them are displayed pictorially in the attachment.  ::)

I would submit to you that a Marksmanship Qualification Badge is not a temporary badge, it a permanent award, until superseded  by a more recent weapons qualification.

If the USAF is allowing prior Service Navy and Coast Guard members to wear their Marksmanship Qualification Ribbons and/or Medals, as outlined in Chapter 11, why would they not allow the same for prior Service Army and Marine members of their Marksmanship Badges?

That would seem to violate the spirit and intent of the new instructions as stated here: http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/473134/af-uniform-policy-update-welcome-back-morale-t-shirts-badges-and-limitless-athl.aspx (http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/473134/af-uniform-policy-update-welcome-back-morale-t-shirts-badges-and-limitless-athl.aspx)

and I quote:

QuoteThe second is recognizing and valuing Airmen's experiences, qualifications and job performance, allowing Airmen to wear what they have earned. The last area is a group of common sense approach inputs from Airmen in the field that senior leaders thought were great ideas.

Still would not authorize a NRA badge for wear, though.  ;)

That is the verbiage verbatim from the AFI.  Army marksmanship medals are not authorized just like combat patches are not authorized.

Yes, I can read, and I do not see where it says they are not authorized. They reflect a special skill, they are not temporary badges, they are permanently awarded... they are authorized.

Combat patches (i.e. Shoulder Sleeve Insignia - Former Wartime Service) like the Regimental Duty Insignia are identification badges and not authorized for wear.

My understanding is that Army Marksmanship Qualification Badges are not permanent awards. When a soldier re-qualifies with their weapon at a different level, the soldier replaces their qualification badge with a new badge that reflects their current level.

Quote from: AR 600-8-22, Section 1-31.c(11)
Marksmanship Badges. An award for previous marksmanship weapons qualification is revoked automatically whenever an individual, upon completion of firing a record course for which the previous award was made, has not attained the same qualification.

In 18 years in the Air Force (including AD, Guard and Reserve), I've never seen former Army Soldiers wearing this particular badge on an Air Force uniform.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 12, 2014, 10:04:24 PM
In 18 years in the Air Force (including AD, Guard and Reserve), I've never seen former Army Soldiers wearing this particular badge on an Air Force uniform.

They wear the Air Force Small Arms Expert Markmanship Ribbon instead. They get to put a bronze star on it if they qualify "expert" on two or more weapons.

And like you sir, in over 31-1/2 years in the Air Force/Air National Guard/Air Force Reserve, I never ever saw any former Soldier or Marine wearing their former service markmanship badges.

But our friend who posts from the Guard Shack because he's bored and likes to "stir things up" probably won't accept this answer.
meh...

Quote from: williamburdge on July 11, 2014, 05:10:27 AM...  I will put in my request for a modification of the regulations as this is clearly a relic from the age of the "youth" shooting badges and not adapted to the new NRA program.  If you don't like what I think, keep posting here.  This will be my last post on CAPtalk.  Happy trolling.

Well williamburdge must be a retiree who joined CAP in the last 90 days. Typical question the other one is can I wear my Viet Nam service ribbons on the white aviator shirt.  8)

Quote from: CAP_truth on July 11, 2014, 12:52:35 PM
Air Force has a ribbon instead of badge.

Same thing with the Navy.

I have an answer to this.  He can just wear his NRA badge on the elastic band of his underwear. That way he can also wear the AF Blues!

Quote from: JeffDG on July 11, 2014, 01:58:40 PM
I don't need one that "authorizes" it.  That which is not prohibited is implicitly permitted.

From the new CAPM 39-1, which makes it fairly clear (emphasis added is mine) with sorely needed language:

1.1.1.2.1. CAP's USAF-style uniform policies will adhere to USAF standards found in the appropriate USAF instructions. Differences from USAF standards will be only those differences required to meet unique CAP requirements and allowed by USAF-approved exceptions. CAP honors our special relationship with the USAF through closely adhering to the policies set for the USAF's uniform.

1.1.2.1. COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY. This publication is the sole source for wear instructions and authorized items for various uniform combinations as prescribed within. Variation from this publication is not authorized. Items not listed in this publication are not authorized for wear with uniforms. Local commanders do not have the authority to waive grooming and appearance standards.

So if it's not in the book, whether the AFI or the CAPM (the latter of which is the first source for CAP members), it's a no go. And if you haven't read the new CAPM 39-1, I strenuously advise that you do.

....and I am not a troll.  A Captain with CAP.  I often wonder if the General reads these posts.

Quote from: bobcat746 on July 14, 2014, 02:02:07 AM
....and I am not a troll.  A Captain with CAP.  I often wonder if the General reads these posts.

Nobody called you a troll.  And yes a number of the senior leadership does read these posts. What's your point?

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on July 14, 2014, 02:00:43 AM

Quote from: JeffDG on July 11, 2014, 01:58:40 PM
I don't need one that "authorizes" it.  That which is not prohibited is implicitly permitted.

From the new CAPM 39-1, which makes it fairly clear (emphasis added is mine) with sorely needed language:

1.1.1.2.1. CAP's USAF-style uniform policies will adhere to USAF standards found in the appropriate USAF instructions. Differences from USAF standards will be only those differences required to meet unique CAP requirements and allowed by USAF-approved exceptions. CAP honors our special relationship with the USAF through closely adhering to the policies set for the USAF's uniform.

1.1.2.1. COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY. This publication is the sole source for wear instructions and authorized items for various uniform combinations as prescribed within. Variation from this publication is not authorized. Items not listed in this publication are not authorized for wear with uniforms. Local commanders do not have the authority to waive grooming and appearance standards.

So if it's not in the book, whether the AFI or the CAPM (the latter of which is the first source for CAP members), it's a no go. And if you haven't read the new CAPM 39-1, I strenuously advise that you do.

In all fairness, JeffDG was talking about senior members doing firearm training with the NRA, which is not governed by CAPM 39-1.

Quote from: bobcat746 on July 14, 2014, 12:56:20 AM
I have an answer to this.  He can just wear his NRA badge on the elastic band of his underwear. That way he can also wear the AF Blues!

Quote from: bobcat746 on July 14, 2014, 02:02:07 AM
....and I am not a troll.  A Captain with CAP.

These things are not mutaully exclusive.

Quote from: bobcat746 on July 14, 2014, 02:02:07 AM
I often wonder if the General reads these posts.

Word is he does (assuming you're referring to HEADCAP.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 14, 2014, 03:04:33 AM

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on July 14, 2014, 02:00:43 AM

Quote from: JeffDG on July 11, 2014, 01:58:40 PM
I don't need one that "authorizes" it.  That which is not prohibited is implicitly permitted.

From the new CAPM 39-1, which makes it fairly clear (emphasis added is mine) with sorely needed language:

1.1.1.2.1. CAP's USAF-style uniform policies will adhere to USAF standards found in the appropriate USAF instructions. Differences from USAF standards will be only those differences required to meet unique CAP requirements and allowed by USAF-approved exceptions. CAP honors our special relationship with the USAF through closely adhering to the policies set for the USAF's uniform.

1.1.2.1. COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY. This publication is the sole source for wear instructions and authorized items for various uniform combinations as prescribed within. Variation from this publication is not authorized. Items not listed in this publication are not authorized for wear with uniforms. Local commanders do not have the authority to waive grooming and appearance standards.

So if it's not in the book, whether the AFI or the CAPM (the latter of which is the first source for CAP members), it's a no go. And if you haven't read the new CAPM 39-1, I strenuously advise that you do.

In all fairness, JeffDG was talking about senior members doing firearm training with the NRA, which is not governed by CAPM 39-1.

I understand, Stormy, and the clarification lands well. While s'members can do NRA training, my impression was that he was pushing to get adult-member ability to wear the badge. Even at that, we need the reminder — how many times do we look around local units and see some pretty stupefying uniform violations?

Quote from: abdsp51 on July 12, 2014, 09:01:57 PM
Ok, Barney style for you then since you missed it "reflect special skills that an Airman has demonstrated proficiency or qualification in that complements their primary mission."  Marksmanship outside of specific AFSCs do not complement most AF members primary mission.  Ergo read the entire the clause in and of it self states that the marksmanship badges are not authorized.  Is that clear enough for you?

Sorry, but you just shot your own arguement in the foot by saying "most"... which means for "some" it does.

Unless the the Instruction read something specific such as, "Wear of Sister Service Marksmanship awards is prohibited", which it doesn't, your interpretation of the regulation is incorrect. Again I reference Chapter 11 of the same instruction which authorizes the wear of Navy and Coast Guard Marksmanship ribbons (Marksman and Sharpshooter) and medals (Expert) for precedence allowing the wear of marksmanship awards.

By the way, the "Barney" reference to my law enforcement status is a personal attack, a violation CAPTalk policies, and unprofessional conduct unworthy of a CAP Officer.

Quote from: SamFranklin on July 11, 2014, 03:04:59 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on July 11, 2014, 01:58:40 PM
That which is not prohibited is implicitly permitted.

Can you cite a regulation that permits you to go to the bathroom during a mission?  By your logic, it must be prohibited then, right?

CAP does not prohibit leading cadets in group discussions about Ulysses, Naked Lunch, Howl, or Tropic of Cancer – four texts that have been banned by various communities over the years. As a former teacher, I'm not going anywhere near those texts below college level.

Just because a regulation doesn't prohibit a given activity does not mean that that activity is permitted in CAP. The bathroom break example is nonsense. Rules and regs can't anticipate every scenario, but neither do they address every scenario that the writer(s) could anticipate (ie: a need for bathroom breaks).

We need more discernment and temperance around here.

Whoa Whoa Wait, They dont teach Ulysses anymore? I can understand Tropic of Cancer, but what is wrong with Ulysses? I swear our children are being brainwashed. I recommend a Good Book. "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America" by Charlotte Iserbyte.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 12, 2014, 10:04:24 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on July 12, 2014, 08:42:59 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on July 12, 2014, 08:31:04 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on July 12, 2014, 08:24:56 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on July 11, 2014, 12:34:30 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on July 10, 2014, 10:51:38 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on July 10, 2014, 10:13:42 PM
No we don't need another badge.  36-2903 authorizes sister service badges yes and I would have to look but I do not believe marksmanship badges are authorized.  The Excellence in Competition badge is authorized for wear.

The new USAF Uniform Instruction authorizes all sister Service badges, awards and decorations for wear on the uniform.

It seems pretty cut and dry.

But not NRA badges.

No it is not cut and dry it states qualification badges and not marksmanship badges.  See as follows:

AFI36-2903 Para: 10.5.

Qualification and Miscellaneous Badges and Patches.
Qualification badges are defined as badges earned and permanently awarded that reflect special skills that an Airman has demonstrated proficiency or qualification in that complements their primary mission. Wear of other services' qualification badges, if earned and awarded, is authorized. Award criteria for other services' qualification badges will be in accordance with awarding Service's directives (Army MilPERCEN; Navy; BUPERS, etc.). Temporary qualification badges and those not related to an Airman's current primary mission are not authorized for wear on the uniform.

Refer to attachment 5 for a listing of qualification badges and patches authorized (not inclusive).

Ergo other service marksmanship badges are not authorized for wear on the AF uniform.  The EIC badge is authorized for wear by members.  Please stay in your lane.

What part of "not inclusive" do you not understand? It means there are a plethora of badges, from all Services, now authorized for wear on the USAF uniform, not all of them are displayed pictorially in the attachment.  ::)

I would submit to you that a Marksmanship Qualification Badge is not a temporary badge, it a permanent award, until superseded  by a more recent weapons qualification.

If the USAF is allowing prior Service Navy and Coast Guard members to wear their Marksmanship Qualification Ribbons and/or Medals, as outlined in Chapter 11, why would they not allow the same for prior Service Army and Marine members of their Marksmanship Badges?

That would seem to violate the spirit and intent of the new instructions as stated here: http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/473134/af-uniform-policy-update-welcome-back-morale-t-shirts-badges-and-limitless-athl.aspx (http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/473134/af-uniform-policy-update-welcome-back-morale-t-shirts-badges-and-limitless-athl.aspx)

and I quote:

QuoteThe second is recognizing and valuing Airmen's experiences, qualifications and job performance, allowing Airmen to wear what they have earned. The last area is a group of common sense approach inputs from Airmen in the field that senior leaders thought were great ideas.

Still would not authorize a NRA badge for wear, though.  ;)

That is the verbiage verbatim from the AFI.  Army marksmanship medals are not authorized just like combat patches are not authorized.

Yes, I can read, and I do not see where it says they are not authorized. They reflect a special skill, they are not temporary badges, they are permanently awarded... they are authorized.

Combat patches (i.e. Shoulder Sleeve Insignia - Former Wartime Service) like the Regimental Duty Insignia are identification badges and not authorized for wear.

My understanding is that Army Marksmanship Qualification Badges are not permanent awards. When a soldier re-qualifies with their weapon at a different level, the soldier replaces their qualification badge with a new badge that reflects their current level.

Quote from: AR 600-8-22, Section 1-31.c(11)
Marksmanship Badges. An award for previous marksmanship weapons qualification is revoked automatically whenever an individual, upon completion of firing a record course for which the previous award was made, has not attained the same qualification.

In 18 years in the Air Force (including AD, Guard and Reserve), I've never seen former Army Soldiers wearing this particular badge on an Air Force uniform.

Well, seeing that this new Instruction has only been in place about 6 months... that might explain why you haven't seen it in the previous 17 years.

I would submit to you that the Marksmanship badge is a permanent award... until it is superceded by the next qualification.

For example, a Pilot Badge is a permanent award... until replaced by a Senior Pilot Badge.

A Marksmanship award does not "fall off the uniform" at 6 months, 6 years or 60 years... you continue to wear it until you qualify again, however long that may be, and it is replaced by that current qualification.

I'll give you an example, a seminary student enlists in the Army on an OCS option. He attends Basic Combat Training, where he qualifies Expert on the M-4 Course. He then attends Officer Candidate School and is commissioned a 2nd Liuetenant. He then completes his Ordination and is appointed a Chaplain.

By regulation, Chaplains do not qualify with weapons, so he will never qualify on a weapon again, yet, if he choose too he could continue to wear the Expert Marksmanship Badge that he earned.

To put this in a CAP context, for most prior-Service CAP members, their Marksmanship Award/s will appears on their DD-214, they will not qualify again, therefore their last qualification is permanent.

Quote from: PHall on July 12, 2014, 11:08:53 PM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 12, 2014, 10:04:24 PM
In 18 years in the Air Force (including AD, Guard and Reserve), I've never seen former Army Soldiers wearing this particular badge on an Air Force uniform.

They wear the Air Force Small Arms Expert Markmanship Ribbon instead. They get to put a bronze star on it if they qualify "expert" on two or more weapons.

And like you sir, in over 31-1/2 years in the Air Force/Air National Guard/Air Force Reserve, I never ever saw any former Soldier or Marine wearing their former service markmanship badges.

But our friend who posts from the Guard Shack because he's bored and likes to "stir things up" probably won't accept this answer.
meh...

Again the "new" Instruction has only been out about 6 months so that would explain the previous 31 years when it wasn't authorized... it is now.

Quote from: Private Investigator on July 13, 2014, 09:23:23 PM

Quote from: CAP_truth on July 11, 2014, 12:52:35 PM
Air Force has a ribbon instead of badge.

Same thing with the Navy.

And the Coast Guard... all of which are authorized in Chapter 11 of the Instruction.

Quote from: shuman14 on July 14, 2014, 12:05:32 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on July 12, 2014, 09:01:57 PM
Ok, Barney style for you then since you missed it "reflect special skills that an Airman has demonstrated proficiency or qualification in that complements their primary mission."  Marksmanship outside of specific AFSCs do not complement most AF members primary mission.  Ergo read the entire the clause in and of it self states that the marksmanship badges are not authorized.  Is that clear enough for you?

Sorry, but you just shot your own arguement in the foot by saying "most"... which means for "some" it does.

Unless the the Instruction read something specific such as, "Wear of Sister Service Marksmanship awards is prohibited", which it doesn't, your interpretation of the regulation is incorrect. Again I reference Chapter 11 of the same instruction which authorizes the wear of Navy and Coast Guard Marksmanship ribbons (Marksman and Sharpshooter) and medals (Expert) for precedence allowing the wear of marksmanship awards.

By the way, the "Barney" reference to my law enforcement status is a personal attack, a violation CAPTalk policies, and unprofessional conduct unworthy of a CAP Officer.

Actually, Barney is in reference to the years past childrens TV show featuring a purple "dinosaur".  "Breaking it down Barney style" is a phrase meaning to bring an explanation down to a level where a child could comprehend.  So he wasn't referencing your law enforcement status, especially considering his own former law enforcement status.


Just so you know, he and his leadership have already had a discussion regarding, specifically, this post.

Quote from: shuman14 on July 14, 2014, 12:05:32 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on July 12, 2014, 09:01:57 PM
Ok, Barney style for you then since you missed it "reflect special skills that an Airman has demonstrated proficiency or qualification in that complements their primary mission."  Marksmanship outside of specific AFSCs do not complement most AF members primary mission.  Ergo read the entire the clause in and of it self states that the marksmanship badges are not authorized.  Is that clear enough for you?

Sorry, but you just shot your own arguement in the foot by saying "most"... which means for "some" it does.

Unless the the Instruction read something specific such as, "Wear of Sister Service Marksmanship awards is prohibited", which it doesn't, your interpretation of the regulation is incorrect. Again I reference Chapter 11 of the same instruction which authorizes the wear of Navy and Coast Guard Marksmanship ribbons (Marksman and Sharpshooter) and medals (Expert) for precedence allowing the wear of marksmanship awards.

By the way, the "Barney" reference to my law enforcement status is a personal attack, a violation CAPTalk policies, and unprofessional conduct unworthy of a CAP Officer.

Not authorized period per the chapter cited, plain and simple.  I suggest you stick to your employers policies and the Army's. 

Quote from: Tim Medeiros on July 14, 2014, 01:02:33 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on July 14, 2014, 12:05:32 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on July 12, 2014, 09:01:57 PM
Ok, Barney style for you then since you missed it "reflect special skills that an Airman has demonstrated proficiency or qualification in that complements their primary mission."  Marksmanship outside of specific AFSCs do not complement most AF members primary mission.  Ergo read the entire the clause in and of it self states that the marksmanship badges are not authorized.  Is that clear enough for you?

Sorry, but you just shot your own arguement in the foot by saying "most"... which means for "some" it does.

Unless the the Instruction read something specific such as, "Wear of Sister Service Marksmanship awards is prohibited", which it doesn't, your interpretation of the regulation is incorrect. Again I reference Chapter 11 of the same instruction which authorizes the wear of Navy and Coast Guard Marksmanship ribbons (Marksman and Sharpshooter) and medals (Expert) for precedence allowing the wear of marksmanship awards.

By the way, the "Barney" reference to my law enforcement status is a personal attack, a violation CAPTalk policies, and unprofessional conduct unworthy of a CAP Officer.

Actually, Barney is in reference to the years past childrens TV show featuring a purple "dinosaur".  "Breaking it down Barney style" is a phrase meaning to bring an explanation down to a level where a child could comprehend.  So he wasn't referencing your law enforcement status, especially considering his own former law enforcement status.


Just so you know, he and his leadership have already had a discussion regarding, specifically, this post.

Sir,

I was unaware of the purple dinosaur reference, I know what the show is, but have no kids, so I've never watched it, so I did not get the reference.

If no insult was intended... then no harm, no foul.

Thank you for your oversite as well.

Quote from: shuman14 on July 14, 2014, 12:51:27 PM

Quote from: PHall on July 12, 2014, 11:08:53 PM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 12, 2014, 10:04:24 PM
In 18 years in the Air Force (including AD, Guard and Reserve), I've never seen former Army Soldiers wearing this particular badge on an Air Force uniform.

They wear the Air Force Small Arms Expert Markmanship Ribbon instead. They get to put a bronze star on it if they qualify "expert" on two or more weapons.

And like you sir, in over 31-1/2 years in the Air Force/Air National Guard/Air Force Reserve, I never ever saw any former Soldier or Marine wearing their former service markmanship badges.

But our friend who posts from the Guard Shack because he's bored and likes to "stir things up" probably won't accept this answer.
meh...

Again the "new" Instruction has only been out about 6 months so that would explain the previous 31 years when it wasn't authorized... it is now.

And you know this because you're in the Air Force...? Right.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on July 14, 2014, 04:29:04 AM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 14, 2014, 03:04:33 AM

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on July 14, 2014, 02:00:43 AM

Quote from: JeffDG on July 11, 2014, 01:58:40 PM
I don't need one that "authorizes" it.  That which is not prohibited is implicitly permitted.

From the new CAPM 39-1, which makes it fairly clear (emphasis added is mine) with sorely needed language:

1.1.1.2.1. CAP's USAF-style uniform policies will adhere to USAF standards found in the appropriate USAF instructions. Differences from USAF standards will be only those differences required to meet unique CAP requirements and allowed by USAF-approved exceptions. CAP honors our special relationship with the USAF through closely adhering to the policies set for the USAF's uniform.

1.1.2.1. COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY. This publication is the sole source for wear instructions and authorized items for various uniform combinations as prescribed within. Variation from this publication is not authorized. Items not listed in this publication are not authorized for wear with uniforms. Local commanders do not have the authority to waive grooming and appearance standards.

So if it's not in the book, whether the AFI or the CAPM (the latter of which is the first source for CAP members), it's a no go. And if you haven't read the new CAPM 39-1, I strenuously advise that you do.

In all fairness, JeffDG was talking about senior members doing firearm training with the NRA, which is not governed by CAPM 39-1.

I understand, Stormy, and the clarification lands well. While s'members can do NRA training, my impression was that he was pushing to get adult-member ability to wear the badge. Even at that, we need the reminder — how many times do we look around local units and see some pretty stupefying uniform violations?

Agree.

Quote from: shuman14 on July 14, 2014, 12:49:02 PM
I would submit to you that the Marksmanship badge is a permanent award... until it is superceded by the next qualification.

The Marksmanship Badge is not permanent.  It only represents your last qualification.  If you score expert, you will wear expert.  On your next qual, if you score sharpshooter, you will wear sharpshooter and your expert is revoked.  Now, if you earned expert grenade and you never go to re-qual, then you will continue to wear expert grenade.  However, if you fail your next grenade qualification, your badge is revoked.  Your reference is AR 600-8-22.

LST,

Is not that which Shuman stated?

QuoteBy Shuman ...until it is superceded by the next qualification.

QuoteBy LST
...if you fail your next grenade qualification, your badge is revoked.

Failing and the ensuing disqualification... is superceding a qualification...

From the Free Dictionary...

Quote
su•per•sede (ˌsu pərˈsid)

v.t. -sed•ed, -sed•ing.
1. to replace in power, authority, effectiveness, acceptance, use, etc., as by another person or thing.
2. to set aside or cause to be set aside as void, useless, or obsolete, usu. in favor of something mentioned; make obsolete.
3. to succeed to the position, function, office, etc., of; supplant.

Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on July 14, 2014, 07:41:27 PM
LST,

Is not that which Shuman stated?

Which makes it a non-permanent award. 

Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on July 14, 2014, 07:41:27 PM
LST,

Is not that which Shuman stated?

QuoteBy Shuman ...until it is superceded by the next qualification.

QuoteBy LST
...if you fail your next grenade qualification, your badge is revoked.

Failing and the ensuing disqualification... is superceding a qualification...

From the Free Dictionary...

Quote
su•per•sede (ˌsu pərˈsid)

v.t. -sed•ed, -sed•ing.
1. to replace in power, authority, effectiveness, acceptance, use, etc., as by another person or thing.
2. to set aside or cause to be set aside as void, useless, or obsolete, usu. in favor of something mentioned; make obsolete.
3. to succeed to the position, function, office, etc., of; supplant.

But that's not the same as permanent. If you fail to re-qualify as GTL, but are qualified as GTM3, you can still wear the Senior Ground Team Badge; the same goes for aeronautical wings and IC badges. Those are all permanent awards.

We can argue about what constitute permanent or not, but the real issue Shuman is bringing is whether the Army Marksmanship Badge can be worn on the Air Force uniform. Instead of making the assumption that it can be based on one's interpretation of an instruction from another service, it's best to check with the Air Force as they decide which badges are allowed or not on their uniform.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 14, 2014, 01:31:59 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on July 14, 2014, 12:51:27 PM

Quote from: PHall on July 12, 2014, 11:08:53 PM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 12, 2014, 10:04:24 PM
In 18 years in the Air Force (including AD, Guard and Reserve), I've never seen former Army Soldiers wearing this particular badge on an Air Force uniform.

They wear the Air Force Small Arms Expert Markmanship Ribbon instead. They get to put a bronze star on it if they qualify "expert" on two or more weapons.

And like you sir, in over 31-1/2 years in the Air Force/Air National Guard/Air Force Reserve, I never ever saw any former Soldier or Marine wearing their former service markmanship badges.

But our friend who posts from the Guard Shack because he's bored and likes to "stir things up" probably won't accept this answer.
meh...

Again the "new" Instruction has only been out about 6 months so that would explain the previous 31 years when it wasn't authorized... it is now.

And you know this because you're in the Air Force...? Right.

Does he have to be? Is an officer in the US Army not capable of reading and interpreting a sister services regulations?

Quote from: GroundHawg on July 14, 2014, 08:47:33 PM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 14, 2014, 01:31:59 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on July 14, 2014, 12:51:27 PM

Quote from: PHall on July 12, 2014, 11:08:53 PM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 12, 2014, 10:04:24 PM
In 18 years in the Air Force (including AD, Guard and Reserve), I've never seen former Army Soldiers wearing this particular badge on an Air Force uniform.

They wear the Air Force Small Arms Expert Markmanship Ribbon instead. They get to put a bronze star on it if they qualify "expert" on two or more weapons.

And like you sir, in over 31-1/2 years in the Air Force/Air National Guard/Air Force Reserve, I never ever saw any former Soldier or Marine wearing their former service markmanship badges.

But our friend who posts from the Guard Shack because he's bored and likes to "stir things up" probably won't accept this answer.
meh...

Again the "new" Instruction has only been out about 6 months so that would explain the previous 31 years when it wasn't authorized... it is now.

And you know this because you're in the Air Force...? Right.

Does he have to be? Is an officer in the US Army not capable of reading and interpreting a sister services regulations?

An Army officer shouldn't have to.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 14, 2014, 08:55:23 PM
An Army officer shouldn't have to.

Uh, Goldwater-Nichols Act?

Officers of different branches are frequently familiar with sister service's regulations, especially when serving a joint tour.

Soo..... What is the conclusion. Are we submitting a request to NHQ to set a review board to authorize it or not. 

5 x Expert Rifle, 3 x Expert pistol
Combat Marksmanship instructor
Combat marksmanship coach

All USMC..

I don't worry, I don't care if people knows it. The only thing I care is if in case I need to bare arms I know how to use it. Neither Cadets or civilians have to know that. If you want to be a "one upper"  >:(then wear all the badges you want.

Quote from: NIN on July 15, 2014, 10:23:30 AM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 14, 2014, 08:55:23 PM
An Army officer shouldn't have to.

Uh, Goldwater-Nichols Act?

Officers of different branches are frequently familiar with sister service's regulations, especially when serving a joint tour.

Is Shuman serving in a joint tour with the Air Force? Is this tour one where he needs to be familiar with all aspects of the Air Force uniform. He read an AFI, one that other Air Force officers have read as well, and came with a different interpretation on it. Yet, he made an "authoritative" statement about an area that, at best, is open ended.

While the AFI covers most Army badges and it's clear that the list is not inclusive, it leaves out one of the most frequently worn badges in the Army. Again, I admit that the way the AFI is written is a bit open ended in that regards. However, when there's a doubt on an Air Force instruction, the appropriate action would be to seek clarification with the OPR or the appropriate CoC. An Army major, who happens to have read the AFI which was just revised a few months ago, is hardly the officer to give authoritative interpretation on it. Reading the text of a law does not make me a lawyer.

And just to clarify, none of my comments were meant as a disrespect to officers in the Army or other services. My issue is that Shuman does this sort of thing all the time, usually when it comes to CAP regulations, standards and procedures. Yet, unless that's changed recently, he's not even an active CAP member nor made any significant contribution to the organization. Anyone can read regulations; that doesn't make someone an expert on the organization.

In CAP, its a badge for kids.  Lets just keep it that way so you don't make yourself look silly when you are interaction with LE, public safety and other DoD organizations.  I would equate it to seeing an Senior walking around with a model rocketry badge. 

Quote from: Flying Pig on July 15, 2014, 11:49:41 AM
In CAP, its a badge for kids.  Lets just keep it that way so you don't make yourself look silly when you are interaction with LE, public safety and other DoD organizations.  I would equate it to seeing an Senior walking around with a model rocketry badge.

Someone in another thread.....also suggested that we expand that program to seniors.   >:D

Quote from: lordmonar on July 15, 2014, 12:23:51 PM

Quote from: Flying Pig on July 15, 2014, 11:49:41 AM
In CAP, its a badge for kids.  Lets just keep it that way so you don't make yourself look silly when you are interaction with LE, public safety and other DoD organizations.  I would equate it to seeing an Senior walking around with a model rocketry badge.

Someone in another thread.....also suggested that we expand that program to seniors.   >:D

Only if we're allowed to put actual warheads on the rockets... >:D

Quote from: JeffDG on July 15, 2014, 12:24:40 PM
Only if we're allowed to put actual warheads on the rockets... >:D

I'm down with that. Senior member program is actually a lot of fun too

Hey..... If Air Force missile officers can wear theirs in CAP uniform I should be able to wear mine for launching my Estes rocket.

I agree

This too cool.  Now I can wear my expert marksmanship badge from Basic with my bayonet, pistol, rifle, grenade, mortar, bazooka, machinegun attachments.  What is the spirit of the bayonet??  TO KILL, TO KILL!!

If you have enough awards, you could wear it as a belt!

Quote from: AirAux on July 15, 2014, 04:53:48 PM
This too cool.  Now I can wear my expert marksmanship badge from Basic with my bayonet, pistol, rifle, grenade, mortar, bazooka, machinegun attachments.  What is the spirit of the bayonet??  TO KILL, TO KILL!!

Please sir, go sit back down on the Group W Bench.  8) >:D

Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on July 15, 2014, 05:17:07 PM

Quote from: AirAux on July 15, 2014, 04:53:48 PM
This too cool.  Now I can wear my expert marksmanship badge from Basic with my bayonet, pistol, rifle, grenade, mortar, bazooka, machinegun attachments.  What is the spirit of the bayonet??  TO KILL, TO KILL!!

Please sir, go sit back down on the Group W Bench.  8) >:D

Zounds, I'm betting there aren't too many who even get that...

Quote from: THRAWN on July 15, 2014, 05:18:41 PM

Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on July 15, 2014, 05:17:07 PM

Quote from: AirAux on July 15, 2014, 04:53:48 PM
This too cool.  Now I can wear my expert marksmanship badge from Basic with my bayonet, pistol, rifle, grenade, mortar, bazooka, machinegun attachments.  What is the spirit of the bayonet??  TO KILL, TO KILL!!

Please sir, go sit back down on the Group W Bench.  8) >:D

Zounds, I'm betting there aren't too many who even get that...

Along with all the other mother-rapers, father-stabbers....father rapers!  Father raper sittin' right next to me on the Group W Bench!

...and friends they may thinks it's a movement.
(..I still wonder if that 18.5 minute gap is a coincidence.. ) >:D

Quote from: a2capt on July 15, 2014, 05:36:12 PM

...and friends they may thinks it's a movement.
(..I still wonder if that 18.5 minute gap is a coincidence.. ) >:D

A Thanksgiving tradition...and now I'm gonna be humming it all day...

And the Sargent came over, pinned a medal on me, sent me down the hall, said, "You're our boy."

"... just a half a mile from the railroad track ..."

"'An all kinds o' mean, nasty, ugly things..."

We had a foster girl (actually, probably one of my first pre-adolescent crushes  :P - don't worry, no relation) who had Alice's Restaurant.  I think I was about 10 years old and played that thing to death.  It's hilarious.  I don't think I ever listened to Side 2 (kids, this is in the day of 33 1/3 LP vinyl records) more than a couple of times.  When she went on to her next foster home (she was a wild child and could not live with my dad's "no means NO!!" ways) she gave me the record.

My friends all dug it (and her!) too.

She's got to be about mid-50s now.  Man, oh, man I feel old.  I guess CAP's appellation of "Senior Member" is all too fitting.

At the end of the day the AFI is actually pretty clear on it badges.  Shuman wants to argue a table etc while Chapter 10 makes it quite clear what can be worn from sister services.  The chapter references does not allow the wear of marksmanship badges.  There are marksmanship ribbons and the EIC badge that may be worn. 

Quote from: AirAux on July 15, 2014, 04:53:48 PM
This too cool.  Now I can wear my expert marksmanship badge from Basic with my bayonet, pistol, rifle, grenade, mortar, bazooka, machinegun attachments.  What is the spirit of the bayonet??  TO KILL, TO KILL!!

What makes the grass grow?  "BLOOD MAKES THE GRASS GROW!"

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 14, 2014, 01:31:59 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on July 14, 2014, 12:51:27 PM

Quote from: PHall on July 12, 2014, 11:08:53 PM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 12, 2014, 10:04:24 PM
In 18 years in the Air Force (including AD, Guard and Reserve), I've never seen former Army Soldiers wearing this particular badge on an Air Force uniform.

They wear the Air Force Small Arms Expert Markmanship Ribbon instead. They get to put a bronze star on it if they qualify "expert" on two or more weapons.

And like you sir, in over 31-1/2 years in the Air Force/Air National Guard/Air Force Reserve, I never ever saw any former Soldier or Marine wearing their former service markmanship badges.

But our friend who posts from the Guard Shack because he's bored and likes to "stir things up" probably won't accept this answer.
meh...

Again the "new" Instruction has only been out about 6 months so that would explain the previous 31 years when it wasn't authorized... it is now.

And you know this because you're in the Air Force...? Right.

No I am not in the Air Force, but I can read a Regulation/Instruction... I remember being taught to do that in Basic Training oh some 24 plus years ago.

Seriously, the regulation is open ended, it is subject to interpretation, and that means various readers are going to interpret it differently.

Does the Instruction specifically exclude Army and Marine Corps Marksmanship Badges? It does not.

Does the Instruction specifically include Army and Marine Corps Marksmanship badges? It does not.

Again I quote from the instruction:

QuoteRefer to attachment 5 for a listing of qualification badges and patches authorized (not inclusive).

Which means there are other Badges, not on this list that are authorized on the USAF uniform.

I would submit to you that Marksmanship Badges are include because you simply have to look to Chapter 11 which deals with ribbons and medals to see that the Marksmanship Awards of the Navy and the Coast Guard are specifically authorized for wear for wear on the USAF uniform.

Logic would dictate that if the USAF recognizes the Marksmanship abilities of one prior Service member as proper to be worn on its uniform, it would equally recognize the the Marksmanship abilities of another prior Service member from a second sister Service.

Again I quote to you from the instruction:

QuoteQualification badges are defined as badges earned and permanently awarded that reflect special skills that an Airman has demonstrated proficiency or qualification in that complements their primary mission.

I would submit to you that an Army Combat Infantryman's Badge (CIB) in no way shape or form "complements" a single USAF primary mission... yet it is specifically authorized by the Instruction and is included on the "not inclusive" list.

Yet some here, while trying to discredit my interpretation of the Instruction, pointed out that Marksmanship does in fact "complement" some USAF primary missions.

See the disconnect? See the need for interpretation?

Others here would also try to point out that any Marksmanship Award, regards of which Service awards it, is not a permanent award.

So I ask you, please point me to any Service's regulations which states at what point/time period a Marksmanship Award falls off the the uniform? 6 months? 1 year? 6 years? 60 years? It does not.

It is only replaced when it is superseded by a more current qualification or in the case of a failed qualification, removed. So if you never shoot again, regardless of the reason, you continue to wear your last valid qualification.

So for most CAP members, their last Marksmanship qualification will be listed on their DD-214, making that final qualification a permanent award.

Again I quote for you the Instruction:

QuoteTemporary qualification badges and those not related to an Airman's current primary mission are not authorized for wear on the uniform.

I think the confusion here is the word "temporary". I would submit to you that "Temporary Qualification Badges" are a class of Identification badges, only worn when assigned to specific billets and conducting  specific missions.

Some examples of this would be:
Navy Career Counselor Badge - only worn while assigned to duty as a Command Career Counselor.
Army Military Police Badge - only worn while assigned to a Military Police billet and actually conducting a Law Enforcement mission.
Air Force Fire Protection Badge - only worn when serving in the capacity as an Air Force firefighter.

Also, in the Navy and Coast Guard there a certain badges that require both a skill qualification and a time period assigned to the billet for permanent award. An example of this would be a Coast Guard Cutterman's Badge. Once you complete the skills test requirement, you may where the badge on a temporary basis, once you complete the time requirement (I believe 1 or 2 years Cutter duty billet status) the badge becomes permanent.

These are what the Instruction is referring to... not a Marksmanship badge.

Again, to the actual topic, nothing discussed above would authorize a NRA badge to be worn by a Senior Member on a CAP uniform.

Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on July 14, 2014, 07:41:27 PM
LST,

Is not that which Shuman stated?

QuoteBy Shuman ...until it is superceded by the next qualification.

QuoteBy LST
...if you fail your next grenade qualification, your badge is revoked.

Failing and the ensuing disqualification... is superceding a qualification...

From the Free Dictionary...

Quote
su•per•sede (ˌsu pərˈsid)

v.t. -sed•ed, -sed•ing.
1. to replace in power, authority, effectiveness, acceptance, use, etc., as by another person or thing.
2. to set aside or cause to be set aside as void, useless, or obsolete, usu. in favor of something mentioned; make obsolete.
3. to succeed to the position, function, office, etc., of; supplant.

Thank you.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 14, 2014, 08:55:23 PM

Quote from: GroundHawg on July 14, 2014, 08:47:33 PM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 14, 2014, 01:31:59 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on July 14, 2014, 12:51:27 PM

Quote from: PHall on July 12, 2014, 11:08:53 PM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 12, 2014, 10:04:24 PM
In 18 years in the Air Force (including AD, Guard and Reserve), I've never seen former Army Soldiers wearing this particular badge on an Air Force uniform.

They wear the Air Force Small Arms Expert Markmanship Ribbon instead. They get to put a bronze star on it if they qualify "expert" on two or more weapons.

And like you sir, in over 31-1/2 years in the Air Force/Air National Guard/Air Force Reserve, I never ever saw any former Soldier or Marine wearing their former service markmanship badges.

But our friend who posts from the Guard Shack because he's bored and likes to "stir things up" probably won't accept this answer.
meh...

Again the "new" Instruction has only been out about 6 months so that would explain the previous 31 years when it wasn't authorized... it is now.

And you know this because you're in the Air Force...? Right.

Does he have to be? Is an officer in the US Army not capable of reading and interpreting a sister services regulations?

An Army officer shouldn't have to.

Incorrect, in today's Military, Joint Commands are quite common, in fact every National Guard Headquarters is now a Joint Command.

So is very likely that an Army Officer will be in command over USAF personnel and themselves be commanded by a USAF Officer at least once in their careers.

This would require at least a working knowledge of the sister Services regulations.  ;)

Quote from: shuman14 on July 16, 2014, 05:50:53 PM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 14, 2014, 08:55:23 PM

Quote from: GroundHawg on July 14, 2014, 08:47:33 PM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 14, 2014, 01:31:59 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on July 14, 2014, 12:51:27 PM

Quote from: PHall on July 12, 2014, 11:08:53 PM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 12, 2014, 10:04:24 PM
In 18 years in the Air Force (including AD, Guard and Reserve), I've never seen former Army Soldiers wearing this particular badge on an Air Force uniform.

They wear the Air Force Small Arms Expert Markmanship Ribbon instead. They get to put a bronze star on it if they qualify "expert" on two or more weapons.

And like you sir, in over 31-1/2 years in the Air Force/Air National Guard/Air Force Reserve, I never ever saw any former Soldier or Marine wearing their former service markmanship badges.

But our friend who posts from the Guard Shack because he's bored and likes to "stir things up" probably won't accept this answer.
meh...

Again the "new" Instruction has only been out about 6 months so that would explain the previous 31 years when it wasn't authorized... it is now.

And you know this because you're in the Air Force...? Right.

Does he have to be? Is an officer in the US Army not capable of reading and interpreting a sister services regulations?

An Army officer shouldn't have to.

Incorrect, in today's Military, Joint Commands are quite common, in fact every National Guard Headquarters is now a Joint Command.

So is very likely that an Army Officer will be in command over USAF personnel and themselves be commanded by a USAF Officer at least once in their careers.

This would require at least a working knowledge of the sister Services regulations.  ;)

I understand and agree (not that that's the current situation being discussed). The bottom line is that we have an Army officer interpreting the AFI a certain way and an Air Force officer interpreting it a different way. So, who's right? I propose that, instead of continuing this argument where either one of us could be wrong, guidance be sought from those who can actually provide an authoritative interpretation of the AFI in question. 

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 15, 2014, 11:43:21 AM

Quote from: NIN on July 15, 2014, 10:23:30 AM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 14, 2014, 08:55:23 PM
An Army officer shouldn't have to.

Uh, Goldwater-Nichols Act?

Officers of different branches are frequently familiar with sister service's regulations, especially when serving a joint tour.

Is Shuman serving in a joint tour with the Air Force? Is this tour one where he needs to be familiar with all aspects of the Air Force uniform. He read an AFI, one that other Air Force officers have read as well, and came with a different interpretation on it. Yet, he made an "authoritative" statement about an area that, at best, is open ended.

While the AFI covers most Army badges and it's clear that the list is not inclusive, it leaves out one of the most frequently worn badges in the Army. Again, I admit that the way the AFI is written is a bit open ended in that regards. However, when there's a doubt on an Air Force instruction, the appropriate action would be to seek clarification with the OPR or the appropriate CoC. An Army major, who happens to have read the AFI which was just revised a few months ago, is hardly the officer to give authoritative interpretation on it. Reading the text of a law does not make me a lawyer.

And just to clarify, none of my comments were meant as a disrespect to officers in the Army or other services. My issue is that Shuman does this sort of thing all the time, usually when it comes to CAP regulations, standards and procedures. Yet, unless that's changed recently, he's not even an active CAP member nor made any significant contribution to the organization. Anyone can read regulations; that doesn't make someone an expert on the organization.

No I am not currently assigned to a Joint billet. Last time I was when I was in Korea when I was assigned to the EUSA Provost Marshal's Office and was attached to USFK Joint Provost for several exercises.

Respectfully, I am an expert on regulations.

I stand on my experience, (24 plus years of Military Service), education [Bachelors (Indiana University) and Masters (Purdue University) Degrees], Military education (Officer Basic Course, Captains Career Course, Command and General Staff College) and civilian skills [POST certified as a police officer in Illinois, Indiana and Federally (VA Police)] , to allow me to read, interpret and enforce regulations, instructions and laws.

Are there those who have a better grasp on a single regulation then me... of course there are; but to insist I don't know what I'm talking about is absurd.

BTW, no offense was taken. This is a friendly discussion board and I enjoy our debates, exercises for the mind.  ;)

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 16, 2014, 05:59:32 PM
I understand and agree (not that that's the current situation being discussed). The bottom line is that we have an Army officer interpreting the AFI a certain way and an Air Force officer interpreting it a different way. So, who's right? I propose that, instead of continuing this argument where either one of us could be wrong, guidance be sought from those who can actually provide an authoritative interpretation of the AFI in question.

With that I concur as well. I would think the USAF needs to clarify the instruction and make a complete list of what is and what is not authorized.

Quote from: shuman14 on July 16, 2014, 06:18:19 PM
With that I concur as well. I would think the USAF needs to clarify the instruction and make a complete list of what is and what is not authorized.

And clarify just what under the sun, moon and stars they mean by "low-light/at-a-distance."  As it stands, it is unclear, undefined and unenforceable.

Quote from: CyBorg on July 16, 2014, 11:51:19 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on July 16, 2014, 06:18:19 PM
With that I concur as well. I would think the USAF needs to clarify the instruction and make a complete list of what is and what is not authorized.

And clarify just what under the sun, moon and stars they mean by "low-light/at-a-distance."  As it stands, it is unclear, undefined and unenforceable.

It seems to be enforceable to me.   The USAF does not have to answer to you....that is....YOU don't need to know the standards for low-light and at-a-distance.....unless you are at CAP-USAF or the A-Staff working a request from CAP on a uniform issue.

As for the "USAF needs to clarify ....what is and what is not authorized"......no they don't.  If you are in the USAF and you want to wear your "Driver's and Mechanics  Badge".....you would run it up your chain of command.   "Is this one of the those "non-inclusive badges not listed on attachment 5?"

Probably take a whole week or two.

My guess is that the answer is going to be NO....but who knows.

In a CAP context......same deal.   If it is not in 39-1 ask NHQ per 39-1 and see if they bite.

No need for us CAPers to be telling what the USAF "NEEDS" to do in their AFI.

Quote from: lordmonar on July 17, 2014, 12:09:57 AM
No need for us CAPers to be telling what the USAF "NEEDS" to do in their AFI.

Perhaps you, and many others, forget where the debt lies in regards to the relationship.

Hint:  It ain't with the USAF.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 17, 2014, 12:23:23 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on July 17, 2014, 12:09:57 AM
No need for us CAPers to be telling what the USAF "NEEDS" to do in their AFI.

Perhaps you, and many others, forget where the debt lies in regards to the relationship.

Hint:  It ain't with the USAF.

Please explain.  What debt?   

This particular issue (wear of other services badges on the Air Force uniform) is not really a CAP issue (although CAP is affected... somewhat), but an Air Force issue (if it can be called an issue at all). Frankly, I don't think many Airmen would get bent out of shape if they couldn't wear their previously earned Army (or Navy, Marines, etc.) 'XYZ' badge. For whatever reasons, it seems that we, in CAP, tend to sometimes make mountains out of molehills, especially when it comes to the uniform. Does it really affect us that much if certain (or all for that matter) military badges can't be worn on the CAP uniform? I think the mission would continue even if that was the case...

Quote from: lordmonar on July 17, 2014, 12:32:35 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on July 17, 2014, 12:23:23 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on July 17, 2014, 12:09:57 AM
No need for us CAPers to be telling what the USAF "NEEDS" to do in their AFI.

Perhaps you, and many others, forget where the debt lies in regards to the relationship.

Hint:  It ain't with the USAF.

Please explain.  What debt?

What debt?

You really don't get how the whole "volunteer" thing works, do you?

The USAF, and this country, owes an uncountable debt to CAP and specifically its membership.

No request of the USAF is too small to be addressed, nor unreasonable in that light.

Perhaps that is what is broken in the paradigm - members are so anxious to just get in the game, any game,
that they are willing to be treated as if they owe the USAF something or are obligated to service.

Without the membership, there is no CAP.  It seems many people, and even NHQ, forget that sometimes.

Quote from: lordmonar on July 17, 2014, 12:09:57 AM
No need for us CAPers to be telling what the USAF "NEEDS" to do in their AFI.

I'll re-phrase for you MSgt:

"I would think the USAF should clarify the instruction and it would be most helpful if they made a complete list of what is and what is not authorized."

Better?

Dude....that is just too funny!

We can waste our member's time with worthless safety briefings, mandatory weigh ins, lamenting about the "empty shirts", making rude comments about the "You're lucky I showed up" attitudes.........but the USAF needs to drop everything to "fix" issues because we are volunteers?

I'm going to go away now....because I don't think I can keep this conversation civil any more. 

I will restate......if you want to wear a badge not listed in 39-1 ping NHQ.

I think the Air Force leadership (at least those who work directly with CAP) recognizes and appreciates what CAP's membership does for the USAF and our country. The difference might be on what we, the membership, consider important and what they consider important. In the big scheme of things, blue epaulets, metal insignias, a black fleece jacket, etc. is not as important as new aircraft, vehicles, comm equipment, training, etc. Unlike many other volunteer organizations, I think (some) CAP members seem to place too much emphasis in what we wear. And I'm not just talking about the AF-style vs. Corporate-style and H/W dilemma; I'm talking about all the 'bling'... grade insignias, ribbons, badges, patches, etc. IMHO, there's more to a volunteer organization than that.

Quote from: shuman14 on July 17, 2014, 01:00:37 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on July 17, 2014, 12:09:57 AM
No need for us CAPers to be telling what the USAF "NEEDS" to do in their AFI.

I'll re-phrase for you MSgt:

"I would think the USAF should clarify the instruction and it would be most helpful if they made a complete list of what is and what is not authorized."

Better?

No....because since it is sister service badges....10 seconds after the list is updated.......the Navy adds a new badge and now it is not up to date.

The writers of the AFI anticipated this......that is why they said "not all inclusive" knowing that it would change...and so as to stay ahead of the game......if your badge of choice is not on the list....ask AFMPC and they will work it out.

For CAP...we did the same thing,

Quote10.8. Additional Badge Information
10.8.1. US Military badges may be worn on USAF-style uniforms in accordance with authorizations and instructions found in AFI 36-2903 when appropriate orders granted by competent military authority are present in the member's CAP personnel record.

So we said "we do what the USAF does".....ergo if your badge is not there ask for guidance.

It is not rocket science.....all it takes is an E-mail.

See below...

I agree the conversation is stupid - if it says it's OK to wear it, fine.  If not, ask NHQ.

Next problem.

Quote from: lordmonar on July 17, 2014, 12:09:57 AM
It seems to be enforceable to me.   The USAF does not have to answer to you....that is....YOU don't need to know the standards for low-light and at-a-distance.....unless you are at CAP-USAF or the A-Staff working a request from CAP on a uniform issue.

As for the "USAF needs to clarify ....what is and what is not authorized"......no they don't.

Master Sergeant, I respect you, your service and your efforts in CAP.

However, it seems very often as if you lurk, waiting to talk down to me and to others who do not share your opinions and general worldview.

If I wanted to be pedantic I would say that you are way out of line talking to a senior officer.  You choose to serve as an NCO.  Great.  However, and you can say "rank means nothing in CAP" all you like, I would never address a Major, Lieutenant Colonel or up (really, any CAP colleague) in the condescending way you have addressed me and others on this board.  I have had differences with other members, Eclipse and Storm Chaser among them, but they have never been as sometimes outright nasty as the way you have been, to me and to others.  Sometimes I did not like what those two gentlemen had to say...but I have to admit that it has, in the vast majority of times, in a respectful manner.

Just because you did long service in the Air Force (which I respect) and in CAP, or because you serve a squadron that is on a large USAF base, does not mean you know everything about the AF or CAP, nor does it give you licence to condescend to those who dare to disagree with you, question your judgement or request clarification.  As with my uniform proposal - in response to your saying "develop your own white paper," I posted it here in several threads for you and anyone else to read.  Some gave constructive criticism, which is fine with me.  YOU said NOTHING.  For the record, I would have appreciated your opinion and critique.  Really.

I was in the Air Force (ANG) too.  No, I did not serve as long as you.  Unfortunately, I have medical issues that made me have to get out.  However, I did have a Senior Master Sergeant for a supervisor, and he was one to tell it like it is.  But he never came off with the "I know everything because I am a SMSgt and you know nothing because you're just an Amn/A1C/SrA."

I have also spent 20 years off-and-on in and out of CAP.  I refuse to get into a contest with you over whose service is longer/more valuable/more distinguished.  This is rare for me to do, but I am going to say straight out that while I do not claim to know everything about CAP, and I'm by no means a candidate for MENSA, I do know how to think and I believe I know a fair bit about CAP.  I will go as far as to say I know at least as much as you about many aspects of the organisation.

I never said that the USAF had to "answer to me."  Yes, as a whole they probably do not concern themselves with what a lowly CAP Captain worker-bee thinks, especially the few outside of CAP-USAF who know about us/care who we are.

However, and this is probably my background as a former IT/programmer/logician speaking, I like to know absolutes.  "Low light/at-a-distance" applies to the ENTIRE CAP, not just the ones "working on uniform issues" at CAP-USAF.  The regulation, as it stands, is unenforceable logically, because it depends entirely on WHO is seeing the CAP member in question, and how familiar they are with CAP, and if they can read or not.

Asking for clarification on this, or any other issue, is not a bad thing.  If you want to feel that I, or any other CAP member, do not have the right to question the Air Force on something, that is only you speaking for yourself - Master Sergeant Patrick Harris, CAP.  You do not speak for CAP or for the USAF, any more than I do.

I am not trying to be hurtful with what I said here.  However, I hope it will help you to see how you sometimes come across (and I am not angelic in that regard, nor do I claim to be) and modify your behaviour accordingly - if you choose to.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 17, 2014, 01:05:38 AM
I think the Air Force leadership (at least those who work directly with CAP) recognizes and appreciates what CAP's membership does for the USAF and our country. The difference might be on what we, the membership, consider important and what they consider important. In the big scheme of things, blue epaulets, metal insignias, a black fleece jacket, etc. is not as important as new aircraft, vehicles, comm equipment, training, etc. Unlike many other volunteer organizations, I think (some) CAP members seem to place too much emphasis in what we wear. And I'm not just talking about the AF-style vs. Corporate-style and H/W dilemma; I'm talking about all the 'bling'... grade insignias, ribbons, badges, patches, etc. IMHO, there's more to a volunteer organization than that.

You make valid points, and you make them well.

However, as someone who serves in both CAP and the Air Force, I am quite certain you are familiar with esprit de corps.

I think that the uniform issues, especially about pre-1990s uniforms, come largely from members who served then and immediately after and were punished for something they didn't do.  That's only based on my personal experience as someone who joined in the aftermath of that.

The "bling" factor...I remember from my earliest days in CAP having that explained to me as part of our "pay," since we don't get remunerated financially.

I'm going to guess that you are familiar with Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs.  I learnt about it in my college Psych courses.

http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html (http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html)

I believe that the promotions, ribbons, etc., fit under Needs 3 and 4.  Basically, it's human nature to need a "pat on the back" or an "attaboy/attagirl" now and then.

"Bling" isn't the only way to do it, but I believe it is probably the most tangible way.

I choose not to sir.

Quote from: CyBorg on July 17, 2014, 01:57:56 AM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 17, 2014, 01:05:38 AM
I think the Air Force leadership (at least those who work directly with CAP) recognizes and appreciates what CAP's membership does for the USAF and our country. The difference might be on what we, the membership, consider important and what they consider important. In the big scheme of things, blue epaulets, metal insignias, a black fleece jacket, etc. is not as important as new aircraft, vehicles, comm equipment, training, etc. Unlike many other volunteer organizations, I think (some) CAP members seem to place too much emphasis in what we wear. And I'm not just talking about the AF-style vs. Corporate-style and H/W dilemma; I'm talking about all the 'bling'... grade insignias, ribbons, badges, patches, etc. IMHO, there's more to a volunteer organization than that.

You make valid points, and you make them well.

However, as someone who serves in both CAP and the Air Force, I am quite certain you are familiar with esprit de corps.

I do, but "esprit de corps" is not achieved by the "bling" members wear on their uniforms, so I respectfully fail to see the point you're trying to make.

Quote from: CyBorg on July 17, 2014, 01:57:56 AM
I think that the uniform issues, especially about pre-1990s uniforms, come largely from members who served then and immediately after and were punished for something they didn't do.  That's only based on my personal experience as someone who joined in the aftermath of that.

I was one of those "lucky" ones who got to wear the maroon epaulets. I didn't like them, but I never felt like we were being punished. The gray ones came shortly after and, while they didn't look as nice as the blue ones, they've never bothered me that much (although I have to admit that I would prefer not to wear them on the service dress).

Quote from: CyBorg on July 17, 2014, 01:57:56 AM
The "bling" factor...I remember from my earliest days in CAP having that explained to me as part of our "pay," since we don't get remunerated financially.

I'm going to guess that you are familiar with Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs.  I learnt about it in my college Psych courses.

http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html (http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html)

I believe that the promotions, ribbons, etc., fit under Needs 3 and 4.  Basically, it's human nature to need a "pat on the back" or an "attaboy/attagirl" now and then.

"Bling" isn't the only way to do it, but I believe it is probably the most tangible way.

I understand that and I'm not against it (heck, I do wear mine, as appropriate). But I still believe that the focus many CAP members place on their "bling" is disproportionate with their purpose and intent. Furthermore, there are many volunteer organizations that don't reward their members with awards, decorations, badges and insignias on their uniform and yet, their members seem happy enough to serve their organizations and communities. How do they get recognized, rewarded or, as you put it, "paid" for their service and efforts?

I think the problem is not that CAP recognizes its members with grade insignias, badges, ribbons and patches, but that that appears to be the primary reason for many members to join or continue their service in CAP. The "bling" is fine, but we can't lose focus on the mission.

Except here on this board......I don't think that the majority of CAP members are in it for the bling.

Certainly, it does factor in for most members at some level, especially when they are denied what they feel that they have earned.

But comparing us to other organizations that don't issue bling...is not really fair...because we do issue bling, right, wrong, indifferent....we do.

If we were to stop issuing bling....i.e. everyone going to Polos and Slacks, no ranks, no decorations, no wings, etc......I think that CAP as an emergency services organization would still exist and still function.

So bling in and of itself is not really a problem.....i.e. not one that is really hampering our mission.   

Bling is simply a tool.  A tool to reward good behavior, to reinforce that good behavior, to encourage others to emulate that good behavior.

Sometimes bling is used to establish esprit de corps.....that is pride in your unit...on a smaller scale then BIG CAP/USAF/ARMY/NAVY.
Pride in your unit/team/squad is a good thing.   It helps foster team work.

Of course....like in most everything......there is a line between Pride and Arrogance.   And like like any tool....it needs to be used in the right way, in the right amount, and at the right time.    A hammer is a great tool, for pounding in nails....it sucks for screws......even if you get a sledge.

And that is the key.....not just for rank, decorations, patches, berets, badges, and sometimes hard core names and title......we need to use our tools correctly.

CAP is not just a bunch of people out collecting ribbons, and badges.......even the BSA is not....and the got a lot of bling........we are a service organisation....first and foremost....and I think the vast vast majority of CAP members get it.   

With or with out the bling.

In my experience.....where bling gets in the way is either a) when it is used in the wrong way/time/place, b) when it is is not used "fairly"....that is either not following our own established protocols or too unevenly.

Each and every piece of bling....from the 2d Lt rank, to the beret, to the CAC cords, to the SMoV.......needs to have a precise function.....that is a sort of guiding principle of why we are going to issue it.

It can be as simple as "we want to encourage our members to give of their time to other community services....not involving CAP" (The community Service Ribbon) to "we a way to quickly identify our CAC member to their squadron/group/wing/region peers" (The CAC ropes).

Sometimes the purpose for the bling clashes with other units aims and goals (NBB "we want to establish esprit de corps and give a visible reward for our participants hard work at AirVenture"....squadron "we want to build esprit de corps and unity by making sure everyone is in the same uniform")......and that's a bad thing....but fixable at the unit level.  No need for the unit commander to take the tool away from NBB or other units....because it does not work at their location.

We all have to remember that CAPTALK is not CAP.   Heck most of your local squadron CAP is not CAP.   Even important, earth shaking events that really does affect BIG CAP often does not even cause a ripple at the squadron level (HWSNB's fiasco was almost invisible to most CAP members at the squadron level....because it did not affect them in a big way....the meetings still went on, missions were still flown, cadets still got to go to encampment.)  The Barry Boards and their children the Gray Boards.......punishment or not......unless you were there and "know" for sure....it is academic for the most part.   We have been gray for going on 10-15 years now...it is "the way it has always been" for the vast majority of CAP, and unless you got another agenda it is really a non-issue.

So.....here we are.   The OP....simply asked a question.    "Cadets get to wear the NRA Badges....why can't senior members".    Not someone who forgot the true focus of what CAP is all about....just someone asking "I got one of those....why can't I wear it?"

And the answer is.......a) because it morphed from an award only kids/cadets would earn and b) no one has ever asked that question to the right people yet.

So...to repeat my original suggestion to the OP.....write up a white paper with your suggestion and send it up the chain.

   

Quote from: lordmonar on July 17, 2014, 12:09:57 AM
No need for us CAPers to be telling what the USAF "NEEDS" to do in their AFI.

When it directly affects 39-1, I respectfully disagree.

Quote from: Panache on July 17, 2014, 03:57:29 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on July 17, 2014, 12:09:57 AM
No need for us CAPers to be telling what the USAF "NEEDS" to do in their AFI.

When it directly affects 39-1, I respectfully disagree.

Sorry.  We can ask for clarification because it does affect 39-1.....but to say "the USAF NEEDS to change AFI 36-2903 because some of our members have a badge not listed in Attachment 5" is a little stiff.

They don't want to even do it for their own members....because they know it will be a PITA.  They expect their own members to contact AFMPC if they have questions......so why should we not do the same?

Your badge not on the list...ask NHQ.

Quote from: lordmonar on July 17, 2014, 04:05:30 AM

Quote from: Panache on July 17, 2014, 03:57:29 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on July 17, 2014, 12:09:57 AM
No need for us CAPers to be telling what the USAF "NEEDS" to do in their AFI.

When it directly affects 39-1, I respectfully disagree.

Sorry.  We can ask for clarification because it does affect 39-1.....but to say "the USAF NEEDS to change AFI 36-2903 because some of our members have a badge not listed in Attachment 5" is a little stiff.

...

Your badge not on the list...ask NHQ.

Agreed.

Quote from: lordmonar on July 17, 2014, 02:31:54 AM
I choose not to sir.

Which might explain why you're not Senior or Chief.

Seriously Master Sergeant, the good Staff Captain's post explains it very nicely.

Every one of your posts, that I've read, seems comes off with a "I'm better than you" attitude attached to it.

I really hope its just something lost in communication via internet because I truly hope you don't talk to people in the real world the way your posts come across here on CAP Talk.

I say that respectfully as I can to one who has given so much for our Country thru long years of service both in the USAF and CAP.

Quote from: shuman14 on July 17, 2014, 05:20:02 PM
I really hope its just something lost in communication via internet because I truly hope you don't talk to people in the real world the way your posts come across here on CAP Talk.

Something that is certainly true for all of us. 

You and me, included.

Quote from: Ned on July 17, 2014, 05:31:55 PM

Quote from: shuman14 on July 17, 2014, 05:20:02 PM
I really hope its just something lost in communication via internet because I truly hope you don't talk to people in the real world the way your posts come across here on CAP Talk.

Something that is certainly true for all of us. 

You and me, included.

True Sir, I absolutely concur.

Quote from: shuman14 on July 17, 2014, 05:20:02 PM
Which might explain why you're not Senior or Chief.

You have no frickin' clue how the Air Force Senior Enlisted Promotion System works, do you?

Maybe you need to do some more reading.

Quote from: PHall on July 18, 2014, 01:28:07 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on July 17, 2014, 05:20:02 PM
Which might explain why you're not Senior or Chief.

You have no frickin' clue how the Air Force Senior Enlisted Promotion System works, do you?

Maybe you need to do some more reading.

Or a talking with the CSM.  That is a pretty uncalled comment, especially from a major.  Even when I was a 2LT, I knew that the SNCO promotion system was not that simple.

Let it ride guys....no harm no foul.

Quote from: LSThiker on July 18, 2014, 01:40:56 AM

Quote from: PHall on July 18, 2014, 01:28:07 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on July 17, 2014, 05:20:02 PM
Which might explain why you're not Senior or Chief.

You have no frickin' clue how the Air Force Senior Enlisted Promotion System works, do you?

Maybe you need to do some more reading.

Or a talking with the CSM.  That is a pretty uncalled comment, especially from a major.  Even when I was a 2LT, I knew that the SNCO promotion system was not that simple.

Gentlemen,

Of course I know it's "not that simple". There are many factors that effect promotions at any level, among them are time in Grade, time in Service, Military education, civilian education, key assignments and evaluations.

But don't kid yourself in think that a person's personality and reputation does not effect your promotion at a senior level.

The fact is you must be able to speak with tact and respect to all regardless if its up, down, or adjacent.

The days of a senior NCO swearing at lower enlisted just "because" or being "gruff" with officers that are not their actual commander are over and that is a fact.

No one needs a Command Chief or a CSM that cannot speak to a Congressional delegation with due regard and a smile on their face.

Quote from: shuman14 on July 18, 2014, 12:29:31 PM
But don't kid yourself in think that a person's personality and reputation does not effect your promotion at a senior level.

At almost any level in the military or CAP, actually.

When I had my Level I in 1993 it was emphasised to me that promotion to 2nd Lieutenant after six months was not automatic (at least in those days; it seems to be much more that way now).  It was to be based in large part on my conduct within the unit and willingness to be a journeyman/learner.

Quote from: CyBorg on July 18, 2014, 05:19:35 PM
When I had my Level I in 1993 it was emphasised to me that promotion to 2nd Lieutenant after six months was not automatic (at least in those days; it seems to be much more that way now).

It's still supposed to be that way. I've had members without grade for longer than six months because either they weren't ready yet or weren't active contributors. Promotions are not automatic; they have to be earned.

Okay, back to the original topic for the moment:

1.  It is clear that cadets are allowed to participate in the training leading to the NRA badge as part of a CAP event.
2.  Seniors are not allowed to participate in the training leading to the NRA badge as part of a CAP event.

However, 39-1 10.6 does not require that the NRA badge be earned by the cadet as part of a CAP event. 

Quote10.6. NRA Marksmanship Badge. Cadets may wear one marksmanship qualification medal/badge earned by completing the requirements of the NRA Marksmanship Qualification Program. Documentation in the cadet's personnel record which documents program requirement completion in accordance with published NRA guidelines is authority for wear.

So, a cadet can earn the badge outside of CAP. 

Therefore, this is not really a cadet-only program.  If a senior and a cadet can both earn the same award outside of CAP, then both should be able to wear it on the CAP uniform since it is irrelevant whether they did it while on CAP time. 

We already award patches to both senior and cadet members for other training that could be conducted outside of CAP.  The CPR and EMT patches for example. 

I don't actually think there is a good reason to have an NRA patch at all, but if we are going to have it, it should be open for wear by both seniors and cadets though it should be made clear that seniors would have to have earned it on their own time.  I see no logical reason to limit it to cadets just because they can, but are not required, to earn it while on CAP time. 

Or, maybe we can eliminate the badge as it serves no purpose in CAP.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 18, 2014, 09:16:26 PM
Or, maybe we can eliminate the badge as it serves no purpose in CAP.

I'm fine with that too.

Quote from: RiverAux on July 18, 2014, 09:34:49 PM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 18, 2014, 09:16:26 PM
Or, maybe we can eliminate the badge as it serves no purpose in CAP.

I'm fine with that too.

+1

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 18, 2014, 09:16:26 PM
Or, maybe we can eliminate the badge as it serves no purpose in CAP.

Firearms training is an optional part of the cadet program.

CAP has identified a nationally accepted training standard and incorporated it into the regulations.

The bling for this, while not cheap, is not from Vanguard and CAP did not have to source it.

What's not to love?

Personally I'd add language to limit the Sharpshooter badge to the highest bar earned. It's starts to look South American dictator awfully quickly.

QuoteThe bling for this, while not cheap, is not from Vanguard and CAP did not have to source it.

Why just limit it to the NRA program though when others programs are specifically mentioned in the reg?  Wonder if they've got badges, awards, etc.  If they do, there is no good reason to not allow those to be worn too....

I'd guess someone looked at the programs and made a choice. We'll use this one.

Some guesses as to why.

NRA is the oldest of the bunch.

The bling looks similar to the marksmanship badges the military uses.

NRA might be the only one with that type of bling. USA Shooting for example is more geared toward competition.

But in the end someone said "Their can be only one!" Tends toward uniformity and I think most people here agree that is a good concept.