Change the "V" device

[OldSalt]

Okay.....you are arguing yourself into a circle.

First.....from a military perspective.....unless the "V" device is on a BSM, SM or some such medal......it does not mean that much in the military.  And for those with a V device on a "real medal" it is not always that big of a deal either.

This is just your opinion. If it wasn't a "big deal" then why even have the "V" device in the first place? If it really doesn't matter, then just get rid of it.

Don't try to add controversy where non exists.  Absolutely false!  AP2.1.2.6.3.2. "V" Device. A bronze "V" device when the award of the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award is made to a unit for combat or direct combat support.

Okay, I stand corrected on the use of the "V" device on some Unit Awards. However, your DOD quote reinforces my point that the "V" device is never issued for anything other than combat operations (and thanks for not referencing Wikipedia as authoritative).

Now you are really going off the deep end.  Be careful young padawan.  The Admiral Boorda issue is very dangerous ground.

For the record, I was not pointing out that Admiral Boorda did anything himself out of malice. I was only pointing out an illustration that (as exampled here), it means a great deal for the powers that be to get it right the first time. From reading his case, you can see that all of the inconsistencies in the awards system and record keeping led him to honestly believe that he had lawfully earned the awards in question. Lots of veterans think they are entitled to a certain award and wear it proudly, only to find out later that they are wearing it wrong, or it wasn't really awarded that way in terms of the "letter of the law".

In the extreme case of Admiral Boorda, the inconsistencies and lack of clarity on the part of the Navy, ultimately caused this otherwise outstanding officer to doubt himself, and for others to doubt him. I for one am trying to keep this type of confusion from similarly affecting anyone else to such a heartbreaking end. Bottom line is, for a great many of our troops, this sort of thing does matter very much.

It is a slam on CAP...because you are saying we don't deserve the recognition we have developed for ourselves.

Wrong, that is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that CAP did not develop this recognition device ourselves. We took the military tradition of using their "V" device, but are using it in CAP for a different purpose and with a different meaning. If I was talking about the CAP only triangle / prop devices, then you could make a case.

It is impossible to have a military style uniform with out borrowing something from the military.  We needed s device to denote the difference between the Disaster Preparedness Training Ribbon and the Disaster Preparedness Service Ribbon.  They used a bronze "V"....because it was easy, available and cheap.

Wrong here. We only have one Disaster Relief Ribbon in CAP - not 2. We do have 2 different award criteria for the same ribbon - one for training etc. and one for Presidentially declared service. The idea that a "V" device was decided upon rather than something more appropriate because it was easy, available, and cheap is a cop out. There are a lot of other devices that are just as readily available, easy, and cheap that cannot be confused in any way for an award for combat valor.

Here's a test to try sometime - put up a row of ribbons of any U.S. military or paramilitary service, and include a CAP DRR with "V". Then show the rack to anyone with a military background and ask them which one in the rack is specifically for combat valor.

[lordmonar]

Okay....last one first.

We have two (2) Disaster Relief Ribbons.

1) Disaster Relief Ribbon
2) Disaster Relief Ribbon with "V" Device

One if for training and one is for service during a Presidential Declared Disaster.

They use the same ribbon....but the "V" device is not an add on as it is to any other military award that is allowed a "V" device.

Second...We are CAP not the U.S. Military (TM).  By saying that we (CAP) can't or should not use a particular device because of how the military uses them....is attempt to equate us with the military.  It is the letter V....a silver one at that.  If you are so stuck on "V for valor'.....why not just say it is "V for vigilance' and be done with it.

Third....I'll say no more about Admiral Borda.  I had to live through that time and it made many of military people very angry.

Fourth...You have to understand what the military means by "direct combat support".  The guy at the chow hall at RAF Mildenhall is providing direct combat support to the F-15 flying combat operations in Bosnia.  I got my first "V" in Japan and my second one in Nevada.  Neither one of them got me any more points to promotion or improved my chances for a good assignment.

Finally....yes it is just my opinion.  I retired in Oct '08 after 22 years in the USAF.  When I see a BSM with V or a SSM with V....or heck even an AFAM with V....I am suitable impressed.....sometimes.  But not a "V" on an AFOUA.

I don't think the average Joe USAF guy even know who CAP is and they are not going to get bent out of shape that the silver V is awarded with the DR Ribbon.

Bottom line is that there is not a problem.  We know what the V means.....if we explain it to others then we correct their misperceptions of what it means.

No need to go change everything just because you are manufacturing a problem that does not exist.

[RiverAux]

One if for training and one is for service during a Presidential Declared Disaster.

Somewhat misleading.  Participation in actual (or yes, training) sorites is required for the ribbon without the device and those sorties can be on any disaster. 

[OldSalt]

We have two (2) Disaster Relief Ribbons.

1) Disaster Relief Ribbon
2) Disaster Relief Ribbon with "V" Device

One if for training and one is for service during a Presidential Declared Disaster.

They use the same ribbon....but the "V" device is not an add on as it is to any other military award that is allowed a "V" device.

Okay, now I'm really confused. I just took a look at the latest CAPR 39-3 dated 22 FEB 2010 and you apparently are correct. Chapter 21 paragraphs "f" and "g" now define 2 separate awards. So, for those of us who have been awarded one DRR for training and regular DR participation, and one for Presidential duty, we wear 2 of the same ribbon now, except 1 has a "V" device. Whose idea was that one? Why do we persist in making it difficult to determine what someone has been awarded (see "the upside-down rule": Gill Robb Wilson vs. National Cmdr's Citation. "The swap one stripe rule": Community Service Ribbon vs. Command Service Ribbon, and "the add some stars rule": BMV vs. SMV).

Where is this in keeping with tradition? Whose money are we saving here? Hey, here's a great idea if saving money is all we are looking to do, let's save a ton of money and just use the membership ribbon design for everything and just add different devices to it. Afterall it's completely logical right? Level 1, you get 1 membership ribbon. Level 2 - here's another membership ribbon, but this one has a 2 on it. Unit Citation - great, put another Membership ribbon on, but put a big "U" device on it. Wait, you got a FIND, whohoo! Here's another membership ribbon, but this one has a silver prop on it. Heck take it a step further and just use one 6 inch long membership ribbon and just add devices for each different award. Afterall - it all about volunteer membership right? Why even keep to any type of "ribbon tradition". Let's just all get facial tatoos like in the Kurt Russell "Soldier" movie.
Ok, sorry. I digress.     

I do stand corrected on the 2 vs 1 award. I apologize for not reading the latest regs first.  :angel: Someone needs to change attachment 3 in CAPR 39-3 cause there is only one ribbon there now. BTW, What is the order of precedence now? Is the "V" ribbon higher on the food chain than the regular ribbon? Looks like another corrected copy is needed ASAP.

Second...We are CAP not the U.S. Military (TM).  By saying that we (CAP) can't or should not use a particular device because of how the military uses them....is attempt to equate us with the military.  It is the letter V....a silver one at that.  If you are so stuck on "V for valor'.....why not just say it is "V for vigilance' and be done with it.

Nice try, but does anyone buy this? Are we or are we not the AF Auxiliary? What does AF stand for anyway - Alma Fudd - Elmer's wife?

Finally....yes it is just my opinion.

Thanks for the clarification.    

No need to go change everything just because you are manufacturing a problem that does not exist.

Is this CAP or the Obama administration? Just because you say there is no problem doesn't make it so.

[SarDragon]

OK, let's take a quick vote.

How many of the participants in this thread think there is a problem?

How many of the participants in this thread think there is not a problem?

My vote is NOT.

[Eclipse]

Okay, now I'm really confused. I just took a look at the latest CAPR 39-3 dated 22 FEB 2010 and you apparently are correct. Chapter 21 paragraphs "f" and "g" now define 2 separate awards. So, for those of us who have been awarded one DRR for training and regular DR participation, and one for Presidential duty, we wear 2 of the same ribbon now, except 1 has a "V" device.

Its been that way for quite a while.  Nothing new there - they are separate awards for different duty.

Vote = NOT.

[Hawk200]

No need to go change everything just because you are manufacturing a problem that does not exist.

Is this CAP or the Obama administration? Just because you say there is no problem doesn't make it so.

The thing is that no one else has stated it's a problem. I've never heard of anyone in the miltary having an issue with it. If military people don't have a problem with it, then it's not a problem.

There are a few ribbons that look far more similar to military ones that could be issues, but aren't because no one made it one. Why make it an issue?

To flip the statement, just because you say there is a problem doesn't make it so.

[Hawk200]

OK, let's take a quick vote.

How many of the participants in this thread think there is a problem?

How many of the participants in this thread think there is not a problem?

My vote is NOT.

NOT.

[lordmonar]

OK, let's take a quick vote.

How many of the participants in this thread think there is a problem?

How many of the participants in this thread think there is not a problem?

My vote is NOT.

Not

[lordmonar]

Why do we persist in making it difficult to determine what someone has been awarded (see "the upside-down rule": Gill Robb Wilson vs. National Cmdr's Citation. "The swap one stripe rule": Community Service Ribbon vs. Command Service Ribbon, and "the add some stars rule": BMV vs. SMV).

Well on the BMV/SMV issue I think it was just to save money.  No need to develope a whole new ribbon and medal for the 3-4 your award per decade.

On the GRW vs the NCC I think again it was an effort to save money. the NCC no longer exists so they just flipped the ribbon when the created the GRW ribbon.

The community service ribbon vs the commadn servie ribbon was probably just laziness..... It's not just a CAP thing....look at the different NATO service medals and some of the Navy's ribbons.

[Al Sayre]

NOT

[OldSalt]

To flip the statement, just because you say there is a problem doesn't make it so.

Touche' - this is all just opinions.

Seriously though - I had an epiphany that wouldn't cost us any money, or any real heartburn, is incredibly simple to implement, and would satisfy even the most discriminating "award criteria and display nerd".

Ready for this - swap the devices between the Silver Medal of Valor and the Disaster Relief Ribbon. Put the silver "V" device on the Silver Medal of Valor, and put the silver stars on the Disaster Ribbon. Now, who has a problem with that? 

[vento]

OK, let's take a quick vote.

How many of the participants in this thread think there is a problem?

How many of the participants in this thread think there is not a problem?

My vote is NOT.

NOT

[OldSalt]

...swap the devices between the Silver Medal of Valor and the Disaster Relief Ribbon. Put the silver "V" device on the Silver Medal of Valor, and put the silver stars on the Disaster Ribbon.

To expound further, this idea is definitely keeping with tradition because if you think of the DRR with "V" device as a Campaign Ribbon, then the use of stars to denote a Presidentially Declared Emergency fits perfectly. Similarly, I don't think you'd get an argument from anyone given the significant and heroic nature of the award criteria for the SMV if you put a silver "V" device on it - and it addresses my argument. You wouldn't have to explain to anyone that the silver "V" device is for valor on a Silver Medal of Valor ribbon.  :clap:   

[a2capt]

NOT ...

..and as I said, and was said, we wear it- and we explain it. Life goes on. No one gets bent. I've never heard of anyone getting bent over it. Not even before it was explained.

It is .. what it is.

[lordmonar]

Ready for this - swap the devices between the Silver Medal of Valor and the Disaster Relief Ribbon. Put the silver "V" device on the Silver Medal of Valor, and put the silver stars on the Disaster Ribbon. Now, who has a problem with that? 

Why?

SMV looks nice with the three stars.
Three stars on the DR"V" would interfere with the ability to show multiple awards.
Plus all the SMV and DR"V" wearers out there would have to buy new ribbons and devices.   You got $400+ to reimburse them because you don't like the V on a non-combat ribbon?

[MIKE]

^ IMO the three stars looks dumb on the SMV... This is the case for the silver and bronze "V" IMO.

[Hawk200]

^ IMO the three stars looks dumb on the SMV... This is the case for the silver and bronze "V" IMO.

Still think we should have a separate ribbon for the Silver. We seem to have all these other lower ribbons with new designs, but we can't design a new drape for the Silver? Seems a little off to me.

[Major Carrales]

OK, let's take a quick vote.

How many of the participants in this thread think there is a problem?

How many of the participants in this thread think there is not a problem?

My vote is NOT.

My vote is also NOT.  "Artificial controversy" is often a "soup d'jour" here that needs to be ordered less and eventually taken off the menu.

[PHall]

NOT

This is an "answer" looking for a problem.