...and it's gone.

[Eclipse]

A decent wiki could be made to "float up changes since last login" or similar.

But more importantly, what we need to do is indoctrinate our members that Facebook is not
where CAP begins and ends, and that anytime they have a question, they need to
find the most-current version of the appropriate regulation themselves,
and unless and until they can show official text somewhere in regards to the "special thing
they want to do", they don't do it, wives tale, urban legend or other not withstanding.

It was drilled into members for years that the regs existed only in the magic binders at their
squadron (i.e. the unopened envelopes full of updates at the CC's house), so it was at least understandable
that these docs weren't always within arm's reach.

But today there is no excuse - everything applicable is online, and if it isn't, it probably isn't applicable.

The trouble today is that members either can't be bothered to look, have never been trained where to
look and how to read the regs, or prefer the local spin to the real reg since it validates their "special".

We get grief here when members ask simple questions regarding information that is either in their
Great Start . L1 materials, or available via a 1-hit Google search because we say "What does the regulation say?"

But that's the appropriate response, otherwise you're asking me to do your work for you.

Come up to me and say "Sir, I've hit ##-# and the KB, and even my wing's website, but I still don't understand
this..?" and you'll get a better response then "I can't be bothered to crack a browser, just give me the 1-line answer."

Also, the former tends to build on itself and reduces the questions the second time, where the latter actually
makes things worse because it turns the responder into Google.

[Eclipse]

Rather then wasting time checking a box for the 12th time on knife safety, how about a 50-question
test on 39-1 as part of Great Start and Level 1?

Hit the high notes and the big problems, then when it comes up, you can point to the Curry or Member ribbon
and say "That decoration indicates you've already been told and acknowledged we don't do 'x'. "

[JoeTomasone]

Sorry, but I'm more for simplicity here and in acting IAW regulations such as CAPR 5-4. 

ALL of the ICLs are no longer valid.   They must be incorporated into their parent publication within 90 days.   Some of these ICLs are from 2006..   

When the National Board forms a new uniform policy, the changes should properly be incorporated into 39-1 AT WHICH TIME they become effective.    The knowledge base can serve to provide guidance on interpretation (and that can be the basis to reword items en masse when a revision to 39-1 is required).

I mean, seriously, if NHQ is doing their job right, this is not a publication that requires constant revision.   They can roll up several small changes (grade insignia on both collars, SMs wear grade insignia on BDU cap, etc) once or twice per year, and maybe issue a special revision when there is a major change (introducing/sunsetting a complete uniform, for example).   No one will die if they don't have the wing patch removed 6 months from now instead of next week, and if we suddenly get a new uniform (don't say it...) , they can issue a revision that also includes the pending minor items.     

What they really need is a better notification system when things DO change.   A message on the home page of eServices is NOT sufficient.   Why can't they send out an email to all members when a reg is revised?   

</rant>

[Eclipse]

Sorry, but I'm more for simplicity here and in acting IAW regulations such as CAPR 5-4. 

ALL of the ICLs are no longer valid.   They must be incorporated into their parent publication within 180 days.   Some of these ICLs are from 2006.

Something pretty much just ignored.  I don't understand how this is allowed to continue.
If a wing did something similar, they'd be dinged hard on a CI.

The knowledge base can serve to provide guidance on interpretation (and that can be the basis to reword items en masse when a revision to 39-1 is required).

I disagree - the KB is not staffed with CC's with interpretive authority - that's one of the problems we have now.  Staffers and SMEs who
give answers based on their "best guess", "how they think it should be", or "how it will be soon".

The KB should be left to quoting regs and stating facts.  Interpretation is reserved for CC's, and only within the scope of their AOR.

I do agree with the "asked twice rule", meaning the first time a given question is asked, it could just be an anomaly, but any question
asked by more then one person is usually attributed to a confusing publication or directive and should be clarified.

We also need to stop dancing around short sentences to save member feelings.  Say what you mean, directly, remove wiggle room
and specify details.

What they really need is a better notification system when things DO change.   A message on the home page of eServices is NOT sufficient.   Why can't they send out an email to all members when a reg is revised? 

I agree, but the problem is that the attention span of most members for anything that isn't Farmville or Candy Crush is pretty low.
The RSS feed works really well, but most people don't even know what that is.

Email would seem to be the most efficient and effective means of notification, but a lot of members complain
when they get >anything< that distracts them from their 409 scams and virtual hugs.

[JoeTomasone]

The knowledge base can serve to provide guidance on interpretation (and that can be the basis to reword items en masse when a revision to 39-1 is required).

I disagree - the KB is not staffed with CC's with interpretive authority - that's one of the problems we have now.  Staffers and SMEs who
give answers based on their "best guess", "how they think it should be", or "how it will be soon".

The KB should be left to quoting regs and stating facts.  Interpretation is reserved for CC's, and only within the scope of their AOR.

That's another problem - the KB should only be answered by the chief of the affected directorate, who should have the authority/ability to speak on behalf of the board (preferably with firsthand knowledge of the Board's intentions, or with the ability to communicate with the Board to clarify it).   It should be authoritative; otherwise, it serves no more purpose than our debates on CapTalk. 

[Tim Medeiros]

Sorry, but I'm more for simplicity here and in acting IAW regulations such as CAPR 5-4. 

ALL of the ICLs are no longer valid.   They must be incorporated into their parent publication within 180 days.   Some of these ICLs are from 2006..  

Emphasis mine..


Joe, umm, which ICLs are those?  I didn't see any from 2006 when I looked at http://capmembers.com/forms_publications__regulations/interim-change-letters-1708/


That said, yes, there are two that exceed the 90/180 day timeframes as required by CAPR 5-4 para 4.  However they are not from 2006, it's time to put that version of the argument to rest.

[JoeTomasone]

Sorry, but I'm more for simplicity here and in acting IAW regulations such as CAPR 5-4. 

ALL of the ICLs are no longer valid.   They must be incorporated into their parent publication within 180 days.   Some of these ICLs are from 2006..  

Emphasis mine..


Joe, umm, which ICLs are those?  I didn't see any from 2006 when I looked at http://capmembers.com/forms_publications__regulations/interim-change-letters-1708/


That said, yes, there are two that exceed the 90/180 day timeframes as required by CAPR 5-4 para 4.  However they are not from 2006, it's time to put that version of the argument to rest.

That's because they were re-issued in a roll-up dated 12 March 2012:

http://capmembers.com/media/cms/2012_03_12_Uniform_Manual_EDA9CCE9FE03A.pdf


This ICL became invalid as of June 12, 2012 - since changes intended to be permanent must be incorporated in the parent publication within 90 days.  As of today, it's 627 days late.

Of course, many of the provisions within had taken effect as far back as 2006 - which I remember since it is when I came out of Patron status.   Some of the items that were in effect then include:

• Removal of Wing Patch from blues (suspense 1 August 2006)
• Gortex Parka authorized (as of 20 November 2006)
• Grade Insignia on BDU cap for SMs (mandatory 1 May 2007, but was in effect in 2006)
• Grade insignia on BBDU cap (Effective August 2005)
• Reverse American Flag required (mandatory 1 April 2007 but in effect in 2006)

So I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can argue that any of the 39-1 ICLs are still valid.

[Tim Medeiros]

Sorry, but I'm more for simplicity here and in acting IAW regulations such as CAPR 5-4. 

ALL of the ICLs are no longer valid.   They must be incorporated into their parent publication within 180 days.   Some of these ICLs are from 2006..  

Emphasis mine..


Joe, umm, which ICLs are those?  I didn't see any from 2006 when I looked at http://capmembers.com/forms_publications__regulations/interim-change-letters-1708/


That said, yes, there are two that exceed the 90/180 day timeframes as required by CAPR 5-4 para 4.  However they are not from 2006, it's time to put that version of the argument to rest.

That's because they were re-issued in a roll-up dated 12 March 2012:

http://capmembers.com/media/cms/2012_03_12_Uniform_Manual_EDA9CCE9FE03A.pdf


This ICL became invalid as of June 12, 2012 - since changes intended to be permanent must be incorporated in the parent publication within 90 days.  As of today, it's 627 days late.

Of course, many of the provisions within had taken effect as far back as 2006 - which I remember since it is when I came out of Patron status.   Some of the items that were in effect then include:

   
• Removal of Wing Patch from blues (suspense 1 August 2006)
• Gortex Parka authorized (as of 20 November 2006)
• Grade Insignia on BDU cap for SMs (mandatory 1 May 2007, but was in effect in 2006)
• Grade insignia on BBDU cap (Effective August 2005)
• Reverse American Flag required (mandatory 1 April 2007 but in effect in 2006)

So I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can argue that any of the 39-1 ICLs are still valid.

Where did I argue that they were still valid?  I merely pointed out that your comment about some of the ICLs being from 2006 was false.

[JoeTomasone]

Where did I argue that they were still valid?  I merely pointed out that your comment about some of the ICLs being from 2006 was false.

True, sir.  It's getting late here.  Mea maxima culpa.

However, those ICLs WERE issued back in the years mentioned originally.   

[LSThiker]

NIN, since it seems as though you have an ear to the comments, what were the comments on the aircrew wings?

[NIN]

NIN, since it seems as though you have an ear to the comments, what were the comments on the aircrew wings?

I don't really have that much of an ear to the comments (in broad, general "wow, thats interesting!" strokes, really, only) and I did not hear anything specific about the Aircrew Wings.

[Panache]

Except, I assume, evil cackling from those who submitted that design in the first place.

[Laplace]

Here at the Winter Board Command Council meeting in Arlington and Maj Gen Carr made a few remarks about the new 39-1.   It should be finalized and released in May 2014 and he would confirm the removal of U.S. Flags on all uniforms except for flight suit/jacket and no ABUs.   He had a comment on the Commander's device, but I didn't catch the details.  Hopefully someone else here can fill that in.

He was impressed with the amount of comments received.  It was obvious many members read the entire draft of the manual. 

[Eclipse]

...and no ABUs.

Hm...

Mid-year for the revised uniform manual without them in it, so not likely in FY14 and doubtful in FY15,
meanwhile the common combat uniform continues to gather momentum in Congress.

You might want to leave the tags on them if you bought them.

[Panache]

You might want to leave the tags on them if you bought them.

Or, alternatively, if the common combat uniform becomes a reality, the AF phases out the ABU to transition to the CCU, and the ABU becomes a CAP-distinctive item.

I imagine that the CCU (if it happens) will be restricted by law to the Armed Services, and I would be surprised if a civilian organization likes CAP gets the authorization to wear them.

[Luis R. Ramos]

By then the ABU would have lost its cache and you will start reading "When are we getting the CCU?"

Flyer

[Panache]

The Department of Defense has announced that after years of study and consultation with all the branches of the Armed Service, it has chosen its new Common Combat Uniform.  "The pattern we have selected has proven itself in the field time and time again.  It's both revolutionary and battle-tested.  We hope to start deployment of the Woodland Camouflage pattern within a year..."

[vento]

It was announced today by MG Carr at the Winter Command Council meeting in Washington DC that a decision has been made not to authorize CAP members to wear the Airman Battle Uniform (ABU). This decision was made in part as a result of the exploration of a standardized utility uniform for all services, thus potentially rendering the ABUs obsolete. The authorized field utility uniforms will be published in the upcoming revision to CAPR 39-1.

From the CAWG official Facebook page.

[Fubar]

This to me begs the question, why did NHQ announce a proposed ABU configuration if we were never headed towards ABU wear? The move towards a single all-service uniform had already begun at that point, so NHQ could have made the decision against asking for the ABU then.

Makes me wonder if we were denied by the air force/DOD for our request to wear it, so we've now announced we've decided against wearing them.

[PHall]

This to me begs the question, why did NHQ announce a proposed ABU configuration if we were never headed towards ABU wear? The move towards a single all-service uniform had already begun at that point, so NHQ could have made the decision against asking for the ABU then.

Makes me wonder if we were denied by the air force/DOD for our request to wear it, so we've now announced we've decided against wearing them.

I have been told, by several souces, that the Air Force did approve it but that it was going to take a waiver from the SecDef.
So either SecDef said no or it was decided to to drop the request in view of Congress's demand in the latest DoD budget authorization that all of the armed services go back to a common Field Uniform.
Either way we're back to "watching this space" to see what happens next.