1st sgt insignia?

[TankerT]

Apples and oranges. The diamond is an insignia. Field gear is equipment.

Bingo.

[Nick]

Apples and oranges. The diamond is an insignia. Field gear is equipment.

I'm not taking any position on this, but just to keep stoking the fire more...

A safety vest is also equipment, but it IS stated in 39-1.

[TankerT]

Apples and oranges. The diamond is an insignia. Field gear is equipment.

I'm not taking any position on this, but just to keep stoking the fire more...

A safety vest is also equipment, but it IS stated in 39-1.

Um.  I wouldn't agree on that.  I would argue that it is a uniform item, and not a piece of equipment.  (Not everything required in the "GTM Equipment Requirements" is actually equipment.  (I.E. a second set of BDU uniforms..)

[Matt]

Apples and oranges. The diamond is an insignia. Field gear is equipment.

I'm not taking any position on this, but just to keep stoking the fire more...

A safety vest is also equipment, but it IS stated in 39-1.

Um.  I wouldn't agree on that.  I would argue that it is a uniform item, and not a piece of equipment.  (Not everything required in the "GTM Equipment Requirements" is actually equipment.  (I.E. a second set of BDU uniforms..)

Without going to far into the survival aspect... they could be...

[lordmonar]

If Knowledge base okays it, CAPMART (now Vanguard) sells it, and no one in the middle chain of command says otherwise, we can assume that it is, in fact, an authorized item.

Not to be rude, but prove it.  Unless it is supplemented, it isn't.  This is based solely on, it is in no regulation.

I can prove it by lack of action on the part of national.

Does that mean I can wear my Eagle Badge on my blues and my patch on my BDU left pocket?  It's not mentioned in the regs, but I can purchase it, pin it, and sew it.  Aside from my commander taking me out back for doing it, the answer would be no.  Not simply because it's out of discretion and taste, but it's not listed anywhere.

First, ask your chain of command, second ask NHQ via knowledge base and third purchase it from VANGUARD and if you get a go ahead from all three...then the answer would be yes!  You should wear it.

My argument is not that you can wear what ever you want.  My argument is that NHQ has supplemented its own regulation through knowledgebase to allow wear of the first sergeant's diamond.

Point in case.....if it were true that "if it ain't there you can wear it", then we cannot wear any Field gear with our BDU's.  Nor can we wear ponchos, or reflective vests.

Neg.  I'll go in order of argument.
Field Gear is required per 60-3 and the ground team guide.  No, it is not a regulation (the guidebook), and for that matter it's the minimum to accomplish the mission.  It's a stretch of an answer, but since we're on apples and oranges, I'll throw it in.

Ponchos and vests fall into the same: SAFETY.  I will not expand further, because I don't want to throw bananas in.

Does not matter......if it is NOT in 39-1 you cannot wear it.  That is the "exclusive argument".  You just proved my point.  39-1 is NOT exclusive because there are other regulations that allow you to modify uniform wear.

We have discussed this issue many times....bottom line....if you don't like the First Sergeant Diamond don't let your cadets wear it.  If on the other hand you do like it and no one IN YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND objects then wear it.

:clap:  Commander's Discretion.

That is what I have been saying all along!

[Matt]

1.)

If Knowledge base okays it, CAPMART (now Vanguard) sells it, and no one in the middle chain of command says otherwise, we can assume that it is, in fact, an authorized item.

Not to be rude, but prove it.  Unless it is supplemented, it isn't.  This is based solely on, it is in no regulation.

I can prove it by lack of action on the part of national.

Why should they have to take action?  That isn't logical.  They have regulations to speak for them.  Time and time again, people misinterpret them, that is not NHQ's fault, aside from not spelling things out in an already vast library.

Does that mean I can wear my Eagle Badge on my blues and my patch on my BDU left pocket?  It's not mentioned in the regs, but I can purchase it, pin it, and sew it.  Aside from my commander taking me out back for doing it, the answer would be no.  Not simply because it's out of discretion and taste, but it's not listed anywhere.

First, ask your chain of command, second ask NHQ via knowledge base and third purchase it from VANGUARD and if you get a go ahead from all three...then the answer would be yes!  You should wear it.

My argument is not that you can wear what ever you want.  My argument is that NHQ has supplemented its own regulation through knowledgebase to allow wear of the first sergeant's diamond.

Where is the supplement?  CAPR 110-1?  I have yet to see where in CAP regs it says that KB can supplement anything.  As soon as I see it in PL or Reg, then I'll drop that portion.

Point in case.....if it were true that "if it ain't there you can wear it", then we cannot wear any Field gear with our BDU's.  Nor can we wear ponchos, or reflective vests.

Neg.  I'll go in order of argument.
Field Gear is required per 60-3 and the ground team guide.  No, it is not a regulation (the guidebook), and for that matter it's the minimum to accomplish the mission.  It's a stretch of an answer, but since we're on apples and oranges, I'll throw it in.

Ponchos and vests fall into the same: SAFETY.  I will not expand further, because I don't want to throw bananas in.

Does not matter......if it is NOT in 39-1 you cannot wear it.  That is the "exclusive argument".  You just proved my point.  39-1 is NOT exclusive because there are other regulations that allow you to modify uniform wear.

You are correct in saying that, but gear by definition, is not uniform wear, and gear is covered IAW 60-3.

We have discussed this issue many times....bottom line....if you don't like the First Sergeant Diamond don't let your cadets wear it.  If on the other hand you do like it and no one IN YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND objects then wear it.

:clap:  Commander's Discretion.

That is what I have been saying all along!

I believes we agree on this point.

Please See Previous Statement

2.)

[...]

In one statement, you say that you cannot wear a diamond, even though CAPR 52-16 authorizes it, because it's not in CAPM 39-1 and that is an exclusionary document. In another, you say that it is ok to wear field gear, because a task in the Ground Team and UDF task book says so, even though wear of field gear is not specifically authorized in the exclusionary CAPM 39-1.

Pick your poison...

Where in 52-16?  I sifted through for "First" and found only one thing pertaining to the First Sergeant.  Something to the effect of it being staffed by anyone, regardless of grade.

Gear≠Uniform; Uniform=Gear.  Gear is not listed as a uniform item, thus, it is not.  However, a uniform is listed as gear, thus, it is.

[Nathan]

Wow, you can't escape from this discussion anywhere.

Could someone please quote where in CAPR 52-16 it authorizes the diamond? I saw a great cite by the Knowledgebase of 52-16 saying that the position is authorized, but unfortunately, I see no where where the diamond is authorized.

Hmm... seems like a moot point to me. These arguments usually dissolve into one side using the regs, and the other side saying how it should be.

[Eclipse]

In summary...

Available from Vanguard.

Referenced in the Knowledgebase.

Does not appear in 52-16.

Plenty of historical / USAF affinity precedence for support in wearing the diamond.

Apparently NHQ is aware of the disparity between sale of the insignia but lack
of specific approval and has chosen not to take action in either direction.

No current regulatory support in 52-16.

Worn now at the discretion of the unit CC's, but would not survive a challenge by someone with an ax to grind.

Generally only brought up for discussion by:

A)  A cadet who wants to wear it, who's Unit CC will not allow it.

B)  A cadet who is jealous of a First Sergeant and wants to see to it that "this monumental violation of 52-16 is addressed and squashed immediately".

Frankly, I have little time for members who engage in this "what is regulatory, guidance, suggestion, etc."  I understand the basis for the discussion, but have better things to do (so why am I here so often?).

What I tell my cadets and seniors - "Find me a current document with an NHQ logo, that wasn't rescinded later, and I will likely authorize it."

One argument I hear all the time is that this is hypocritical to the "Excellence in all we do" core value.  I don't see it that way - Commander's discretion is important, and a key part of this particular discussion is that the diamond hasn't been PROHIBITED, which I realize is generally not the way military regs are written (i.e. if it doesn't say you CAN, you CAN'T), but unlike some problem uniform items (Leather jackets, Goretex, metal grade), the diamond has not been
publicly prohibited.

[arajca]

1. CAPM 39-1 is exclusionary. It says so in Section 1.

2. CAPM 39-1 does not address gear.

3. CAPM 39-1 does address insignia.

4. The 1st Sgt diamond is a positional insignia/position indicator.

5. Positional insignia are addressed in CAPM 39-1, ref. the Command badge.

6. If the 1st Sgt diamond was meant to be included in CAPM 39-1, as the KB says, why was it left out in this latest mass of uniform changes?

7. Does CAP need a Uniform Board, made up of volunteers - not wing and region commanders - to bring some sense of logic to our uniform collection?

[Nathan]

In summary...

Available from Vanguard.

So? I can buy ranger tabs from Hawk, another CAP activity. Doesn't mean I can wear them.

Referenced in the Knowledgebase.

And we all know how reliable Knowledgebase is.

Does not appear in 52-16.

Which is a good reason not to wear it...

Plenty of historical / USAF affinity precedence for support in wearing the diamond.

We aren't the Air Force, nor do we follow their rules, nor do we take orders from them without authorization from NHQ.

Apparently NHQ is aware of the disparity between sale of the insignia but lack
of specific approval and has chosen not to take action in either direction.

Which isn't a justifiable reason to wear it, simply that NHQ is still in the decision making process. We can't just wear whatever we want because it's been mentioned but not approved. That's just going on the assumption that they will prove it, and I'm thinking that's a dangerous path to take.

No current regulatory support in 52-16.

Which is still a good reason not to wear it...

Worn now at the discretion of the unit CC's, but would not survive a challenge by someone with an ax to grind.

Where is it written that the commander has discretion?

[Nick]

7. Does CAP need a Uniform Board, made up of volunteers - not wing and region commanders - to bring some sense of logic to our uniform collection?

I volunteer.

[Pylon]

7. Does CAP need a Uniform Board, made up of volunteers - not wing and region commanders - to bring some sense of logic to our uniform collection?

I volunteer.

I'm also a ham for volunteering for things, especially when I have no time to do so.  Count me in.   

[Nathan]

7. Does CAP need a Uniform Board, made up of volunteers - not wing and region commanders - to bring some sense of logic to our uniform collection?

I volunteer.

I'm also a ham for volunteering for things, especially when I have no time to do so.  Count me in.   

That sounds fun! I'll help!

[MIKE]

7. Does CAP need a Uniform Board, made up of volunteers - not wing and region commanders - to bring some sense of logic to our uniform collection?

I volunteer.

I'm also a ham for volunteering for things, especially when I have no time to do so.  Count me in.   

That sounds fun! I'll help!

Count me in also.  This also includes rewriting CAPM 39-1 right?

[AlphaSigOU]

What the hell... count me in! But ... you think the National Board will ever listen to us? 

[Matt]

7. Does CAP need a Uniform Board, made up of volunteers - not wing and region commanders - to bring some sense of logic to our uniform collection?

I volunteer.

I'm also a ham for volunteering for things, especially when I have no time to do so.  Count me in.   

That sounds fun! I'll help!

Count me in also.  This also includes rewriting CAPM 39-1 right?

Like so people can understand it?

I'm a sucker for CAP...  I'm in.

[Eclipse]

Worn now at the discretion of the unit CC's, but would not survive a challenge by someone with an ax to grind.

Where is it written that the commander has discretion?

I think my statement is very clear - any cadet wearing it today is doing so
at his Commander's Discretion, but if a whiney cadet with an ax to grind decided to challenge it, the authorization would likely not stand up to a challenge.  If Kansas doesn't want them worn, so be it.  Add it to the pile of berets, orange t-shirts, and other oddities which are locally authorized (in some cases despite the regs).

Picking apart these regulations at the level we doing here is a waste of time. Can you go to VG and buy a Hawk tab and wear it?  Yes.  If you went to Hawk, and are in PA.  The fact that PAWG continues to call their Hawk grads "Rangers" is problematic, but since the school isn't exactly a secret, NHQ obviously isn't concerned, and continues to let them operate as such.  That's llfe in a military structure.  The people with the stars can do / allow what they want until a JAG says "stop it".

As I further indicated, I do not have time for these nasally conversations about which document is exclusionary, regulatory, guidance, or ignorable.  I leave that for the lawyers and IG's.  CAP regs are like the US Tax code, full of potentially contradictory verbiage, normally interoperated by professionals at the local level in a common sense fashion.  When common sense breaks down, or what common sense "is" is disagreed upon, the lawyers get involved.

Give me a piece of paper / web page with an NHQ logo and/or signature on it and that is good enough for me.  If one says "go" and one says "stop", >I< as a commander, get to decde which one to follow.  If someone with fancier bling doesn't like my decision, they get to tell me otherwise.

If someone in MY chain says "knock it off" I will, but since NHQ obviously can't even speak with one mind on this, I doubt that will happen anytime soon.

There is also the issue of having more important things to worry about, and things slipping through the cracks.  If you read CAPBlog, you will know that the contentious issue of cloth name tags on flight suits was approved by CAP's Board in 2003, but no one bothered to actually pass it on to the USAF, so all this time we have been blaming them, when it was really our fault.

In all likelihood this is a case where everyone involved simply assumes its been handled and no one is bringing it to the right person's attention in a timely fashion to a respective board meeting. OR, the board has  decided that the KB article, along with references in 52-16 & 20-1,  is enough further substantiation beyond the fact that they are produced by Vanguard.

[Nathan]

If someone in MY chain says "knock it off" I will, but since NHQ obviously can't even speak with one mind on this, I doubt that will happen anytime soon.

The regs ARE NHQ's one mind, whether they like it or not. If your logic applied, then I wouldn't have to listen to the President unless he was elected unanimously by every single person in the entire country.

The publications are there to tell us what NHQ wants us to do, whether they all agree on it or not. If the publications say something, it at that point doesn't matter what Maj Gen Pineda is doing to his uniform, that still makes him wrong unless he writes a policy letter on it. And just because Vanguard is making 1st Sgt diamonds, that doesn't mean that it has the backing of the regs, aka the consent of NHQ, no matter what a few people in NHQ say.

[Eclipse]

If someone in MY chain says "knock it off" I will, but since NHQ obviously can't even speak with one mind on this, I doubt that will happen anytime soon.

The regs ARE NHQ's one mind, whether they like it or not. If your logic applied, then I wouldn't have to listen to the President unless he was elected unanimously by every single person in the entire country.

Good luck with that, and btw - your logic doesn't track.  The President is CINC >until< the courts or the legislature decide he interperated his authority incorectly.  IN other words his local comon sense discretion is counte-indicated by a higher authority.

We spend billions each year in this country deciding which reg/law/ordinance/guideline/etc., trumps the other.

Hmmm....where is that "beating a dead horse" icon when you need it?

[mikeylikey]

I thought the Hawk MTN patch is allowed.  Are you speaking of the rocker that says "Staff" or are you speaking of those "ranger 2nd class" type tabs?  In PA they got rid of those a while ago.  However, I think they should be allowed to call themselves "RANGERS" since the program was in fact termed the Ranger Program by the Air Force way back in the 50's.  There is a lot of history with the program, and not to drive a huge debate, but some people may just be jealous or upset that their wing does not have a top-notch school that dates almost back to the founding of CAP.