Errors, Ambiguities & Conflicts in CAPM 39-1

[arajca]

7/8!? How do you get that?

Do the math: 1" from the insignia white to wherever you're measuring from -- which means that if you allow the regulation 1/8" blue field around the insignia, you're actually measuring 7/8" from the edge of the blue to the point you're measuring from. Make sense now?

Where does the 1" come from? The manual says 1/2" (Table 6-4, line 5).

[Hawk200]

On the blank SM epaulets and someone's comment that "why would you want to go spend money on an item that, by itself, indicates nothing?" I disagree. The blank epaulets identify a senior member without grade as a CAP member. That by itself is notable.

SMWOG is not "specified" with a blank epaulet anywhere in regulations.

Second, if you can't identify a SMWOG as compared to a cadet AB, there's a problem. It's pretty simple. The senior is wearing a gray nametag, the cadet is wearing a blue one. That's really only necessary if you can't tell the difference age wise.

....Yes,  the fact that they are senior members is notable. But the fact they're wearing blank shoulder marks that were intended to have something placed upon them is wrong...

There's the best reason.

[arajca]

Not sure if this goes here, but...

How about moving the Model Rocketry patch to the left breast pocket of the bdu?

[Hawk200]

Not sure if this goes here, but...

How about moving the Model Rocketry patch to the left breast pocket of the bdu?

Second.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

7/8!? How do you get that?

Do the math: 1" from the insignia white to wherever you're measuring from -- which means that if you allow the regulation 1/8" blue field around the insignia, you're actually measuring 7/8" from the edge of the blue to the point you're measuring from. Make sense now?

Where does the 1" come from? The manual says 1/2" (Table 6-4, line 5).

It comes from where the collar rank insignia is sewn... yes, it's 1/2" from the breast badge to the top of the BDU nametape. D'OH.

Hope you don't think mine are out of line as a result of that misstatement!

[BuckeyeDEJ]

On the blank SM epaulets and someone's comment that "why would you want to go spend money on an item that, by itself, indicates nothing?" I disagree. The blank epaulets identify a senior member without grade as a CAP member. That by itself is notable.

SMWOG is not "specified" with a blank epaulet anywhere in regulations.

Second, if you can't identify a SMWOG as compared to a cadet AB, there's a problem. It's pretty simple. The senior is wearing a gray nametag, the cadet is wearing a blue one. That's really only necessary if you can't tell the difference age wise.

....Yes,  the fact that they are senior members is notable. But the fact they're wearing blank shoulder marks that were intended to have something placed upon them is wrong...

There's the best reason.

I'd like to agree, because it would be simpler not to have shoulder marks, but the nametag is not as immediately recognizable as the epaulets.

That said, the heck with it -- let's just make 'em all NCOs and get it over with. Heh.

[davidsinn]

I'd just like to reiterate that 39-1 needs to address the Cadet First Sergeant pins. Yes or No. I don't care either way but my unit's top shirt really wants diamonds on her collar and one reg says one thing and the other is silent. She is getting to wear them.

[Hawk200]

I'd like to agree, because it would be simpler not to have shoulder marks, but the nametag is not as immediately recognizable as the epaulets.

Simpler not to have shoulder marks? Are you talking about the blank ones being worn as an indicator for a Senior Member Without Grade? You write that in a manner as if we actually do have such a thing. We don't. If that is a practice in your unit or wing, it is wrong.

That said, the heck with it -- let's just make 'em all NCOs and get it over with. Heh.

Make a brand new member an NCO? In the first place, that's wrong in many ways. Regardless of whatever ranks we have, you don't just hand out grade immediately. It has to be earned. We don't have to do near as much as military personnel to earn our ranks, but there are still requirements. One of them is time.

Second, those blank shoulder marks were designed for the CAP NCO's in the first place. They pin metal rank insignia onto the shoulder mark. They were never designed for any other purpose.

If you wanted a different epaulet with something written on it, like an "OC" (Officer Candidate) or "OTC" (Officer Training Corps), I would consider such a thing, and a few other people might too. The "OTC" would have some basis in history.

Or even eliminate collar insignia for Seniors without any rank. But arbitrarily giving out a rank just so you can tell they're new is the wrong path. A new senior member is pretty recognizable even with just a different colored nametag. There are a number of other indicators.

[jimmydeanno]

I'd just like to reiterate that 39-1 needs to address the Cadet First Sergeant pins. Yes or No. I don't care either way but my unit's top shirt really wants diamonds on her collar and one reg says one thing and the other is silent. She is getting to wear them.

What is the question about it?  52-16 says:

e. Temporary & Discretionary Grades. There are no temporary promotions or demotions, including temporary or "field" promotions or demotions at encampments and other activities. There are no discretionary grades. Cadets will wear their earned grade on their uniform at every CAP activity. The only grades authorized are those shown in Figure 2-3. However, each squadron may appoint a C/MSgt, C/SMSgt or C/CMSgt to serve as the cadet first sergeant. Cadets serving in this special duty are authorized to wear the first sergeant diamond insignia.

So if she is >=C/MSgt and appointed as a C/1Sgt she can wear the insignia that has the screen printed first sergeant diamond...

[jeders]

I'd just like to reiterate that 39-1 needs to address the Cadet First Sergeant pins. Yes or No. I don't care either way but my unit's top shirt really wants diamonds on her collar and one reg says one thing and the other is silent. She is getting to wear them.

What is the question about it?  52-16 says:

e. Temporary & Discretionary Grades. There are no temporary promotions or demotions, including temporary or "field" promotions or demotions at encampments and other activities. There are no discretionary grades. Cadets will wear their earned grade on their uniform at every CAP activity. The only grades authorized are those shown in Figure 2-3. However, each squadron may appoint a C/MSgt, C/SMSgt or C/CMSgt to serve as the cadet first sergeant. Cadets serving in this special duty are authorized to wear the first sergeant diamond insignia.

So if she is >=C/MSgt and appointed as a C/1Sgt she can wear the insignia that has the screen printed first sergeant diamond...

Yes, but it also needs to be mentioned in 39-1. I don't know how many debates I've seen here and at CS about whether or not the diamond can be worn since its actual placement is not addressed in 39-1. It's just another one of those "Errors, Ambiguities & Conflicts" that need to be fixed.

[Pylon]

What is the question about it?  52-16 says:

e. Temporary & Discretionary Grades. There are no temporary promotions or demotions, including temporary or "field" promotions or demotions at encampments and other activities. There are no discretionary grades. Cadets will wear their earned grade on their uniform at every CAP activity. The only grades authorized are those shown in Figure 2-3. However, each squadron may appoint a C/MSgt, C/SMSgt or C/CMSgt to serve as the cadet first sergeant. Cadets serving in this special duty are authorized to wear the first sergeant diamond insignia.

So if she is >=C/MSgt and appointed as a C/1Sgt she can wear the insignia that has the screen printed first sergeant diamond...

Except that CAPM 39-1 establishes itself in Section 1 as the sole authority on the wear of uniforms and insignia.  While other regulations can establish those insignia and specify criteria for earning them, allowing them to be worn on the uniform (and how) is solely the domain of CAPM 39-1.

This is exactly what this thread is for: finding conflicts between publications and adding them to the list of things which must be resolved.  Thank you for bringing that up.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

I'd like to agree, because it would be simpler not to have shoulder marks, but the nametag is not as immediately recognizable as the epaulets.

Simpler not to have shoulder marks? Are you talking about the blank ones being worn as an indicator for a Senior Member Without Grade? You write that in a manner as if we actually do have such a thing. We don't. If that is a practice in your unit or wing, it is wrong.

That said, the heck with it -- let's just make 'em all NCOs and get it over with. Heh.

Make a brand new member an NCO? In the first place, that's wrong in many ways. Regardless of whatever ranks we have, you don't just hand out grade immediately. It has to be earned. We don't have to do near as much as military personnel to earn our ranks, but there are still requirements. One of them is time....

Let me address the second part of my post and your response: Did you see "Heh" at the end of it? That's because I wasn't serious. That said, CAP just hands people butterbars after six months -- officer rank should be earned with a little more rigor than the cakewalk Level I. From what I've heard, that's in the works, fortunately.

Now to the first part. If no such uniform item exists, fine. The uniform changes every time I turn around and there's no regulation to back it up, so you can understand some of the confusion.

I haven't actually seen an epaulet for seniors with no grade, but then again, I never saw the epaulets for SM NCOs until a few weeks ago. They sure ain't in a regulation anywhere....

It's been dizzying, watching all these policy letters and no regulation supplements, changes or rewrites, and it's not easy to keep up. Seems to me any policy letters should clarify the gray areas of regulations until an edited regulation, change or supplement is issued. Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. It's hard to be by-the-book when the book is no longer accepted as the comprehensive last word.

I would have no problem with a plain gray epaulet for seniors without grade. Of course, I'd also be fine with an enlisted system that actually means something to more than just former military NCOs. Like I say, I'd be totally OK with not handing someone butterbars after six months. Heck, make THOSE people flight officers, and while we're at it, extend flight officer rank to Mitchell Award winners post-21 (and downgrade Earhart winners to butterbars and Spaatz cadets to first lieuy -- there's no 21-year-old in the world who should wear railroad tracks right off the bat).

As an aside to another concern: Vanguard sells the first sergeant diamonds to CAP as a standalone item (and as recently as February's Florida Wing conference). If CAP's regulations state that only a cadet NCO with rockers upward can have the diamond, that's impractical for a lot of units, and doesn't reflect the retail reality.

[arajca]

As an aside to another concern: Vanguard sells the first sergeant diamonds to CAP as a standalone item (and as recently as February's Florida Wing conference). If CAP's regulations state that only a cadet NCO with rockers upward can have the diamond, that's impractical for a lot of units, and doesn't reflect the retail reality.

The grade requirement for the 1sgt diamond is new to the current version of CAPR 52-16. Prior to that, there was no minimum or maximum grade for a 1sgt. Therefore, the stand-alone diamond was used for those cadets who weren't C/MSgt or higher. It also harkens back to the time when the c/nco grades ended at C/MSgt (six down, zero up). One humourous argument that was brought up BEFORE the current version of CAPR 52-16 was whether or not a cadet officer could serve as 1sgt. Aside from the inherent wrongness of this idea, there was nothing in the regs to prohibit it. It was also possible to a C/Amn serve as 1sgt. I know, I've seen it.

[SAR-EMT1]

Even under the old regs common sense dictated that the 1st shirt was by definition at least a Cadet Sgt -read NCO- ( C/SrA nowadays)

Never seen a C/Amn '1st Sgt'
Hope to heaven I never do.

Then again Ive seen a cadet wearing AF Chevrons sewn onto their sleeves with the CAP cutout on the lapel.  - I politely corrected the cadet
(and ripped the responsible SM a new one) 

[jimmydeanno]

I remember going to an airshow in MAWG back in the late 90s.  I think I was a C/2d Lt at the time.  Anyway, we were there as a squadron separately from whatever activities MAWG was doing.  There was a group of about 5 of us (a few C/Officers and SNCOs) walking around enjoying the show and some C/A1C marches up to us and demands that we need to go check in at the workers tent.

I remember saying politely, "Airman Soandso, we aren't part of the working crew, we're just here to enjoy the show."  He replies, "I'm a First Sergeant, please call me such."  Sure enough, this C/A1C was wearing a 1st Sgt diamond.  "Well Airman Soandso, I'm a C/2d Lt, so please - address me as such."

I thought that was the most ridiculous thing I had ever seen, you know what I mean - First Airman, HA!

[Hawk200]

Let me address the second part of my post and your response: Did you see "Heh" at the end of it? That's because I wasn't serious.

I noticed the "heh" at the end, but did not interpret as humor. Mostly because it's just a not subject that we need to be joking about.

That said, CAP just hands people butterbars after six months -- officer rank should be earned with a little more rigor than the cakewalk Level I.

Agreed. The current program requires little dedication for the first couple of ranks. The initial should be much more involved than it is.

Now to the first part. If no such uniform item exists, fine. The uniform changes every time I turn around and there's no regulation to back it up, so you can understand some of the confusion.

There isn't anything in regs on it, other than a former 39-1 that said NCO's could wear metal rank pinned on an epaulet sleeve. As to why people have the idea that it's a shoulder mark for a SMWOG, I have a few theories.

As for changes, if you have the ability to post on this forum, then you can obtain any changes. Gotta keep on them, but most of the time someone will post anything new on the HQ website here within a few days of it going up over there.

I haven't actually seen an epaulet for seniors with no grade, but then again, I never saw the epaulets for SM NCOs until a few weeks ago. They sure ain't in a regulation anywhere....

There is no epaulet for our rankless seniors. They pin cutouts on their collar, but those are not a rank insignia.

As for the Senior Member NCO epaulets, they are in Civil Air Patrol Manual 39-1. The first mention of them is the last line of the summary of changes, on the very first page of that manual.

It's been dizzying, watching all these policy letters and no regulation supplements, changes or rewrites, and it's not easy to keep up. Seems to me any policy letters should clarify the gray areas of regulations until an edited regulation, change or supplement is issued. Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. It's hard to be by-the-book when the book is no longer accepted as the comprehensive last word.

Agreed on the dizzying part. As for the "by the book", it's pretty much a matter of not doing or wearing something until you have the actual authorization in hand (or available for printout  ). That doesn't mean allowing people to wear something because "I read that it was authorized in the National Board minutes". NB minutes are meeting documents, not regulatory publications.

I would have no problem with a plain gray epaulet for seniors without grade.

Personally, I don't see the point of requiring someone to purchase an 8, 9, or even $10 item when something for a couple dollars will do. Attention is a far smaller price to pay.

Of course, I'd also be fine with an enlisted system that actually means something to more than just former military NCOs. Like I say, I'd be totally OK with not handing someone butterbars after six months. Heck, make THOSE people flight officers, and while we're at it, extend flight officer rank to Mitchell Award winners post-21 (and downgrade Earhart winners to butterbars and Spaatz cadets to first lieuy -- there's no 21-year-old in the world who should wear railroad tracks right off the bat).

Right now, we need to fix our current officer system before we start creating others. I'm fine with giving just due to those with former military experience. But starting a new program when the one you've got already has problems isn't real forward looking.

As an aside to another concern: Vanguard sells the first sergeant diamonds to CAP as a standalone item (and as recently as February's Florida Wing conference). If CAP's regulations state that only a cadet NCO with rockers upward can have the diamond, that's impractical for a lot of units, and doesn't reflect the retail reality.

Those diamonds were originally used by the Air Force for the old Master Sergeant stripe design that had six stripes going down, instead of one on top like it does now. Some CAP personnel got a hold of them, and haven't let go since. Those diamonds themselves have no real purpose anymore other than a museum display. Since people keep buying them, Vanguard will keep selling them. It's all about the dollar to them.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

NB minutes are meeting documents, not regulatory publications.

True, but really, are policy letters?

As for the diamonds: I'm not sure I agree, only because Vanguard isn't going to sell things the Powers That Be don't want them to. The Hock Shop, on the other hand, will sell the stuff as memorabilia, not for uniform wear.

Bottom line: We need to cut through all the stuff and have ONE CAPM 39-1, with everything in it, edited well and thought out thoroughly. All the policy letters have made it mumbo-jumbo, and it's no wonder we have uniform confusion. Well, that, plus all the uniform changes in general.

[Pylon]

Be mindful of the topic, please.  I am trying to identify all errors, ambiguities and conflicts that CAPM 39-1 has within itself and with other regulations and policies.  Suggestions for uniform changes, ICL/NB Minutes/CAPR 5-2 issues, and other topics can warrant their own thread.  Thanks.   :angel:

[Hawk200]

NB minutes are meeting documents, not regulatory publications.

True, but really, are policy letters?

They're not a regulatory publication, they are a supplemental document until the specific pub is updated. They are legtimate policy though, and as such, are meant to be complied with.

As for the diamonds: I'm not sure I agree, only because Vanguard isn't going to sell things the Powers That Be don't want them to. The Hock Shop, on the other hand, will sell the stuff as memorabilia, not for uniform wear.

Not really correct. There's a few badges I've seen on the Vanguard website that haven't been authorized for wear on an Air Force uniform for at least ten years. Vanguard still sells them, and will happily take your money for it.

The military cannot tell Vanguard what they can or can't sell. That's not within their authority. The military can only tell it's own members what is authorized. If they don't tell you can wear the XYZ badge on your uniform, then you can't. They can't even tell a military member that they can't own one. The only authority they have is what is permitted on their uniforms.

Bottom line: We need to cut through all the stuff and have ONE CAPM 39-1, with everything in it, edited well and thought out thoroughly. All the policy letters have made it mumbo-jumbo, and it's no wonder we have uniform confusion. Well, that, plus all the uniform changes in general.

If you're submitting this as a consideration, I'll wholeheartedly second the motion. It's part of our problems.

[capchiro]

Well, not to start a flame war, but presolo wings are authorized, however, there is no place to purchase cloth presolo wings.  Any possibility to rectify that??  Thanks,