Uniforms on Memorial Day services

Started by PWK-GT, May 12, 2011, 02:47:48 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

JoeTomasone

Quote from: Major Carrales on May 13, 2011, 02:10:23 PM
Here, the NEC, an appropriate authority, made a judgement on the matter.  This is, in similar context, a kin to the judicial process of government.


Except that the regulations that the NEC members themselves are required to follow (CAPR 5-4, specifically) specify how NEC polices become binding regulations for members.   In this case, the proper procedure would be to modify 39-1 to allow such uniform wear, which (per CAPR 5-4) CANNOT be done in an ICL, a policy letter, or a supplement (since compliance with 39-1 is mandatory). 


ßτε

Except CAPM 39-1 does not prohibit such an authorization for members to wear their uniforms for a special purpose.

JoeTomasone

Quote from: ß τ ε on May 14, 2011, 03:49:04 PM
Except CAPM 39-1 does not prohibit such an authorization for members to wear their uniforms for a special purpose.

Sure it does.


Quote from: CAPM 3-1
COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY. Any variation from this publication is not authorized.


Which means that if 39-1 does not permit it, it cannot be done.   Show me where it permits it.



ßτε


RADIOMAN015

Quote from: JoeTomasone on May 14, 2011, 03:54:32 PM
Quote from: ß τ ε on May 14, 2011, 03:49:04 PM
Except CAPM 39-1 does not prohibit such an authorization for members to wear their uniforms for a special purpose.

Sure it does.


Quote from: CAPM 3-1
COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY. Any variation from this publication is not authorized.


Which means that if 39-1 does not permit it, it cannot be done.   Show me where it permits it.

I think this is a VERY good intention, BUT of course the question always comes up that IF a CAP member (not at the highest level) violates (even unknownly) the large array of mandatory CAP regulations, then punitive actions may be taken against them.   This is what can cause confusion to the membership when a regulation is modified by a "wish"/"encouragement" by higher authority.   

Perhaps a simple ICL change could be made that if authorized by competent authority CAP uniforms may be worn at special non CAP specific activities (and than list the activities) and who can authorize.

RM

Eclipse

Quote from: JoeTomasone on May 14, 2011, 03:09:36 PM
But 39-1 says that compliance with 39-1 is mandatory.

39-1 is no longer the sole authority in regards to uniform.

Quote from: JoeTomasone on May 14, 2011, 03:09:36 PM
Oh, and ICLs cannot be issued for uniform changes as per CAPR 5-4.

Reality conflicts with that statement.

"That Others May Zoom"

Major Lord

If our uniforms are not fit to wear in tribute to fallen American service members, I submit the uniform means nothing, stands for nothing, and that CAP should be turned into a Cub Scouts program or flying club. ( Incidentally, Boy Scouts wear their Uniforms on this sacred day) The fact that we are privileged to wear a Uniform that others have paid a far greater price to wear is to me, evidence that we are at least a distant relative to the tribe of the American Military and Naval services. If you don't have it in you to wear it with pride, I suggest giving it to someone who will.

Major Lord
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

JoeTomasone

Quote from: Eclipse on May 14, 2011, 05:08:31 PM
Quote from: JoeTomasone on May 14, 2011, 03:09:36 PM
But 39-1 says that compliance with 39-1 is mandatory.

39-1 is no longer the sole authority in regards to uniform.



Quote from: JoeTomasone on May 14, 2011, 03:09:36 PM
Oh, and ICLs cannot be issued for uniform changes as per CAPR 5-4.

Reality conflicts with that statement.


Ok, I'll bite.   What else is an authority per regulations?

I'm aware that reality is in conflict with that statement.  I'm also aware that it's still wrong and conflicts with the much-touted CAP Core Values.   



JoeTomasone

Quote from: ß τ ε on May 14, 2011, 04:54:52 PM
Show me where it prohibits it.


I don't have to - if CAPM 39-1 does not permit it, it's not authorized.   

JoeTomasone

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on May 14, 2011, 05:05:43 PM
Quote from: JoeTomasone on May 14, 2011, 03:54:32 PM
Quote from: ß τ ε on May 14, 2011, 03:49:04 PM
Except CAPM 39-1 does not prohibit such an authorization for members to wear their uniforms for a special purpose.

Sure it does.


Quote from: CAPM 3-1
COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY. Any variation from this publication is not authorized.


Which means that if 39-1 does not permit it, it cannot be done.   Show me where it permits it.

I think this is a VERY good intention, BUT of course the question always comes up that IF a CAP member (not at the highest level) violates (even unknownly) the large array of mandatory CAP regulations, then punitive actions may be taken against them.   This is what can cause confusion to the membership when a regulation is modified by a "wish"/"encouragement" by higher authority.   

Perhaps a simple ICL change could be made that if authorized by competent authority CAP uniforms may be worn at special non CAP specific activities (and than list the activities) and who can authorize.

RM


(Sigh)

Again, uniform changes cannot be made via ICL as per CAPR 5-4.    Yes, I am aware that National has repeatedly violated it's own regulation.   Still doesn't make it right.

Hawk200

This is amusing. National says you can do something, there's approval in black and white, and people will still nit pick it to death.

To those who choose to believe that it's in violation, there's a real simple choice for you: Don't wear your uniform to church. Period. End of story.

I would however state that if you see someone do so, it is probably in your best interest to leave them alone. Between an authorization from National and someone's opinion, I know which I would choose. After all, this message is black and white.

Now, I'm sure someone will bring up an argument that the chain of command is not always right. I would agree. However, when it comes to any order or authorization, we pretty much apply some questions: Is it illegal? Is it immoral? Is is unethical? Is it inappropriate?

The above questions applied to the statement from National don't seem to produce any issues. It seems that people are arguing with false logic or vehemence when there really is no place or reason to do so.

If you don't like it, don't do it. It's as simple as that.

ßτε

In case you haven't noticed, CAPR 5-4 does not say that ICLs cannot be issued regarding uniform issues.

JoeTomasone

Quote from: Hawk200 on May 14, 2011, 07:31:15 PM
If you don't like it, don't do it. It's as simple as that.

Interesting logic.   So basically, you're saying that National can violate it's own regulations -- even though those regulations are binding on National as well.  At what echelon does this privilege stop?  Region?  Wing?  Group?


Quote from: Hawk200 on May 14, 2011, 07:31:15 PM
Now, I'm sure someone will bring up an argument that the chain of command is not always right. I would agree. However, when it comes to any order or authorization, we pretty much apply some questions: Is it illegal? Is it immoral? Is is unethical? Is it inappropriate?

I consider it inappropriate for our leadership to think that they can just do whatever they want but expect us to follow regulations to the letter.  That's a VERY slippery slope to go down.   


JoeTomasone

Quote from: ß τ ε on May 14, 2011, 07:56:46 PM
In case you haven't noticed, CAPR 5-4 does not say that ICLs cannot be issued regarding uniform issues.


You are 100% correct.  It does not say that.  However, what it does say is:

Quote from: CAPR 5-4
4. Interim Change Letters (ICL). Situations requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency, an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, or other contingencies that may require prompt action may result in an interim change letter being issued outlining immediate policies. ICLs may be issued by any level of command unless specifically limited or prohibited by the regulation or manual governing that subject matter. Issuance of policies by ICL is a temporary measure.

a. ICLs outlining immediate policies to be followed for a limited time will be issued with a stated expiration date. Such expiration dates shall not be more than 180 days from the date the letter was issued.

b. ICLs outlining immediate policies that are intended to become permanent shall be incorporated into an appropriate publication within 90 days of the date the letter was issued.


Now, explain to me how routine uniform issues are "Situations requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency, an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, or other contingencies that may require prompt action".    It doesn't pass the laugh test.  Consider also the fact that the uniform ICLs that were published contained no expiration date and were not incorporated into CAPM 39-1 within 90 days.   




RiverAux

Quote from: Major Lord on May 14, 2011, 06:47:51 PM
If our uniforms are not fit to wear in tribute to fallen American service members, I submit the uniform means nothing, stands for nothing, and that CAP should be turned into a Cub Scouts program or flying club. ( Incidentally, Boy Scouts wear their Uniforms on this sacred day) The fact that we are privileged to wear a Uniform that others have paid a far greater price to wear is to me, evidence that we are at least a distant relative to the tribe of the American Military and Naval services. If you don't have it in you to wear it with pride, I suggest giving it to someone who will.

Major Lord
Absolutely no one has said that.  Everyone agrees that it is certainly ok for the proper authority to authorize uniforms to be worn in this situation. 

What we are arguing about is whether or not it can be done without the service being considered a CAP activity at which all CAP rules would apply. 

Eclipse

Quote from: RiverAux on May 14, 2011, 11:47:14 PMWhat we are arguing about is whether or not it can be done without the service being considered a CAP activity at which all CAP rules would apply.

Define "all rules"...

"That Others May Zoom"

Chappie

No problem for me......I will be escorting cadets and senior members who are attending the CAWG Cadet Programs Conference to a Protestant service that Sunday :) 
Disclaimer:  Not to be confused with the other user that goes by "Chappy"   :)

SARDOC

Quote from: JoeTomasone on May 14, 2011, 10:57:34 PM
Quote from: ß τ ε on May 14, 2011, 07:56:46 PM
In case you haven't noticed, CAPR 5-4 does not say that ICLs cannot be issued regarding uniform issues.


You are 100% correct.  It does not say that.  However, what it does say is:

Quote from: CAPR 5-4
4. Interim Change Letters (ICL). Situations requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency, an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, or other contingencies that may require prompt action may result in an interim change letter being issued outlining immediate policies. ICLs may be issued by any level of command unless specifically limited or prohibited by the regulation or manual governing that subject matter. Issuance of policies by ICL is a temporary measure.

a. ICLs outlining immediate policies to be followed for a limited time will be issued with a stated expiration date. Such expiration dates shall not be more than 180 days from the date the letter was issued.

b. ICLs outlining immediate policies that are intended to become permanent shall be incorporated into an appropriate publication within 90 days of the date the letter was issued.


Now, explain to me how routine uniform issues are "Situations requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency, an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, or other contingencies that may require prompt action".    It doesn't pass the laugh test.  Consider also the fact that the uniform ICLs that were published contained no expiration date and were not incorporated into CAPM 39-1 within 90 days.

So if an ICL is Over 180 days old does that make it technically invalid if it is not incorporated into the standing document?

Hawk200

Quote from: JoeTomasone on May 14, 2011, 10:54:25 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on May 14, 2011, 07:31:15 PM
If you don't like it, don't do it. It's as simple as that.

Interesting logic.   So basically, you're saying that National can violate it's own regulations -- even though those regulations are binding on National as well.  At what echelon does this privilege stop?  Region?  Wing?  Group?


Quote from: Hawk200 on May 14, 2011, 07:31:15 PM
Now, I'm sure someone will bring up an argument that the chain of command is not always right. I would agree. However, when it comes to any order or authorization, we pretty much apply some questions: Is it illegal? Is it immoral? Is is unethical? Is it inappropriate?

I consider it inappropriate for our leadership to think that they can just do whatever they want but expect us to follow regulations to the letter.  That's a VERY slippery slope to go down.   
OK, I'll explain a little something. Most of the folks with military time under their belt should recognize and understand this concept. For those who do not have that experience, this concept should be readily understandable.

The purpose of publications is for when guidance from higher headquarters is not available. Basically, if you can't ask the chain, then you reference the publication. The chain of command is not necessarily violating regulation if they are providing an authorization.

I posted some of the questions that one should ask if an authorization isn't covered in a pub. I'll be a little more clear this time.

Is it illegal to wear a uniform to church/mass/religious service/etc.? No, I don't think so. If anyone has proof that it is, please, provide it.

Is it immoral to wear a uniform to church/mass/religious service/etc.? I would say no. Once again, if someone has proof, please provide.

Is it unethical to wear a uniform to church/mass/religious service/etc.? No. I sure can't think of any reason why it would be. Same stipulation as above.

Is it innappropriate to wear a uniform to church/mass/religious service/etc.? No. The purpose of the message is to celebrate our heritage (on Dec 1), and to honor those who have served this country.

It is clear guidance from the chain of command, in this case the very top. Common sense applies. Arguing it for the sake of argument is a time waster.

There's a lot of folks in CAP that are very lucky to be in a "volunteer" organization. Pulling a stunt like "No General/Colonel, I'm not going to do that because because it's not in the regulations" would get you a very short trip out of the service with a less than stellar discharge characterization.

Still want to talk about a slippery slope? Questioning guidance from higher command is one. Since the authorization presents you with an option, you can make the decision to do or do not. Telling others that they cannot, or issuing orders contrary to the higher headquarters is insubordination. Period.

Doing so dishonors those in CAP before us, and the Veterans we seek to honor.

Ned

#59
Quote from: JoeTomasone on May 14, 2011, 10:54:25 PMI consider it inappropriate for our leadership to think that they can just do whatever they want but expect us to follow regulations to the letter.  That's a VERY slippery slope to go down.   

My God, you are so right!

First they want us to wear our uniforms to church in clear violation of the regs, then who knows where it will end!

We must keep a close eye on these guys, for sure.