Ribbons on Miniature Medals

Started by JC004, January 02, 2015, 01:21:12 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

JC004

I am curious why the ribbons are different from the full-size ribbons on some miniature medals.  Are these old designs from cartoon-era ribbons?  Does the military do this on any of its mini medals?  I was wondering if there's history to it, or what...

Some examples:

Unit Citation has a white border (so does SAR):




Earhart is all stripes:



Mitchell has stars (same with Spaatz):



James Shaw

Quote from: JC004 on January 02, 2015, 01:21:12 AM
I am curious why the ribbons are different from the full-size ribbons on some miniature medals.  Are these old designs from cartoon-era ribbons?  Does the military do this on any of its mini medals?  I was wondering if there's history to it, or what...

Some examples:

Unit Citation has a white border (so does SAR):




Earhart is all stripes:



Mitchell has stars (same with Spaatz):



A matter of economics. These are original design and when the ribbons changed they didn't see a need to change the minis.
Jim Shaw
USN: 1987-1992
GANG: 1996-1998
CAP:2000 - Current
USCGA:2018 - Current
SGAUS: 2017 - Current

PHall

And no, the military does not do that. The ribbons on the mini and full size medals match the ribbons.

JC004

Interesting.  The stars made me think of the cartoon ribbon era.  Did the former unit citation and SAR ribbons have white ends?

SarDragon

Quote from: JC004 on January 02, 2015, 03:38:03 AM
Interesting.  The stars made me think of the cartoon ribbon era.  Did the former unit citation and SAR ribbons have white ends?

The Unit Citation does not, nor does the Air Search and Rescue ribbon. That's straight from CAPM 39-1, 15 Aug 1960, which predates the cartoon ribbons by three years.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

MSG Mac

Quote from: JC004 on January 02, 2015, 03:38:03 AM
Interesting.  The stars made me think of the cartoon ribbon era.  Did the former unit citation and SAR ribbons have white ends?

The stars and the capital M on the ribbon was to give no doubt that the award was the General "Billy" Mitchell Award.
Michael P. McEleney
Lt Col CAP
MSG USA (Retired)
50 Year Member

flyboy53

#6
Just the same, for all the money spent though Big V, it would be nice if the company would develop a miniature ribbon drape that coordinates with the ribbon or vice a versa.

More often than not, I see CAP ribbons worn by the National Guard, State Guard, ROTC or what have you. It seems to indicate that there is one big sample of various ribbon designs and the powers that be elect to chose one to represent an award, whether the two parts of the award elements match or not. I'm pretty sure those organizations do the same in relation to us -- like for example, the red, white and blue CAP ribbon for wartime service is actually the NYS Conspicuous Service Cross that was created by state law about a century ago.

Seems to me that this is another historical issue that needs to be addressed by NHQ; economics or not and whether they listen or not. Just another example why the whole awards and decorations program needs to be reviewed.

PHall

Quote from: flyboy53 on January 02, 2015, 04:18:47 PM
Just the same, for all the money spent though Big V, it would be nice if the company would develop a miniature ribbon drape that coordinates with the ribbon or vice a versa.

More often than not, I see CAP ribbons worn by the National Guard, State Guard, ROTC or what have you. It seems to indicate that there is one big sample of various ribbon designs and the powers that be elect to chose one to represent an award, whether the two parts of the award elements match or not. I'm pretty sure those organizations do the same in relation to us -- like for example, the red, white and blue CAP ribbon for wartime service is actually the NYS Conspicuous Service Cross that was created by state law about a century ago.

Seems to me that this is another historical issue that needs to be addressed by NHQ; economics or not and whether they listen or not. Just another example why the whole awards and decorations program needs to be reviewed.

Oh, you mean give that 12 person Historian section a real job maybe?

MisterCD

Not sure if you trolling or just uninformed, but the staff is and has been working on a variety of matters. Sorry if we do not spend every waking moment on insignia issues, but there are matters that take a bit more priority, the CGM being one that absorbed a huge amount of time and resources.

There is a body that can address insignia matter: the National Uniform Committee. Bring the concern/issue before Col Griffith and he will bring it up in the monthly meetings.

JC004

State Guard Association, Faithful Service Ribbon (CAP Medal of Valor):



http://www.sgaus.org/store/store.asp?cat=1#1

PHall

Quote from: MisterCD on January 02, 2015, 08:56:43 PM
Not sure if you trolling or just uninformed, but the staff is and has been working on a variety of matters. Sorry if we do not spend every waking moment on insignia issues, but there are matters that take a bit more priority, the CGM being one that absorbed a huge amount of time and resources.

There is a body that can address insignia matter: the National Uniform Committee. Bring the concern/issue before Col Griffith and he will bring it up in the monthly meetings.


Nope, not trolling and sorry if I'm not on your special, "members only" list, but the CGM is done and I suggested you guys only because everytime the NUC does do something with insignia/meadals/ribbons you guys complain you weren't "consulted".

MisterCD

Quote from: PHall on January 02, 2015, 09:43:32 PM
Quote from: MisterCD on January 02, 2015, 08:56:43 PM
Not sure if you trolling or just uninformed, but the staff is and has been working on a variety of matters. Sorry if we do not spend every waking moment on insignia issues, but there are matters that take a bit more priority, the CGM being one that absorbed a huge amount of time and resources.

There is a body that can address insignia matter: the National Uniform Committee. Bring the concern/issue before Col Griffith and he will bring it up in the monthly meetings.


Nope, not trolling and sorry if I'm not on your special, "members only" list, but the CGM is done and I suggested you guys only because everytime the NUC does do something with insignia/meadals/ribbons you guys complain you weren't "consulted".

You flatter me by assuming there is a "members only list," as I have often been told by members who have been CAP historians for years that I am the first national historian to ever contact them or even provide quarterly updates on the program. Yes, the CGM may be done as far as you are concerned, but I am still answering emails from vets, wing and squadron commanders, not to mention assisting NHQ with various matters regarding the state medal presentations. My work is far from over with it. As it stands, I'm also involved in the 75th anniversary work, several research projects, museum displays - including getting a CAP display back into the National Museum of the USAF and possibly several other national aviation museums - not to mention the living history program being developed by my staff, and getting regs updated and revised as well as new ones published. The largest project by far has been organizing, cataloging, and digitizing all the records and artifacts saved over the previous decades. The artifacts were not well cataloged much less organized, and neither the records. The website history.cap.gov is up to act as a digital library/archive for what is in storage, and I recommend you visit it if you haven't.

I personally am not that interested in insignia, decorations, ribbons, etc., at least not at the level of the folks on this forum or in CAP. I do not buy the argument that the historians were not consulted and complain. My predecessors were all on the NUC and were informed of what was happening, as have I from the moment I took the position. If they did not voice why decisions were made or insignia designed the way it was then perhaps the other historians or CAP members need to ask them they changes or designs took place.

Regarding insignia in use now, I have voiced concerns for people as they were brought to me and do not have a problem voicing concerns about things now. Presently two of my staff are working to set the standards on the exact colors for all the ribbons, as there is no...nor ever has been...a standard for the CAP ribbon colors. The manufacturers, not CAP, chose particular colors and stuck with them, and no one thought to put in place specifications akin to the military. A "CAPSpec," if you will, is being developed, but by the NUC requesting it and historians assisting.

As it stands, there is no standard that I am aware of for the vast majority of CAP insignia, certainly nothing as direct as what is used by the military.

And that two of CAP's ribbons should share designs from New York's State Guard, I would personally ask one of my predecessors, a member of this unit, if he took his inspiration for CAP designs from the guard's awards and decorations.


PHall

Quote from: MisterCD on January 02, 2015, 11:07:23 PM
And that two of CAP's ribbons should share designs from New York's State Guard, I would personally ask one of my predecessors, a member of this unit, if he took his inspiration for CAP designs from the guard's awards and decorations.


Go take a look at the ribbon section over at http://www.glendale.com  you'll more then a few near misses to CAP ribbons.

MSG Mac

#13
In the realm of ribbon color and design, many of the Federal and State ribbons are duplicated by other Organizations. Obsolete federal awards are renamed and reused by not only CAP, but (j)ROTC, National Guards, State Defense Forces, Bands, etc. No big deal as long as we know the. Individual never served in the Civil War or with Admiral Byrd's Antarctic Expedition. But I do agree that CAP should redesign the mini medals to correspond with the ribbon. This is not a priority, especially since  CAP is responsible for buying all the old stock from VG, before the new stock is put on sale.
Michael P. McEleney
Lt Col CAP
MSG USA (Retired)
50 Year Member

The CyBorg is destroyed

Movies/TV sometimes use CAP ribbons for characters portraying military personnel.
Exiled from GLR-MI-011

flyboy53

#15
Quote from: MisterCD on January 02, 2015, 11:07:23 PM
Quote from: PHall on January 02, 2015, 09:43:32 PM
Quote from: MisterCD on January 02, 2015, 08:56:43 PM
Not sure if you trolling or just uninformed, but the staff is and has been working on a variety of matters. Sorry if we do not spend every waking moment on insignia issues, but there are matters that take a bit more priority, the CGM being one that absorbed a huge amount of time and resources.

There is a body that can address insignia matter: the National Uniform Committee. Bring the concern/issue before Col Griffith and he will bring it up in the monthly meetings.

Nope, not trolling and sorry if I'm not on your special, "members only" list, but the CGM is done and I suggested you guys only because everytime the NUC does do something with insignia/meadals/ribbons you guys complain you weren't "consulted".

You flatter me by assuming there is a "members only list," as I have often been told by members who have been CAP historians for years that I am the first national historian to ever contact them or even provide quarterly updates on the program. Yes, the CGM may be done as far as you are concerned, but I am still answering emails from vets, wing and squadron commanders, not to mention assisting NHQ with various matters regarding the state medal presentations. My work is far from over with it. As it stands, I'm also involved in the 75th anniversary work, several research projects, museum displays - including getting a CAP display back into the National Museum of the USAF and possibly several other national aviation museums - not to mention the living history program being developed by my staff, and getting regs updated and revised as well as new ones published. The largest project by far has been organizing, cataloging, and digitizing all the records and artifacts saved over the previous decades. The artifacts were not well cataloged much less organized, and neither the records. The website history.cap.gov is up to act as a digital library/archive for what is in storage, and I recommend you visit it if you haven't.

I personally am not that interested in insignia, decorations, ribbons, etc., at least not at the level of the folks on this forum or in CAP. I do not buy the argument that the historians were not consulted and complain. My predecessors were all on the NUC and were informed of what was happening, as have I from the moment I took the position. If they did not voice why decisions were made or insignia designed the way it was then perhaps the other historians or CAP members need to ask them they changes or designs took place.

Regarding insignia in use now, I have voiced concerns for people as they were brought to me and do not have a problem voicing concerns about things now. Presently two of my staff are working to set the standards on the exact colors for all the ribbons, as there is no...nor ever has been...a standard for the CAP ribbon colors. The manufacturers, not CAP, chose particular colors and stuck with them, and no one thought to put in place specifications akin to the military. A "CAPSpec," if you will, is being developed, but by the NUC requesting it and historians assisting.

As it stands, there is no standard that I am aware of for the vast majority of CAP insignia, certainly nothing as direct as what is used by the military.

And that two of CAP's ribbons should share designs from New York's State Guard, I would personally ask one of my predecessors, a member of this unit, if he took his inspiration for CAP designs from the guard's awards and decorations.

Not to belabor this issue, but PHall is right and given that we are both coming at this issue from the perspective of our Air Force experience, may I enlighten you.

The involvement of the Historian's Office in the development/correction/standard of CAP Awards is vitally important to ensure correct heraldry of the design if the award is to be properly done and be meaningful.

Every military medal, ribbon or decoration has a heraldry  description that not only ensures consistency in colors but also a meaning of the award's design. That gives the award a greater meaning, especially if this information is provided at the time of presentation.

I've always enjoyed reading the heraldry behind medals like the Purple Heart and the Army Good Conduct Medal. It's interesting that both awards have evolved from decorations first established by George Washington. Given the design of the medals is one thing, but the colors used in the ribbons also have meaning.

Most of us who are former Air Force Security Forces members can quote the heraldry significance of our berets and what used to be the qualification badge. At the same time, many aircraft maintenance types take great pride that the falcon that is central to the design of the aircraft maintenance badge comes from one at the National Cathedral and that the overall design has a heraldry that reflects to their duties. Such information, though possibly trivial, gives meaning and purpose.

Up until some point in the late 1950s or early 1960s, all CAP ribbons and awards were designed with the assistance and approval of the Army Heraldry people. The CAP's awards, ribbons and medals should still have to be accomplished with that same degree of standard. Given that the headquarters is there at Maxwell -- at the center of the Air Force's historical function, there really is no excuse that the proper design process is not used when creating a CAP award.

Proper vetting of an award design in terms of heraldry would not have allowed instances where the ribbon design is different from the ribbon drape.Therefore, your role should not be minimalized whether you are interested in it or not. Also, it becomes just as important to our history as the design of any unit patch or badge that we wear.

James Shaw

Quote from: flyboy53 on January 06, 2015, 12:54:13 PM
Quote from: MisterCD on January 02, 2015, 11:07:23 PM
Quote from: PHall on January 02, 2015, 09:43:32 PM
Quote from: MisterCD on January 02, 2015, 08:56:43 PM
Not sure if you trolling or just uninformed, but the staff is and has been working on a variety of matters. Sorry if we do not spend every waking moment on insignia issues, but there are matters that take a bit more priority, the CGM being one that absorbed a huge amount of time and resources.

There is a body that can address insignia matter: the National Uniform Committee. Bring the concern/issue before Col Griffith and he will bring it up in the monthly meetings.

Nope, not trolling and sorry if I'm not on your special, "members only" list, but the CGM is done and I suggested you guys only because everytime the NUC does do something with insignia/meadals/ribbons you guys complain you weren't "consulted".

You flatter me by assuming there is a "members only list," as I have often been told by members who have been CAP historians for years that I am the first national historian to ever contact them or even provide quarterly updates on the program. Yes, the CGM may be done as far as you are concerned, but I am still answering emails from vets, wing and squadron commanders, not to mention assisting NHQ with various matters regarding the state medal presentations. My work is far from over with it. As it stands, I'm also involved in the 75th anniversary work, several research projects, museum displays - including getting a CAP display back into the National Museum of the USAF and possibly several other national aviation museums - not to mention the living history program being developed by my staff, and getting regs updated and revised as well as new ones published. The largest project by far has been organizing, cataloging, and digitizing all the records and artifacts saved over the previous decades. The artifacts were not well cataloged much less organized, and neither the records. The website history.cap.gov is up to act as a digital library/archive for what is in storage, and I recommend you visit it if you haven't.

I personally am not that interested in insignia, decorations, ribbons, etc., at least not at the level of the folks on this forum or in CAP. I do not buy the argument that the historians were not consulted and complain. My predecessors were all on the NUC and were informed of what was happening, as have I from the moment I took the position. If they did not voice why decisions were made or insignia designed the way it was then perhaps the other historians or CAP members need to ask them they changes or designs took place.

Regarding insignia in use now, I have voiced concerns for people as they were brought to me and do not have a problem voicing concerns about things now. Presently two of my staff are working to set the standards on the exact colors for all the ribbons, as there is no...nor ever has been...a standard for the CAP ribbon colors. The manufacturers, not CAP, chose particular colors and stuck with them, and no one thought to put in place specifications akin to the military. A "CAPSpec," if you will, is being developed, but by the NUC requesting it and historians assisting.

As it stands, there is no standard that I am aware of for the vast majority of CAP insignia, certainly nothing as direct as what is used by the military.

And that two of CAP's ribbons should share designs from New York's State Guard, I would personally ask one of my predecessors, a member of this unit, if he took his inspiration for CAP designs from the guard's awards and decorations.

Not to belabor this issue, but PHall is right and given that we are both coming at this issue from the perspective of our Air Force experience, may I enlighten you.

The involvement of the Historian's Office in the development/correction/standard of CAP Awards is vitally important to ensure correct heraldry of the design if the award is to be properly done and be meaningful.

Every military medal, ribbon or decoration has a heraldry  description that not only ensures consistency in colors but also a meaning of the award's design. That gives the award a greater meaning, especially if this information is provided at the time of presentation.

I've always enjoyed reading the heraldry behind medals like the Purple Heart and the Army Good Conduct Medal. It's interesting that both awards have evolved from decorations first established by George Washington. Given the design of the medals is one thing, but the colors used in the ribbons also have meaning.

Most of us who are former Air Force Security Forces members can quote the heraldry significance of our berets and what used to be the qualification badge. At the same time, many aircraft maintenance types take great pride that the falcon that is central to the design of the aircraft maintenance badge comes from one at the National Cathedral and that the overall design has a heraldry that reflects to their duties. Such information, though possibly trivial, gives meaning and purpose.

Up until some point in the late 1950s or early 1960s, all CAP ribbons and wards were designed with the assistance and approval of the Army Heraldry people. The CAP's awards, ribbons and medals should still have to be accomplished with that same degree of standard. Given that the headquarters is there at Maxwell -- at the center of the Air Force's historical function, there really is no excuse that the proper design process is not used when creating a CAP award.

Proper vetting of an award design in terms of heraldry would not have allowed instances where the ribbon design is different from the ribbon drape.Therefore, your role should not be minimalized whether you are interested in it or not. Also, it becomes just as important to our history as the design of any unit patch or badge that we wear.

Some of the more recent Awards and Badges do have Heraldic Information...most however do not.

NHQ Staff Badge
Achievement Award
National Honors Ribbon
Drug Demand Reduction Specialty Badge
Ira Eaker Award (Planchet)

I helped design the NHQ Staff Badge and completely designed the others listed.
Jim Shaw
USN: 1987-1992
GANG: 1996-1998
CAP:2000 - Current
USCGA:2018 - Current
SGAUS: 2017 - Current

Alaric

Quote from: MisterCD on January 02, 2015, 11:07:23 PM
Quote from: PHall on January 02, 2015, 09:43:32 PM
Quote from: MisterCD on January 02, 2015, 08:56:43 PM
Not sure if you trolling or just uninformed, but the staff is and has been working on a variety of matters. Sorry if we do not spend every waking moment on insignia issues, but there are matters that take a bit more priority, the CGM being one that absorbed a huge amount of time and resources.

There is a body that can address insignia matter: the National Uniform Committee. Bring the concern/issue before Col Griffith and he will bring it up in the monthly meetings.


Nope, not trolling and sorry if I'm not on your special, "members only" list, but the CGM is done and I suggested you guys only because everytime the NUC does do something with insignia/meadals/ribbons you guys complain you weren't "consulted".

You flatter me by assuming there is a "members only list," as I have often been told by members who have been CAP historians for years that I am the first national historian to ever contact them or even provide quarterly updates on the program. Yes, the CGM may be done as far as you are concerned, but I am still answering emails from vets, wing and squadron commanders, not to mention assisting NHQ with various matters regarding the state medal presentations. My work is far from over with it. As it stands, I'm also involved in the 75th anniversary work, several research projects, museum displays - including getting a CAP display back into the National Museum of the USAF and possibly several other national aviation museums - not to mention the living history program being developed by my staff, and getting regs updated and revised as well as new ones published. The largest project by far has been organizing, cataloging, and digitizing all the records and artifacts saved over the previous decades. The artifacts were not well cataloged much less organized, and neither the records. The website history.cap.gov is up to act as a digital library/archive for what is in storage, and I recommend you visit it if you haven't.


Whereas I understand that by its very nature the Historical department will always be backwards looking (i.e. History, the study of past events).  It does concern me that as an organization we seem to be spending a great deal of time and resources on the past (CGM, 75th Anniversary) and very little on making sure we are a viable organization for the present and future.  I'm thrilled we were able to get a CGM in acknowledgement of those who served, but to me any money or time spent on the 75th Anniversary that could have been spent on operations is a waste.  We've been around 75 years, great.  I want to be part of an organization that will still be around when my children and grandchildren come of age (if I ever have any).  This constant patting ourselves on the back and celebration for what was done before most members were born is detrimental to the organization as a whole

MisterCD

#18
Quote from: flyboy53 on January 06, 2015, 12:54:13 PM
Quote from: MisterCD on January 02, 2015, 11:07:23 PM
Quote from: PHall on January 02, 2015, 09:43:32 PM
Quote from: MisterCD on January 02, 2015, 08:56:43 PM
Not sure if you trolling or just uninformed, but the staff is and has been working on a variety of matters. Sorry if we do not spend every waking moment on insignia issues, but there are matters that take a bit more priority, the CGM being one that absorbed a huge amount of time and resources.

There is a body that can address insignia matter: the National Uniform Committee. Bring the concern/issue before Col Griffith and he will bring it up in the monthly meetings.

Nope, not trolling and sorry if I'm not on your special, "members only" list, but the CGM is done and I suggested you guys only because everytime the NUC does do something with insignia/meadals/ribbons you guys complain you weren't "consulted".

You flatter me by assuming there is a "members only list," as I have often been told by members who have been CAP historians for years that I am the first national historian to ever contact them or even provide quarterly updates on the program. Yes, the CGM may be done as far as you are concerned, but I am still answering emails from vets, wing and squadron commanders, not to mention assisting NHQ with various matters regarding the state medal presentations. My work is far from over with it. As it stands, I'm also involved in the 75th anniversary work, several research projects, museum displays - including getting a CAP display back into the National Museum of the USAF and possibly several other national aviation museums - not to mention the living history program being developed by my staff, and getting regs updated and revised as well as new ones published. The largest project by far has been organizing, cataloging, and digitizing all the records and artifacts saved over the previous decades. The artifacts were not well cataloged much less organized, and neither the records. The website history.cap.gov is up to act as a digital library/archive for what is in storage, and I recommend you visit it if you haven't.

I personally am not that interested in insignia, decorations, ribbons, etc., at least not at the level of the folks on this forum or in CAP. I do not buy the argument that the historians were not consulted and complain. My predecessors were all on the NUC and were informed of what was happening, as have I from the moment I took the position. If they did not voice why decisions were made or insignia designed the way it was then perhaps the other historians or CAP members need to ask them they changes or designs took place.

Regarding insignia in use now, I have voiced concerns for people as they were brought to me and do not have a problem voicing concerns about things now. Presently two of my staff are working to set the standards on the exact colors for all the ribbons, as there is no...nor ever has been...a standard for the CAP ribbon colors. The manufacturers, not CAP, chose particular colors and stuck with them, and no one thought to put in place specifications akin to the military. A "CAPSpec," if you will, is being developed, but by the NUC requesting it and historians assisting.

As it stands, there is no standard that I am aware of for the vast majority of CAP insignia, certainly nothing as direct as what is used by the military.

And that two of CAP's ribbons should share designs from New York's State Guard, I would personally ask one of my predecessors, a member of this unit, if he took his inspiration for CAP designs from the guard's awards and decorations.

Not to belabor this issue, but PHall is right and given that we are both coming at this issue from the perspective of our Air Force experience, may I enlighten you.

The involvement of the Historian's Office in the development/correction/standard of CAP Awards is vitally important to ensure correct heraldry of the design if the award is to be properly done and be meaningful.

Every military medal, ribbon or decoration has a heraldry  description that not only ensures consistency in colors but also a meaning of the award's design. That gives the award a greater meaning, especially if this information is provided at the time of presentation.

I've always enjoyed reading the heraldry behind medals like the Purple Heart and the Army Good Conduct Medal. It's interesting that both awards have evolved from decorations first established by George Washington. Given the design of the medals is one thing, but the colors used in the ribbons also have meaning.

Most of us who are former Air Force Security Forces members can quote the heraldry significance of our berets and what used to be the qualification badge. At the same time, many aircraft maintenance types take great pride that the falcon that is central to the design of the aircraft maintenance badge comes from one at the National Cathedral and that the overall design has a heraldry that reflects to their duties. Such information, though possibly trivial, gives meaning and purpose.

Up until some point in the late 1950s or early 1960s, all CAP ribbons and wards were designed with the assistance and approval of the Army Heraldry people. The CAP's awards, ribbons and medals should still have to be accomplished with that same degree of standard. Given that the headquarters is there at Maxwell -- at the center of the Air Force's historical function, there really is no excuse that the proper design process is not used when creating a CAP award.

Proper vetting of an award design in terms of heraldry would not have allowed instances where the ribbon design is different from the ribbon drape.Therefore, your role should not be minimalized whether you are interested in it or not. Also, it becomes just as important to our history as the design of any unit patch or badge that we wear.

I will ask the point of why this matter of ribbons on medals not matching the ribbon bars was left ignored for so long, well before I came on board. Presumably someone has brought this up before, yes?

And as for minimalizing aspects of heraldry, I would not have requested a heraldry regulation and guidance pamphlet if I felt the matter completely unimportant. I do believe there needs to be more emphasis on other matters aside from wanting to design new insignia constantly and just collecting insignia. If we do not know what it means or even have design specifications for what is currently in use, designing more insignia seems to be ignoring a greater problem. Bottom line remains that issues are but one problem warranting attention, but not the problem to address entirely. There is an individual on the staff appointed specifically to oversee heraldry issues and this matter is but one he has to work on. Establishing the hard and fast colors used on the present ribbons and getting the designs standardized is his second priority, the first to get CAPP 7 and CAPR 210-2 published.

As for the 75th, one of the problems I hear expressed often is that our brand and identity are not known. Did any of you all for a second realize that the CGM and the 75th represent marketing opportunities and a way to bring CAP greater recognition, not so much for past accomplishments but that we exist in general? Put large museum displays together at the NMUSAF or NASM and you have millions of people learning at least something about CAP, and if even a small fraction goes so far as to joining, a small one-time investment can yield far more than several million putting a logo on a race car. Lastly, ask books we have or even solid monographs talking about CAP's work from 1950 to the present, as you will not find one. Writing a history to cover the organization's entire history is not easily accomplished, but invaluable to moving forwards. Helps to know of past successes and failures if trying to chart a new course for the next 75 years, or at least have some insight into the culture and character of the group.

Call it detrimental if you like, but the effort opened doors for CAP, both financially and with influential groups that can provide access to resources previously unavailable to CAP.

Alaric

Quote from: MisterCD on January 06, 2015, 02:10:03 PM

As for the 75th, one of the problems I hear expressed often is that our brand and identity are not known. Did any of you all for a second realize that the CGM and the 75th represent marketing opportunities and a way to bring CAP greater recognition, not so much for past accomplishments but that we exist in general? Put large museum displays together at the NMUSAF or NASM and you have millions of people learning at least something about CAP, and if even a small fraction goes so far as to joining, a small one-time investment can yield far more than several million putting a logo on a race car. Lastly, ask books we have or even solid monographs talking about CAP's work from 1950 to the present, as you will not find one. Writing a history to cover the organization's entire history is not easily accomplished, but invaluable to moving forwards. Helps to know of past successes and failures if trying to chart a new course for the next 75 years, or at least have some insight into the culture and character of the group.

Call it detrimental if you like, but the effort opened doors for CAP, both financially and with influential groups that can provide access to resources previously unavailable to CAP.

When I was in college, the decision was made to go Division I, the idea being that this would bring in more Alumni support and financing.  It didn't work.  So whereas I recognize that CAP believes that expending effort on the 75th anniversary will bring CAP greater recognition, but wishing doesn't make it so. 

My point still is that in my opinion, we spend far too much time talking about what we did in WWII and when SAR was in its heyday.  Great, move on.  Right now, we are not being seen as credible by many of the State and Local response agencies we need to work with if we are going to stay viable.  For myself, I don't care what did in the 50s, or the 70s or the 90s because it has no impact on our capabilities now.  I have never seen a book on the Disaster Services of the Red Cross, but it seems they can still change as needed to be relevant as the world changes, the same is true of the Coast Guard Auxiliary, the Community Emergency Response Team movement, and the Boy Scouts of America.  I have seen books on their founding, but not a retrospective on what they have done for the last several decades.  Perhaps its because they wish to concentrate on actual adaptation to current operational needs, perhaps its because they don't have historians, I don't know.  I know that I am tired of hearing what we have done, I'm far more interested in what we will be doing.

flyboy53

#20
Although I respect your opinion, you can't have a firm understanding of the future without knowing your past.

However, just like the Air Force, the CAP has always had some sort of identity crisis and "re-branding" of mottos or various PR campaigns.

I don't know how many mottos I've seen in the Air Force since I joined. The only two that ever meant anything to me were "Pride in the Past, Faith in the Future" which was used around the time of the 25th anniversary and "Aim High" which was used when I first joined the Air Force and continued to be used for at least a decade.

While I can understand the  PR value of special displays at places like the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force and the Smithsonian, it calls to question what happened to the display that used to be at Wright-Patterson? Seems to me that's the true sad commentary of our organization's identity. I would hope that any new display is tied to the three or four CAP aircraft that are already part of the collection -- including the one in the Presidential Hangar -- and the old display.

Sure, build on the success of the CGM but tragically that is a PR achievement that should have been trumpeted by NHQ directly and not farmed out to the field for promotion. Also, the one aspect of the ceremony that I  noticed directly was the fact that those WW II CAP members are now called "veterans."

Shouldn't NHQ now take this honor to the next level and again pursue veterans recognition for these same individuals?

Eclipse

Quote from: Alaric on January 06, 2015, 02:55:41 PMWhen I was in college, the decision was made to go Division I, the idea being that this would bring in more Alumni support and financing.  It didn't work.  So whereas I recognize that CAP believes that expending effort on the 75th anniversary will bring CAP greater recognition, but wishing doesn't make it so. 

Agreed.  Simply put.  No one cares, not even the majority of the membership, and it's 100% irrelevant to
the demographic CAP is trying to recruit.  That's the harsh, painful reality and CAP needs to accept that and move on.

The knee-jerk response to that is "those who ignore the past, blah, blah...".  No one is saying ignore the past,
but it should not be the first, or even the fifth thing discussed when recruiting, talking to the media, etc.

Just as with our parent service, there should be enough going on in current ops that historical discussions
should be an afterthought, not featured in the majority of the press releases.

And by "current ops", just FYI - Columbia was 12 years ago, Katrina nearly 10, even Sandy was 2+ years ago.
Those aren't "current ops" either.

And if you're not involved in anything on that scale, or smaller missions but in reasonable quantity, TODAY,
there you go...



"That Others May Zoom"

The CyBorg is destroyed

I do not intend to be forever the hard-bitten cynic, but if we do not prove our worth to:

1. The Air Force, who largely ignores us (except for higher echelons, some enlightened base commanders and TPTB concerning uniforms) and/or does not know who we are.
2. The ES community, who we partner with on so many occasions (fire departments, first responders, law enforcement).
3. The Coast Guard - odd maybe, but last time I checked AuxAir was very miniscule.  We can help be their "eyes in the skies."
4. The National Guard, when they are activated for Disaster Relief missions.  Not all states have SDF's, and their level of capabilities vary considerably.
5. The educational community...however, in my area, CAP of any kind has been very restricted from high schools due to our quasi-military nature.
6. The awareness of the public in general.  I have frequently got comments of "I didn't know you guys still existed."

...well, everything on Earth has a "shelf life," and that could include CAP, especially as some of the above agencies are acquiring greater technology than is available to us in the ES role.

And now that John McCain looks to become Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee...well, for reasons best known to him, he has always had a burr in his butt about us.  I remember back in the '90s when he tried to kibosh us.  Now he just may have the power to accomplish it.

I have sometimes thought that it would be more effective to have us moved to Army jurisdiction.  Before you flame me, remember a few things:

1. We were largely formed under the USAAC/USAAF, before the Air Force was an independent service, so it's part of our "DNA."
2. On a personal level, I have had better relations with Soldiers I have encountered (especially ARNG) than with Airmen.
3. Except for a few dedicated CSAR units, many in the ANG/AFRES, the AF is not in the business of SAR, especially with said units so often on deployment.
4. It would fit better with GT-dedicated personnel; who is better at hoofing it through the brush than the Army? ;)
5. The Army has very little in the way of fixed-wing aviation these days - we might be able to fill a niche.
6. AFB's are often few and far between, depending on location.  The ARNG has a lot of armouries.  One unit I was in operated out of an armoury.  They treated us quite well.
7. I am sure our cadets would like O-rides on Chinooks or Hueys as much as they do Herks or KC-135's...and availability may be better.
8. The Army is larger than the Air Force and may have better funding to support us with.
9. ARNG units have SAR as one of their missions; we could help them.

These are only hypotheses, and I do not know if the Army would welcome us with open arms, but it might be worth a try.  Of course, it would take an act of Congress, and getting Congress to agree on anything except what [censored]s the people on the other side of the aisle are is a Herculean accomplishment nowadays.
Exiled from GLR-MI-011

Luis R. Ramos

Ok, does the CAP fly helos? Nope.

CAP airplanes may fly from short or long runways, but never from or into a helipad!

Who controls the NG armories? I remember when I was in a unit that met at an armory, renewing the annual permit the armory administrator had to go to Albany, to an office of the State Military Affairs.

Worse, since the armories are also subject to city control, every time the city needs money they enter into an agreement with a corporation that preempts CAP meeting.

Many were the times we could not meet since New York City needed the armory for an art show and auction, or filming the Victoria's Secret show.

I am not saying that Army, NG, or Reserve would be better or worse than the Air Force. Just that Grass is Greener on the Other Side.

And we were formed under USAAC/USAAF. Again, to support airplane operations. Flight operations. Not ground operations.
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer

LSThiker

Quote from: Alaric on January 06, 2015, 02:55:41 PM
My point still is that in my opinion, we spend far too much time talking about what we did in WWII and when SAR was in its heyday.  Great, move on.  {snip}  I know that I am tired of hearing what we have done, I'm far more interested in what we will be doing.

Future operations need to be addressed to the appropriate directorate:  Director of Operations.  If the recruiting material is constantly pushing the history and WWII, then that needs to be addressed to the Public Affairs/Recruiting Officer.  The Historian has little say over these decisions.  If you are constantly hearing about the history, then I would say that the Historian Directorate is doing his job by promoting his lane and that the other lanes are failing to promote their AORs.

I agree that the historian's office is responsible for the design of the ribbons, insignia, etc.  At least, that is the job of the TIOH for the military.  However, is it really a "top" priority that the ribbons match the medals?  Or are there some higher priority items that should be accomplished before changing the medals?  Will changing them now or next year or 5 years from now make any strategic difference?

Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on January 06, 2015, 09:04:20 PM
Worse, since the armories are also subject to city control, every time the city needs money they enter into an agreement with a corporation that preempts CAP meeting.

Armories are not under city control (or at least for the majority of states).  NG Armories are state property and fall under control of the state.  That being said, the state wants to make money off of their armories, which usually sit mostly vacant except under drill weekends and those areas used by AGR staff.  Therefore, they will sell the space to the highest payer. 

Eclipse

Quote from: LSThiker on January 06, 2015, 10:05:09 PMI agree that the historian's office is responsible for the design of the ribbons, insignia, etc.  At least, that is the job of the TIOH for the military.  However, is it really a "top" priority that the ribbons match the medals?  Or are there some higher priority items that should be accomplished before changing the medals?  Will changing them now or next year or 5 years from now make any strategic difference?

Will not changing them propagate the malaise?

Which details are the ones you can ignore until they pile up and become "problems"?

The regs are a mess.

The insignia are a mess.

The message is a mess.

The mission is shrinking and so is the membership.

NHQ purports that there are over 30k adult members, many (most?) who are professionals, and the
majority of them referring to themselves as "officers", some are even specifically charged with the fixes
yet it seems that even the most simple things are nearly impossible to change, either because
they are "too trivial to address now", or "so big there is not enough man power".

There's a reason for the term "low hanging fruit". Grab it while you can, because it clears off the ground
and the lower branches and makes the tree easier to see.

"That Others May Zoom"

Ned

Quote from: CyBorg on January 06, 2015, 08:36:34 PM
I do not intend to be forever the hard-bitten cynic, but if we do not prove our worth to:

1. The Air Force, who largely ignores us (except for higher echelons, some enlightened base commanders and TPTB concerning uniforms) and/or does not know who we are.

So, your position is something to the effect of "except for the people who actually run the Air Force, no one in the Air Force knows who we are?"  And that is such a terrible thing that [insert doom and gloom here] and CAP will be out of business shortly?

Sigh.

I've had a chance to chat with the AF Vice Chief of Staff, as well as the AFNORTH commander about CAP.  And you are absolutely correct that they are aware of us, and that they believe that we have not only justified our continued existence to the satisfaction of the AF, but that we add substantial, measurable value to the AF mission.

You may well be correct that SRA Jones and GS-5 Guy On the Gate may not fully appreciate both the current value and past heritage of this organization, and both we and our AF colleagues can do a better job of getting the word out.

And I also agree with what I think is your basic premise, that CAP must constantly be able to justify the trust placed in us by both the AF and Congress.  Our past successes in SAR, DR, and youth leadership programs means absolutely nothing if we cannot sustain our needed capabilities into the future.

Heck, I'm a taxpayer, too.  No agency, group, or program should receive tax dollars as some sort of "thank you for past services."  Thank Goodness that is not the case with us.

One way to avoid being taken as a "hard-bitten cynic" is to stop posting cynical messages in a public forum.


LSThiker

Quote from: Eclipse on January 06, 2015, 10:16:40 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on January 06, 2015, 10:05:09 PMI agree that the historian's office is responsible for the design of the ribbons, insignia, etc.  At least, that is the job of the TIOH for the military.  However, is it really a "top" priority that the ribbons match the medals?  Or are there some higher priority items that should be accomplished before changing the medals?  Will changing them now or next year or 5 years from now make any strategic difference?

Will not changing them propagate the malaise?

Which details are the ones you can ignore until they pile up and become "problems"?

The regs are a mess.

The insignia are a mess.

The message is a mess.

The mission is shrinking and so is the membership.

NHQ purports that there are over 30k adult members, many (most?) who are professionals, and the
majority of them referring to themselves as "officers", some are even specifically charged with the fixes
yet it seems that even the most simple things are nearly impossible to change, either because
they are "too trivial to address now", or "so big there is not enough man power".

There's a reason for the term "low hanging fruit". Grab it while you can, because it clears off the ground
and the lower branches and makes the tree easier to see.

And what strategic value will changing the ribbons on the medals bring that will address all of those problems addressed by you in previous posts and those above?

Pruning the lower branches does not necessarily mean doing it one leaf at a time. 

Does any one outside of the few people on CAPTalk really care that a few medals do not match exactly the ribbon counterparts? 

Eclipse

Quote from: LSThiker on January 06, 2015, 10:31:35 PM
And what strategic value will changing the ribbons on the medals bring that will address all of those problems addressed by you in previous posts and those above?

Pruning the lower branches does not necessarily mean doing it one leaf at a time. 

Does any one outside of the few people on CAPTalk really care that a few medals do not match exactly the ribbon counterparts?

So baseline competency means nothing?

And why does it only have to matter to those outside?  These things are primarily for and between members.
Do you think it bodes well on an organization that purports to the core value of excellence, not to mention
exalts attention to detail that it can't even get it's decorations to be the correct color?

When things THIS SIMPLE come up, yo just fix them.  DONE.  Then you never have to think about it
or answer the question again.

Another lesson CAP seems to miss - anytime a question is asked more then once, you set policy and answer it,
not leave it ambiguous for perpetuity, otherwise you spend all your time answering unnecessary questions
and losing member confidence.  Which is exactly and literally what CAP does.

"That Others May Zoom"

LSThiker

Quote from: Eclipse on January 06, 2015, 11:35:49 PM
Do you think it bodes well on an organization that purports to the core value of excellence, not to mention
exalts attention to detail that it can't even get it's decorations to be the correct color?

Perhaps there is a historical reason for the medals to be those designs that has been lost?  Therefore, it may just be the correct design and color.  Are you really saying that because CAP chose to make its medals with a different ribbon design than the ribbon counterparts, it fails at the attention to detail?  Perhaps if you were making the argument at insignia specifications and the lack of production consistency in the Cadet Grade insignia or the cloth GT badges, then I would agree.

QuoteWhen things THIS SIMPLE come up, yo just fix them.  DONE.  Then you never have to think about it
or answer the question again.

Except it is not "this simple".  You see, to change the medal designs will mean that NHQ has to buy all of the medal stocks.  Therefore, the question really is, does CAP need to spend money on something that really holds real value to its current set of problems?  Is this really a necessarily use of the member's money? Is it better to spend money and time on items that have no real value to the organization or spend that time and money on the "low hanging fruit" that have an actual benefit to the organization?  What is the cost-benefit of changing the medal designs?

QuoteAnother lesson CAP seems to miss - anytime a question is asked more then once, you set policy and answer it,
not leave it ambiguous for perpetuity, otherwise you spend all your time answering unnecessary questions
and losing member confidence.  Which is exactly and literally what CAP does.

And how will changing the medal designs correct this problem?

Eclipse

Quote from: LSThiker on January 07, 2015, 12:09:05 AMExcept it is not "this simple".  You see, to change the medal designs will mean that NHQ has to buy all of the medal stocks.  Therefore, the question really is, does CAP need to spend money on something that really holds real value to its current set of problems?  Is this really a necessarily use of the member's money? Is it better to spend money and time on items that have no real value to the organization or spend that time and money on the "low hanging fruit" that have an actual benefit to the organization?  What is the cost-benefit of changing the medal designs?

No, it doesn't.

It issues a sundown on new orders and runs out current stock, then once the dead stock is gone, the next
run is corrected.  Wear date in perpetuity for anyone with an award date of "x".

Done. 

Zero extra cost.   One less this on the list.


Quote from: LSThiker on January 07, 2015, 12:09:05 AM
And how will changing the medal designs correct this problem?

It's >part< of the solution to the larger problem.

Level One Foundations Course • Module Five:

"Excellence
CAP members should always be in continual pursuit of excellence; there is no room for the
"good enough" mentality.
Fulfilling Civil Air Patrol's three missions of emergency service,
cadet programs, and aerospace education often results in shaping lives and saving lives,
humanitarian volunteer work too important to be just "good enough."


"Why strive for excellence anyway?
One answer to that question may seem wonderfully simple, perhaps
some would rather I said, "simple minded." If I settle for
less than my best effort, then I must live with less than my
best self, and I won't then like myself very much. I shall fall
short of the kind of being I could have become; I may
even be what modern psychiatrists suggest is very
unhealthy--I may be ashamed of what I become."

                                    ----- Brigadier General (Ret.) Malham M. Wakin

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

If it not important enough to correct the error now.....why correct it at all?

And let's face it.....there may be thousands of these medals sitting on a shelf somewhere....we could "fix it" now....but it may be 10 years before they have to make a new run of mini medals.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

Quote from: lordmonar on January 07, 2015, 12:47:26 AM
If it not important enough to correct the error now.....why correct it at all?

And let's face it.....there may be thousands of these medals sitting on a shelf somewhere....we could "fix it" now....but it may be 10 years before they have to make a new run of mini medals.

Or there could be zero.

Wrong is wrong. If it's wrong, fix it.  If it's as intended, clarify in an appendix to 39-3 why they are different,
either way at least it's not added to the "meh" pile.

"That Others May Zoom"

LSThiker

Quote from: Eclipse on January 07, 2015, 12:42:49 AM

No, it doesn't.

It issues a sundown on new orders and runs out current stock, then once the dead stock is gone, the next
run is corrected.  Wear date in perpetuity for anyone with an award date of "x".

Done. 

Zero extra cost.   One less this on the list.


Unfortunately, from talking with Vanguard and NHQ, that apparently is not how it works with them. So yes, NHQ must buy all stocks of the medals. Whether we agree with that decision is for another discussion but is way beyond my pay grade.


Quote

It's >part< of the solution to the larger problem

First you have to demonstrate the medal designs are a problem and are associated with this "larger problem".

Quote from: lordmonar on January 07, 2015, 12:47:26 AM
If it not important enough to correct the error now.....why correct it at all?

And how do we know this is an error?  Perhaps it was designed this way intentionally or a direction passed down by the USAF at the time.

Eclipse

Quote from: LSThiker on January 07, 2015, 01:10:47 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 07, 2015, 12:42:49 AM

No, it doesn't.

It issues a sundown on new orders and runs out current stock, then once the dead stock is gone, the next
run is corrected.  Wear date in perpetuity for anyone with an award date of "x".

Done. 

Zero extra cost.   One less this on the list.


Unfortunately, from talking with Vanguard and NHQ, that apparently is not how it works with them. So yes, NHQ must buy all stocks of the medals. Whether we agree with that decision is for another discussion but is way beyond my pay grade.

"Dear VG,

Please terminate production of item number OU812, effective immediately.  Existing stocks will continue
to be sold until they are depleted.  We will notify you when and if a replacement is required.

     Love,

          CAP"

At some point CAP designs and reorders something else.  Everything other then the production order
is an internal process and not VGs concern.

As to the other, read my posts fully, beyond that, you're ignoring the points on purpose, or just don't get it,
either way, repeating myself isn't going to change that.

"That Others May Zoom"

LSThiker

Quote from: Eclipse on January 07, 2015, 01:31:57 AM
As to the other, read my posts fully, beyond that, you're ignoring the points on purpose, or just don't get it,
either way, repeating myself isn't going to change that.

No I did not miss them.  I have ignored it on purpose because organizational excellence, attention to detail, and CAP organizational issues are irrelevant to medal designs in this context.  Or at least until you demonstrate that the design is an error and is the result of those issues.  Simply because the ribbon on the medal and its counterpart do not match, while not within tradition, is not an necessarily an error or the result of those issues. 

QuoteAt some point CAP designs and reorders something else.  Everything other then the production order
is an internal process and not VGs concern.

Perhaps, but from what I have been told, and assuming that it is correct, CAP must purchase remaining stock when it discontinues or otherwise redesigns emblems.

Eclipse


"That Others May Zoom"

LSThiker

Quote from: Eclipse on January 07, 2015, 02:18:05 AM
Then I guess we're done.

I guess so.  However, if you find demonstrable evidence that shows the difference between the medal ribbons and the ribbon counterparts is due to CAP's a failure in excellence, attention to detail, or otherwise, I would be happy to discuss this further.  Until next time, as I am sure these exact same points will be brought up in other threads.  Good night there in Illinois. 

Luis R. Ramos

So you are telling me that if CAP decides to discontinue all ribbons and use challenge coins instead, it must buy all ribbon stock in Vanguard?

Incredible.
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer

JC004

I have noticed the color changes in ribbons (several times for the same ribbon).  Why can't they just make the updated ribbon when they run out of rolls of ribbon?  Leave the medals themselves be, I guess... 

Alaric

Quote from: JC004 on January 07, 2015, 03:26:30 PM
I have noticed the color changes in ribbons (several times for the same ribbon).  Why can't they just make the updated ribbon when they run out of rolls of ribbon?  Leave the medals themselves be, I guess...

I have never noticed a real color difference, but I don't get my ribbons from Vanguard, I get them from ultrathin.  The color has been consistent between the various sets I've had

JeffDG

Quote from: Ned on January 06, 2015, 10:22:25 PM
Heck, I'm a taxpayer, too.  No agency, group, or program should receive tax dollars as some sort of "thank you for past services."  Thank Goodness that is not the case with us.

Agree, with the exception of appropriately earned pension programs, which are "thank you for you past services", and are entirely appropriate.

LSThiker

Quote from: JC004 on January 07, 2015, 03:26:30 PM
I have noticed the color changes in ribbons (several times for the same ribbon).  Why can't they just make the updated ribbon when they run out of rolls of ribbon?

According to the Historian, the directorate is looking at creating the specifications for the colors and measurements for ribbons and insignia.  That should help, in theory, with the inconsistency of the production. 

Shuman 14

Would it not be cheaper, in the long run, to change the ribbons to match the medals?

$0.99 vs $5.00 per item when purchased in bulk... using country math.  :-\
Joseph J. Clune
Lieutenant Colonel, Military Police

USMCR: 1990 - 1992                           USAR: 1993 - 1998, 2000 - 2003, 2005 - Present     CAP: 2013 - 2014, 2021 - Present
INARNG: 1992 - 1993, 1998 - 2000      Active Army: 2003 - 2005                                       USCGAux: 2004 - Present

lordmonar

Quote from: shuman14 on January 07, 2015, 05:06:12 PM
Would it not be cheaper, in the long run, to change the ribbons to match the medals?

$0.99 vs $5.00 per item when purchased in bulk... using country math.  :-\
Depends on stock on hand.

$.99 x 10,000 vice $5 X 100.....
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Shuman 14

True, I hadn't thought of that.

Question to pose to Vanguard would be how much stock of each (ribbon and medal) do you have on hand.
Joseph J. Clune
Lieutenant Colonel, Military Police

USMCR: 1990 - 1992                           USAR: 1993 - 1998, 2000 - 2003, 2005 - Present     CAP: 2013 - 2014, 2021 - Present
INARNG: 1992 - 1993, 1998 - 2000      Active Army: 2003 - 2005                                       USCGAux: 2004 - Present

flyboy53

Listen, Big V is a insignia supplier for the military and numerous other organizations.

If a CAP ribbon matches one used by another organization, why does CAP have to buy the existing stock? I would think that's sticking it twice the CAP because Big V would obviously keep the stock on  hand for other uses.

Why not start simply and change the ribbon when the supply runs out -- and I agree it would be cheaper to change the ribbon to match the miniature medal ribbon drape than to do it the other way around.

JC004

Quote from: flyboy53 on January 07, 2015, 09:20:57 PM
Listen, Big V is a insignia supplier for the military and numerous other organizations.

If a CAP ribbon matches one used by another organization, why does CAP have to buy the existing stock?
...

If you were a business in their situation, would you require that?  They used to be in a pretty sticky situation because any time a bunch of birds got together, there was a new uniform item, usually making something else obsolete.  We went through THREE flight suit patches in a jiffy.  We quickly went from "Civil Air Patrol" branch tapes to "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" branch tapes, and back again.  The CSU had to be a HUGE expense, and was short-lived.  It must have cost good money to make all those coats that pretty quickly went away. 

PHall

Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on January 07, 2015, 12:41:49 PM
So you are telling me that if CAP decides to discontinue all ribbons and use challenge coins instead, it must buy all ribbon stock in Vanguard?

Incredible.

No, good lawyering on the contract! >:D

Private Investigator

Quote from: JC004 on January 07, 2015, 10:51:40 PM
Quote from: flyboy53 on January 07, 2015, 09:20:57 PM
Listen, Big V is a insignia supplier for the military and numerous other organizations.

If a CAP ribbon matches one used by another organization, why does CAP have to buy the existing stock?
...

If you were a business in their situation, would you require that?  They used to be in a pretty sticky situation because any time a bunch of birds got together, there was a new uniform item, usually making something else obsolete.  We went through THREE flight suit patches in a jiffy.  We quickly went from "Civil Air Patrol" branch tapes to "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" branch tapes, and back again.  The CSU had to be a HUGE expense, and was short-lived.  It must have cost good money to make all those coats that pretty quickly went away.

Very good points because we had silliness at the National level and we have it at the Squadron level. Everytime a new Unit Commander comes abaord they want to create a new patch for their legacy. JMHO, YMMV   8)

Eclipse

Quote from: JC004 on January 07, 2015, 10:51:40 PM
If you were a business in their situation, would you require that?  They used to be in a pretty sticky situation because any time a bunch of birds got together, there was a new uniform item, usually making something else obsolete.  We went through THREE flight suit patches in a jiffy.  We quickly went from "Civil Air Patrol" branch tapes to "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" branch tapes, and back again.  The CSU had to be a HUGE expense, and was short-lived.  It must have cost good money to make all those coats that pretty quickly went away.

All part of the risk of doing this business - it's not the Big 7 don't make major changes on a regular basis.

>If< that's really the contract, so be it, however is that at cost or at retail?

And we've already indicated a way to very easily manage the situation to everyone's ultimate benefit and no extra cost.

People complain all the time that uniforms are too much of a distraction to the organization this issue is one of the major
reasons why.  Ribbon color for a uniform less then 1/2 the membership can wear?   Of course not, it's the fact that
there is essentially >zero< training provided to new members in regards to proper uniform wear, and the publications
designed to alleviate that issue are a mess.

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

#51
Quote from: Eclipse on January 08, 2015, 03:05:14 PM
and the publications designed to alleviate that issue are a mess.
I have got to say that the new 39-1 is by far one of the best written manuals in a long long long time.   While there are lots of "problems" with is.....by and large those problems are for us types who will split hairs on a nit and not the general membership.

I will agree that the main problem is training, education and unfortunately, enforcement. 
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

The CyBorg is destroyed

Quote from: Ned on January 06, 2015, 10:22:25 PM
One way to avoid being taken as a "hard-bitten cynic" is to stop posting cynical messages in a public forum.

Actually, sir, I am very cynical by nature.  I try to avoid it in public fora but it is just part of who I am.  Conversely, my wife was the "eternal optimist"...up until she was diagnosed with cancer.  We temper each other.  She helps me to see that some clouds do have a silver lining and I provide life experience that sometimes things do not work out for the best.

Yes, I do bemoan that we have lost a lot of our connection to the Air Force.  It was even still there when I first joined 22 years ago.  I have had squadron and wing commanders tell me how in their day, usually as cadets, most CAP units were based on AF/AFRES/ANG installations, we were welcomed with open arms for the most part...and one of them actually got rides in a T-33.  I grieve for those "days of future past."  The most horrible thing that has happened to us during my years of service is the "AUX ON/AUX OFF" bit.

But, with the topic of medals, I do wish we had full size ones, for shadow boxes and what a former CC called "I Love Me" walls (which, admittedly, I do not have - my certificates are all in a fireproof locked cabinet).

I would also dearly like to be able to wear all miniatures on the blazer kit.  I do not see why that is a problem.

I also prefer "court mounting" for medals...it looks much more "evened out."

[lmgtfy]https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=court+mounting+medals[/lmgtfy]
Exiled from GLR-MI-011

Eclipse

Quote from: Ned on January 06, 2015, 10:22:25 PM
I've had a chance to chat with the AF Vice Chief of Staff, as well as the AFNORTH commander about CAP.  And you are absolutely correct that they are aware of us, and that they believe that we have not only justified our continued existence to the satisfaction of the AF, but that we add substantial, measurable value to the AF mission.

You may well be correct that SRA Jones and GS-5 Guy On the Gate may not fully appreciate both the current value and past heritage of this organization, and both we and our AF colleagues can do a better job of getting the word out.

Yes, you did, however the average member spends a lot more time with rank and file service members and DoD employees who
are generally clueless about CAP.  If I had an audience with the CV, and that translated into something tangible for my AOR,
then of course I'd feel good about the state of CAP.

What translates to "appreciated" at the rank and file level are missions, resources, and yes, perhaps a word to the NCOs
that paying a CAP member the same respect you'd pay the mailman doesn't diminish your standing.  Personally, I'd guess most
members are only concerned about the first two, but the average member doesn't generally much of any of it.

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

Eclipse.

Even AF guys are not appreciated by other AF guys at the rank and file level.

I was a Comm Maintainer.....quite literally if I did not do my job.....nothing else would happen that required a phone.

But the guy at the gate did not appreciate me....and I did not appreciate him.

Wanting every airman to know how hard YOU work at doing your CAP job and being properly appreciative is just a lost cause.

All I want it is to be added to the offical book of knowledge so that they don't go "Civil Air Who?"

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

ColonelJack

Quote

But, with the topic of medals, I do wish we had full size ones, for shadow boxes and what a former CC called "I Love Me" walls (which, admittedly, I do not have - my certificates are all in a fireproof locked cabinet).


I'm with ya, buddy!  I think full-size gongs are a GREAT idea - and there a lot of members who'd buy them.

Quote

I would also dearly like to be able to wear all miniatures on the blazer kit.  I do not see why that is a problem.


I'm with ya, buddy!  Since I'm in blazer kit these days myself, I think it's a great idea.

Quote

I also prefer "court mounting" for medals...it looks much more "evened out."


Ah, you lost me there.  Court mounting looks good, but - sad to say - it's just not the way we do things on this side of the pond.

Jack
Jack Bagley, Ed. D.
Lt. Col., CAP (now inactive)
Gill Robb Wilson Award No. 1366, 29 Nov 1991
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
Honorary Admiral, Navy of the Republic of Molossia

LSThiker

Quote from: lordmonar on January 08, 2015, 10:21:10 PM
Eclipse.

Even AF guys are not appreciated by other AF guys at the rank and file level.

Same with medical.  It was always, "oh....you are medical.  That explains it."  Then when something happens and they need medical, then it becomes "you are medical!!!!!!!!".

Heck, it is the same with all the military and even between branches.  And between SNCOs and Junior Officers. 

Eclipse

#57
Quote from: lordmonar on January 08, 2015, 10:21:10 PM
Eclipse.

Even AF guys are not appreciated by other AF guys at the rank and file level.

I was a Comm Maintainer.....quite literally if I did not do my job.....nothing else would happen that required a phone.

But the guy at the gate did not appreciate me....and I did not appreciate him.

Wanting every airman to know how hard YOU work at doing your CAP job and being properly appreciative is just a lost cause.

All I want it is to be added to the offical book of knowledge so that they don't go "Civil Air Who?"

I don't really think anyone is asking for much more, though the difference between your example
is that you were getting salary, benefits, housing, clothing, whereas CAP members are paying for
the privilege of receiving disdain, or at least the lack of common respect, from the very people they are there to "support".

But I don't even care about that nonsense, because most of it is apocryphal or self-induced.
The proof of appreciation is in who the USAF calls when they need help, and in most cases, they don't appear to
even have CAP's number.

We hear a lot of rhetoric about 1AF situation screens that are swamped with CAP aircraft (mostly
training and admin missions), and how the air staff and others are "fully aware and briefed on CAP",
and yet many (most?) missions with the exception of ELTs, are handled with the equivalent of a fire
department "hearing about a fire down the street and calling around to see if anyone needs help, then when
the FD finds out that there is no money to help, offers to come down anyway and the firemen pass the hat among themselves for gas money to fuel the pumper...).

1AF as supposed to bring us standing with the uniformed services and ES community, but I haven't seen it.
Have there been any DR or similar missions that were initiated by 1AF?   I've been involved with a number of
them, but while they may have been >approved< by 1AF as B's for member protection, there's never
any money and the customer, corporation, or even the members wind up funding the operations,
which to them is the same as it's always been with the difference being theoretical FECA in the unlikely
event they are injured.

Are there USAF Major Commands with as large a pool of resources as CAP that have zero strategic
expectations, plans, or requirements?

If nothing else 1AF, or the USAF in general, should be pressing with the 3 and 4 letter agencies
at the federal level to have us on the "first called" lists, but that is imply not happening.


"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

Quote from: Eclipse on January 08, 2015, 10:48:59 PM
The proof of appreciation is in who the USAF calls when they need help, and in most cases, they don't appear to
even have CAP's number.
Except for Falcon Virgo, Green Flag, AFRCC, et at.   
The real test of the USAF's appreciation comes in the form of funding.   

QuoteWe hear a lot of rhetoric about 1AF situation screens that are swamped with CAP aircraft (mostly
training and admin missions), and how the air staff and others are "fully aware and briefed on CAP",
and yet many (most?) missions with the exception of ELTs, are handled with the equivalent of a fire
department "hearing about a fire down the street and calling around to see if anyone needs help, then when
the FD finds out that there is no money to help, offers to come down anyway and the firemen pass the hat among themselves for gas money to fuel the pumper...).
That's not the USAF's fault...if the local ES guys don't know how to get a hold of us.....that's our problem.

Quote1AF as supposed to bring us standing with the uniformed services and ES community, but I haven't seen it.
Have there been any DR or similar missions that were initiated by 1AF?   I've been involved with a number of
them, but while they may have been >approved< by 1AF as B's for member protection, there's never
any money and the customer, corporation, or even the members wind up funding the operations,
which to them is the same as it's always been with the difference being theoretical FECA in the unlikely
event they are injured.
Bringing standing.....and doing the let work are different things.   When a state calls 1st AF for support....not even talking CAP support....the first question from the USAF is "who's going to pay for it".

QuoteAre there USAF Major Commands with as large a pool of resources as CAP that have zero strategic
expectations, plans, or requirements?

If nothing else 1AF, or the USAF in general, should be pressing with the 3 and 4 letter agencies
at the federal level to have us on the "first called" lists, but that is imply not happening.
Or so you see at YOUR level.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

#59
Quote from: lordmonar on January 08, 2015, 11:05:33 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 08, 2015, 10:48:59 PM
The proof of appreciation is in who the USAF calls when they need help, and in most cases, they don't appear to
even have CAP's number.
Except for Falcon Virgo, Green Flag, AFRCC, et at.   
The real test of the USAF's appreciation comes in the form of funding.   

I said we get ELTs, you're little party doesn't count, it's not a typical CAP mission, and
is a non-starter for the vast majority of CAP members.  You and I both also know that the
make up of the units involved isn't exactly "typical", either.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 08, 2015, 11:05:33 PM
Bringing standing.....and doing the let work are different things.   When a state calls 1st AF for support....not even talking CAP support....the first question from the USAF is "who's going to pay for it".

Fair enough - FIGURE IT OUT NOW.

I, as an IC or Liaison at the ground level, should not be in the position of having to go and
find money.  Do FEMA people do that?  ARC?  No.  They have money and process in the chamber
for when the waters start rising.  CAP is a federal asset with less response plan then a local CERT team.

National incidents?  Zero plan, even though CAP portends to train in ICS.  Instead it's move our
airplanes out of the way, and then wait a week or so and see what happens.  Then if necessary,
respond with the absolute skeleton crew possible, and work them into the ground while qualified
members sit waiting for the call.  Then realize how much more you could have done with a proper
team, start calling people 2-weeks into the incident, and realize everyone else is going home.

Rinse repeat, and insure you learn zero lessons from the last incident.

CAP recently trumpeted an MOU with the ARC, and all it says is "encourage cooperation".

And that's the problem, no one wants to actually sign their name and commit resources
they can't count on, so no one is willing to commit at all.

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

#60
Quote from: Eclipse on January 08, 2015, 11:12:31 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 08, 2015, 11:05:33 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 08, 2015, 10:48:59 PM
The proof of appreciation is in who the USAF calls when they need help, and in most cases, they don't appear to
even have CAP's number.
Except for Falcon Virgo, Green Flag, AFRCC, et at.   
The real test of the USAF's appreciation comes in the form of funding.   

I said we get ELTs, you're little party doesn't count, it's not a typical CAP mission, and
is a non-starter for the vast majority of CAP members.  You and I both also know that the
make up of the units involved isn't exactly "typical", either.
You said the USAF does not appreciate us.   And I say they do.  If they did not they would not send us the money to do all those special activities.  Money is the best form of appreciation.

Sure we pick the cream of the crop for some of those special missions.....but again....the USAF know that we do have that caliber of people in our organization....so again.....it does count.   And for the record.....Green Flag is open to everyone....just go to the link fill out the paper work and commit to the training.

I don't know what more do you want.    They fund us for our ES mission, they buy us aircraft, they buy us vans, they buy us comm gear, they fund our CP and AE program.   They ask us to come help with their missions.....they don't have do that.  They could contract it all out.   They could say to hell with us and start doing their own in-land SAR missions.  But they don't.

Again...and once and for all......the USAF does appreciate us.  Sure...as some will point out....all the freebies we used to get from our local USAF base have gone away....but that's because all those freebies went away for the USAF guys as well.   But we are still supported. 

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

The CyBorg is destroyed

Master Sergeant:

One aspect I believe you overlook is the fact that your unit is based on one of the largest and most active bases in the USAF.  Compare where most squadrons are based - schools, small general aviation airports, perhaps an ArNG armoury or maybe an ANG/AFRES installation - to where you are based.  You are in the thick of things, so to speak.  I know of a lot of CAP units that were kicked-off AF installations in the aftermath of 9/11; if they do not trust their own Auxiliary, who have FBI background checks and in some cases current or (in my case) former DoD security clearances, members who are LEO's...that says more to me than your position of "they give us money."

It is easy for someone in your position, based on a very active AFB, to (as they say) "feel the love," while a unit meeting in a cramped facility at a civilian airport that cannot even accommodate having our full complement of seniors and cadets there at the same time, never even getting a visit from a CAP-RAP, to notice any tangible connection to their parent service (yes, talking of my unit).  There are no active AF installations in my wing/state, and you have a hike to an ANGB if you want to go to MCSS (and if the civilian contractors on the gate will let you in).

Regarding funding, I know little of financial matters (I cannot even balance a chequebook), but I would wager that a large, active unit on a large, active AFB is a much better candidate for generous funding than the little squadron meeting at Jerkwater Landing Ground.
Exiled from GLR-MI-011

LSThiker

Quote from: CyBorg on January 09, 2015, 02:05:23 PM
I know of a lot of CAP units that were kicked-off AF installations in the aftermath of 9/11; if they do not trust their own Auxiliary, who have FBI background checks and in some cases current or (in my case) former DoD security clearances, members who are LEO's...that says more to me than your position of "they give us money."

And now that the restrictions and the situations have improved over the years, those same units should be working with their State Directors to get themselves back on those installations.  They should have really been working on that a decade ago.  However, from my own experience, when an armory or base refused to let a CAP unit back on, it was usually due to a long road of bad circumstances.  If it was not that, it was then due to BRAC and they were cramming units onto an Air National Guard base and physically had no room for any extras.  Either way, even with FBI background checks, LEO, and former DoD security clearances, the primary focus of the DoD then was security of its resources.  It had nothing to do with not trusting their own Auxiliary, but everything to do with security of its warfighting resources.


Quotenever even getting a visit from a CAP-RAP, to notice any tangible connection to their parent service (yes, talking of my unit).

Invite them.  I have invited my CAP-RAP and the Wing Liaison Officer/State Director numerous times to my squadron.  The CAP-RAP was usually invited to weekend activities.  If the SD could, he would fly out, grab dinner together, go to the unit meeting, grab some coffee, and he would depart.  If you have not seen him/her, then ask.

Heck, our Liaison Officer was the officer that swore me into the Army.  You can imagine how much grief I got from Army ROTC and AFROTC about having a USAF Lt Col instead of an Army officer. 

Eclipse

Quote from: lordmonar on January 08, 2015, 11:22:31 PM
You said the USAF does not appreciate us.   And I say they do.  If they did not they would not send us the money to do all those special activities.  Money is the best form of appreciation.

One could argue it is much a matter of convenience and economics as preference and appreciation.

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

Quote from: Eclipse on January 09, 2015, 03:50:41 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 08, 2015, 11:22:31 PM
You said the USAF does not appreciate us.   And I say they do.  If they did not they would not send us the money to do all those special activities.  Money is the best form of appreciation.

One could argue it is much a matter of convenience and economics as preference and appreciation.
I don't know how much more you want.    I guess it would be nice to get the cherry on top of your sundae....some of us see the ice cream and brownie as appreciation. 

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

lordmonar

Quote from: CyBorg on January 09, 2015, 02:05:23 PM
Master Sergeant:

One aspect I believe you overlook is the fact that your unit is based on one of the largest and most active bases in the USAF.  Compare where most squadrons are based - schools, small general aviation airports, perhaps an ArNG armoury or maybe an ANG/AFRES installation - to where you are based.  You are in the thick of things, so to speak.  I know of a lot of CAP units that were kicked-off AF installations in the aftermath of 9/11; if they do not trust their own Auxiliary, who have FBI background checks and in some cases current or (in my case) former DoD security clearances, members who are LEO's...that says more to me than your position of "they give us money."
I'm not going to defend the military's reaction to 9/11, because quite frankly they lost their fricking minds that day and have never really fixed it.   Ever Since Kobar Towers FORCE PROTECTION is a never to be contradicted watch word.   Even if it is dumb as hell and is next to useless.   

QuoteIt is easy for someone in your position, based on a very active AFB, to (as they say) "feel the love," while a unit meeting in a cramped facility at a civilian airport that cannot even accommodate having our full complement of seniors and cadets there at the same time, never even getting a visit from a CAP-RAP, to notice any tangible connection to their parent service (yes, talking of my unit).
Again....what more do you want?   Did your wing have an encampment?  Was it on an AF base?  I know NVWG's was.   I know a lot of them are.   

Yes....the CAP-RAPs are getting far and few between.....but unless you missed it...the USAF is going through another....another force reduction.  The USAF is half the size it was in 1985 (the year I first joined CAP).   Of course losing 1/2 your manning is going to affect the number of "free" people we can loan out to CAP.

QuoteThere are no active AF installations in my wing/state, and you have a hike to an ANGB if you want to go to MCSS (and if the civilian contractors on the gate will let you in).
So the USAF needs to show appreciation to CAP by putting a base in your state?  BRAC has nothing to do with with appreciation.

QuoteRegarding funding, I know little of financial matters (I cannot even balance a chequebook), but I would wager that a large, active unit on a large, active AFB is a much better candidate for generous funding than the little squadron meeting at Jerkwater Landing Ground.
I don't get any funding from the USAF.   I get the use of a few rooms in a building that is slated to be destroyed (as soon as they get the funding).   I get use of the Airman Leadership School facility....and have a great relationship with them.   We are in the same boat as every other squadron.  We have to beg, borrow and steal for facilities....and we got to jump through a lot of hoops to keep access to the base.

But again.....what more do you want from the USAF?
They fund us to the tune of $25M.  That's not chump change.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

Quote from: lordmonar on January 09, 2015, 04:06:58 PM
They fund us to the tune of $25M.  That's not chump change.

It's also not USAF money, it's a Congressional appropriation that the USAF oversees.

I would hazard CAP would be a lot different if it was actually "Air Force money".

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

Quote from: Eclipse on January 09, 2015, 07:33:36 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 09, 2015, 04:06:58 PM
They fund us to the tune of $25M.  That's not chump change.

It's also not USAF money, it's a Congressional appropriation that the USAF oversees.

I would hazard CAP would be a lot different if it was actually "Air Force money".
No....it is USAF's money.   CAP did not get a it own budget line item....again...you are looking for ways to say "the money don't count".....but if the USAF did not appreciate us.......the money would go away.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

Quote from: lordmonar on January 09, 2015, 07:53:39 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 09, 2015, 07:33:36 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 09, 2015, 04:06:58 PM
They fund us to the tune of $25M.  That's not chump change.

It's also not USAF money, it's a Congressional appropriation that the USAF oversees.

I would hazard CAP would be a lot different if it was actually "Air Force money".
No....it is USAF's money.   CAP did not get a it own budget line item....again...you are looking for ways to say "the money don't count".....but if the USAF did not appreciate us.......the money would go away.

You really might want to brush up on the way CAP is funded before saying that.

However with that said, I don't even know WTH we're discussing here any more.

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

Quote from: Eclipse on January 09, 2015, 08:04:01 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 09, 2015, 07:53:39 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 09, 2015, 07:33:36 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 09, 2015, 04:06:58 PM
They fund us to the tune of $25M.  That's not chump change.

It's also not USAF money, it's a Congressional appropriation that the USAF oversees.

I would hazard CAP would be a lot different if it was actually "Air Force money".
No....it is USAF's money.   CAP did not get a it own budget line item....again...you are looking for ways to say "the money don't count".....but if the USAF did not appreciate us.......the money would go away.

You really might want to brush up on the way CAP is funded before saying that.

However with that said, I don't even know WTH we're discussing here any more.
I do know how the budget process works.   Our appropriations is through the Department of the Air Force as part of the Armed Forces Appropriations Bill.   

My point is the USAF does appreciate us.   It shows that appreciation by continuing to ask congress to fund us.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

#70
Quote from: lordmonar on January 09, 2015, 08:18:15 PMIt shows that appreciation by continuing to ask congress to fund us.

They don't have the option not to, CAP exists via a public law, not the USAF's whim, and the appropriated funds,
per that law, are restricted to CAP use.

If the USAF wanted to dissolve CAP, they would need to go to do more then just "not ask for money".

I don't think I said the USAF doesn't "appreciate" CAP, many USAF personnel are or were members, owe the
beginnings of their military careers to a start in the cadet program, and / or are still currently garnering a
comfortable living from CAP.  "Appreciation" doesn not equal being considered "one team".

CAP serves a purpose, and presumably the ROI still exceeds its cost, ergo "appreciated", and of course
like any other compassionate parents and leaders, when USAF leadership are in the presence of CAP members they are
nice and understand the effort and spirit of the average member.  I have never met any USAF personnel (or any
military for that matter) who were anything but professional, appreciative, and helpful in regards to CAP.

Few people I know joined CAP to be "appreciated" by the USAF, they joined to serve their communities and
have their free time go towards a better purpose then riding the couch.  They also didn't join just to maintain
status quo and march in a circle.

I think a large number of members would trade "appreciated" for "overworked", and I'd further hazard that
a majority of members would like to see some "tough love" from the USAF rather the "appreciation".

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

Quote from: Eclipse on January 09, 2015, 08:41:09 PM
I don't think I said the USAF doesn't "appreciate" CAP, many USAF personnel are or were members, owe the
beginnings of their military careers to a start in the cadet program, and / or are still currently garnering a
comfortable living from CAP.  "Appreciation" doesn not equal being considered "one team".

You said

QuoteThe proof of appreciation is in who the USAF calls when they need help, and in most cases, they don't appear to
even have CAP's number.

So make up your mind.  :)

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

#72
Fair enough.

Many USAF personnel, on a personal level, understand and appreciate CAP people and what they do.

Organizationally, and from a doctrinal perspective, it would appear that CAP is simply a contractor with an acceptable ROI.

"That Others May Zoom"

PHall

Quote from: lordmonar on January 09, 2015, 04:06:58 PMDid your wing have an encampment?  Was it on an AF base?  I know NVWG's was.

No it wasn't. It was on a Nevada National Guard facility because Nellis said they could not support them. Nellis has not supported an Encampment for a number of years now.

JC004

I was just wondering why the ribbons were different...

PHall

Quote from: JC004 on January 10, 2015, 02:57:19 AM
I was just wondering why the ribbons were different...

Because they're a bunch of non-conformists!!! >:D

JC004

It's possible they just never thought to look up this before...   >:D

uni·form adjective \ˈyü-nə-ˌfȯrm\
1   :  having always the same form, manner, or degree :  not varying or variable <uniform procedures> 2   :  consistent in conduct or opinion <uniform interpretation of laws> 3   :  of the same form with others :  conforming to one rule or mode  4   :  presenting an unvaried appearance of surface, pattern, or color <uniform red brick houses>

RRLE

Quote from: Alaric on January 06, 2015, 02:55:41 PMI have never seen a book on the Disaster Services of the Red Cross, but it seems they can still change as needed to be relevant as the world changes, the same is true of the Coast Guard Auxiliary, the Community Emergency Response Team movement, and the Boy Scouts of America.  I have seen books on their founding, but not a retrospective on what they have done for the last several decades.  Perhaps its because they wish to concentrate on actual adaptation to current operational needs, perhaps its because they don't have historians, I don't know.

The Auxiliary has a Historian's office but unfortunately it is tied to the Public Affairs department. That tends to color a lot of what they do and maybe more importantly what they don't cover or don't research.

For example, the Aux has lost several members in at least 7 duty related aviation accidents. The members "Still On Patrol" are well known and have several monuments in their memory. The Aux has also lost several members in duty related boating deaths. However, there is no known memorial to them. Nor has any of multiple requests to the National Historian for their names ever been answered.

There are three known books published about the Auxiliary. Only the middle one would qualify as a real history.

Weinberg, Ellsworth A. The Volunteers: The Story of the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary National Board, Inc., 1986).

Written by a past National Commodore (NACO) of the Auxiliary and published by the USCG Auxiliary Association, Inc. A hagiographic portrayal of the Aux. It also takes the history of the WWII USCG Temporary Reserves (TRs) as part of the history of the Auxiliary. The TRs were part of the military USCG and not part of the Auxiliary. This "confusion" of history caused many problems for the Aux as it definitely confused Auxies as to their history in WWII. This book may still be available through the USCG Aux.

Tilley, John A. The United States Coast Guard Auxiliary: A History 1939-1999. Published by the US Coast Guard and sold through US Government Printing Office. It is out of print.

This is a commissioned historical work by a well-known historian for the 60th anniversary of the Auxiliary. It was not well received by the Aux hierarchy since it exposed some of the not so great things in the Aux's past and cast doubt on its ability to grow into the future. It is the best of the three regarding the Auxiliary.

United States Coast Guard Auxiliary. Turner Publishing.  Coffee table picture book for the 65th anniversary. I have never seen this book. I don't remember any comments regarding it on any Aux board. It doesn't seem to have garnished much interest among the Bilge Mice Auxies. The book is out of print. The following blurb is from the publishers web site.

"This US Coast Guard Auxiliary Historical Volume chronicles the history and dedication of our nation's men and women who volunteer their time assisting the U.S. Coast Guard in various missions. This book will highlight the 65 years of being the nation's number one organization dedicated to boating safety. This book will also include the assimilation of the US Coast Guard Auxiliary into the Department of Homeland Security. This FULL COLOR "coffee-table" volume will be a great addition to the library of any boating enthusiast or USCG Auxiliary member."

Last year was the 75th anniversary of the Auxiliary. Other than a commendation from the USCG, which every member received, nothing really significant took place.