Unit Citation for NYWG

[Ozzy]

Hey, I heard an unconfirmed rumor that NYWG received a unit citation for it's Outstanding job during the Wing's Eval. Is there any place where I can confirm this? I tried the wing site, but there wasn't any and I tried NER, but nothing there too.

[Eclipse]

Ask someone on wing staff?

As the rules have now been clarified, it will likely only apply to members of NY-001 anyway.

[RiverAux]

I'm not sure I could go along on giving out a unit citation based on a eval performance alone even if you get the max score.  The reward for doing well on an eval is having a great program.  Citations should be reserved for real-world performance, not test performance. 

[Ozzy]

The reward of having a great program is doing well on an Eval. Not the other way around. Doing Outstanding on an eval just validates that you have a great program for your area of operations. And in order to have a great program, you have to train. And not just going to a SARex every once in a while, but to frequently 'train as you fight'. I know for at least my squadron and group, we were totally prepared for what ever they threw at us because we follow all three missions of CAP, even when ES is rarely -if ever- needed on Long Island.

Anyways, I'll talk with my squadron's DC of cadets... I believe he is part of wing staff...

[RiverAux]

Six of one, half a dozen of another....

[Hawk200]

As the rules have now been clarified, it will likely only apply to members of NY-001 anyway.

Where would that rule be?

[Eclipse]

As the rules have now been clarified, it will likely only apply to members of NY-001 anyway.

Where would that rule be?

The verbiege in the draft revision of 39-3 specifies you must be in the unit at the time of the award (which is supposed to have a PA attached with the names, etc.).  I have no idea why the new rev hasn't been published, but a clarification is also here: http://tinyurl.com/yzafkp7

[Eclipse]

And its also spelled out in this ICL: http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/2008_12_10_awards_87CB4A5E163E5.pdf

"l. Unit Citation Award. The Unit Citation Award ribbon may only be worn by
members assigned to the unit during any portion of the period of time shown in the
National Headquarters Personnel Action announcing the award. Individuals who join the
unit at a later date are not authorized to wear the Unit Citation Ribbon."

NYWG, as I recall, was one of several in the practice of allowing everyone in the wing to wear
a UC awarded to Wing HQ, and treating them like Army Unit citations in that anyone joining a
unit (or in this case wing) with a UC could add it to their rack themselves.

This resulted in photos of Cadet Airmen with 5 UC's before they got their Curry.

Now, if Region or NHQ decided to write the citation to specifically include everyone in the wing, that's a different story and not likely.

[Hawk200]

Now, if Region or NHQ decided to write the citation to specifically include everyone in the wing, that's a different story and not likely.

How exactly are you aware of how the citation was written? The only Unit Citation I have was written to include the entire wing.

Is it actually unlikely, or do you just want it to be unlikely?

[Eclipse]

I'm not personally not aware of anything in regards to this UC, even the original poster isn't, I'm saying they can be written that way, but its unusual.  In most cases I am aware of it was a misinterpretation of the situation;

Member 1 "Hey, did you here our wing got a UC?"
Member 2 "Cool!  We're in this wing, so we must all get to wear it."

And then member #3 is too misinformed to challenge it.

I'd say it would be even more unusual if it was tied to an eval.  We got a big "e" on our last eval and I'd say more than half the units were not represented in any way, what did they do to deserve a decoration?

Assuming they got one, its much more likely its connected to a series of good SAV's and CI's, and the eval may have been icing.  My wing just recently got one and that was specifically how it went.

[Pingree1492]

Colorado Wing has received two Unit Citations over the last several years that were awarded to everyone in the Wing.  One National CC Unit Citation for a period of a week or so in Dec 06/Jan 07 time frame (Blizzard SAR & DR).  And it received one for the operational period of May 2008. 

It was VERY clear to everyone in the wing what the awards were for and that we were authorized to wear them.  If NYWG put in for a Unit Citation for the wing, then you should know when it is approved and eligible for wear.  It certainly won't stay a secret long once the PA comes back.

[SarDragon]

In my time in CAWG, CA-000 has been awarded two UCs, and CA-001 has been awarded an additional one. That's two for the entire wing, and another just for wing HQ. WIWAC, the entire NER got a UC for some undetermined action, back in the 60s.

[lordmonar]

It depends on how the order is written.

Following the AF model.....

Say the wing does well on an ORI....AF may award an outstanding unit to just the Wing and not the subordinate units....or it could award it to the wing and include the subordinate units.

Either way.....check with NYWG HQ and see what they say.  It may be that it is taking a long time to get the word out because they have to get all the names of everyone in the the wing on the PA.

The same same thing happend when NVWG got the NCUC.  It took a while for the PA to get written....and even then it was not 100% correct.

[RiverAux]

In my time in CAWG, CA-000 has been awarded two UCs, and CA-001 has been awarded an additional one. That's two for the entire wing, and another just for wing HQ. WIWAC, the entire NER got a UC for some undetermined action, back in the 60s.

I very much doubt that CA-000 got a UC since in most wings that is the ghost squadron. 

[SarDragon]

That's why I clarified it by stating the entire wing, and wing HQ. I don't have the PAs available to verify the exact designations.

[Thrashed]

WIWAC, the entire NER got a UC for some undetermined action, back in the 60s.

That must be the one they told me about.  I'm fairly new and told my commander about the ICL saying you must be a member during the time the citation is awarded.  My commander said that we get to wear it in the PAWG even if I joined 40 years later.  I don't get it.  Why am I decorated for it?

[SilverEagle2]

My commander said that we get to wear it in the PAWG even if I joined 40 years later.

Negative Ghostrider, your commander is wrong.

The only way I see it working retroactively is if you remove it once you leave the unit it was awarded to.

[SarDragon]

I was actually in NER at the time, so I'm eligible to wear it. I never had any real validation until I saw it on the NER web site. I emailed the admin guy, and he confirmed it for me. I had heard rumours at the time, but never saw a PA, so never worried about it.

The ICL is very clear in stating that you must have been a member of the unit for the period covered by the award. There is no retroactive aspect involved.

[Thrashed]

That's what I said, but the commander insisted that we were  a "special" case and got to wear it.  I showed the ICL letter to them. I haven't worn it, and I won't. 

[Eclipse]

Commanders who believe their people are "special"...

That falls in right behind "...Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens..."

[Ozzy]

and 'snow flakes that stay on my nose and my mittens'
but that's beside the point.

Here is what I found out:

Currently there isn't any citation yet. There is some movement for one, but it wasn't given out nor aprroved so I consider this thread closed until it gets approved... which will probably will be around April/May IMO.

[ZigZag911]

Years ago, the reg was in fact that anyone who ever joined a unit got to wear any UC ever awarded that unit....this has been changed since...and I think both methods (how we did it then, how we do it now) mirrored contemporary military practice.

[Eclipse]

Years ago, the reg was in fact that anyone who ever joined a unit got to wear any UC ever awarded that unit....this has been changed since...

Cite, please.  It has not changed.

...and I think both methods (how we did it then, how we do it now) mirrored contemporary military practice.

Only the Army allows for transient unit members to wear a unit citation that they didn't earn (by simple virtue of their being assigned to a given unit, and only while they are assigned there).

Beyond the clarification, another problem we've seen is members thinking the transient rules apply, but then not removing the ribbon when they move to another unit.

[Thrashed]

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/forms_publications__regulations/indexes_regulations_and_manuals.cfm

According to the letter below R39-3 dated 10DEC08, there has been a change.  Look on the bottom of page 4.

[Eclipse]

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/forms_publications__regulations/indexes_regulations_and_manuals.cfm

According to the letter below R39-3 dated 10DEC08, there has been a change.  Look on the bottom of page 4.

Its ok to read the whole thread instead of just jumping in on the last page.  I quoted that ICL on page one of this thread.

There's been no change to wear of the ribbon.  It was always only for members of a specific unit as indicated on a Personnel Authorization.  The ICL simply clarifies the way its always been because far too many people were misinterpreting the reg.

[RiverAux]

Incidentally, one of the things I saw while reading early 1960s CAP Times was an article about this very issue that said you could only wear it if you were in the unit when it was earned.

[Thrashed]

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/forms_publications__regulations/indexes_regulations_and_manuals.cfm

According to the letter below R39-3 dated 10DEC08, there has been a change.  Look on the bottom of page 4.

Its ok to read the whole thread instead of just jumping in on the last page.  I quoted that ICL on page one of this thread.

You quoted me, so I guess you're talking to me.  If I jumped to the last page of the thread, why do I have so many posts at the begining of the thread?  I still don't understand how a change letter is no change. It's not a clarification letter.

[Eclipse]

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/forms_publications__regulations/indexes_regulations_and_manuals.cfm

According to the letter below R39-3 dated 10DEC08, there has been a change.  Look on the bottom of page 4.

Its ok to read the whole thread instead of just jumping in on the last page.  I quoted that ICL on page one of this thread.

You quoted me, so I guess you're talking to me.  If I jumped to the last page of the thread, why do I have so many posts at the begining of the thread?  I still don't understand how a change letter is no change. It's not a clarification letter.

The fact that it is published as an "ICL" doesn't mean its a "change" per se.  Its just the mechanism of publication.

[SarDragon]

The old text:
(2) Only one Unit Citation Award certificate and streamer will be presented to the unit receiving the award. For example, if an entire group (rather than just the group headquarters) receives the Unit Citation Award, the certificate and streamer will be displayed at group headquarters only; however, all members of the group headquarters and squadrons within that group are authorized to wear the Unit Citation Ribbon. The members of each unit which receive the Unit Citation Award are authorized to wear the Unit Citation Ribbon. This ribbon is not furnished by National Headquarters, but may be purchased from the CAP Bookstore or commercial sources. The Unit Citation Ribbon may be worn permanently by all individuals who were members of the unit during any portion of the period of time shown in the National Headquarters Personnel Action announcing the award. Unit commanders will post the members' records to show their eligibility to wear the ribbon.

The added ICL text:
l. Unit Citation Award. The Unit Citation Award ribbon may only be worn by members assigned to the unit during any portion of the period of time shown in the National Headquarters Personnel Action announcing the award. Individuals who join the unit at a later date are not authorized to wear the Unit Citation Ribbon.

Emphasis mine. The wording "permanently" possibly suggested that members coming into the unit could wear it while in the unit, but not after transferring out. And we all know folks who never bothered to discontinue the hinted temporary wear.

[Hawk200]

The wording "permanently" possibly suggested that members coming into the unit could wear it while in the unit, but not after transferring out. And we all know folks who never bothered to discontinue the hinted temporary wear.

The excuses I've always heard was "I don't want to buy a new ribbon rack!", or "Nobody's really gonna know!", or "Nobody cares!"

My responses were usually "Tough $---, you're happy to buy a new one when you get a new ribbon", or "I know, and you now know it's wrong", or "I've been called a nobody before, so have many other people, fix it."

I'm almost at a point where I don't care if I get anymore. I may go with only my highest training level on my future racks. Getting hard to find racks that fit the number.

[dwb]

Emphasis mine. The wording "permanently" possibly suggested that members coming into the unit could wear it while in the unit, but not after transferring out. And we all know folks who never bothered to discontinue the hinted temporary wear.

The word "permanently" was in there to let members know that if they were in the unit when the citation was awarded, they could wear it permanently, i.e., even after they transferred out of the unit.

But really, this isn't an argument worth having anymore, since the ICL clarified it once and for all. Until it changes again, that is.

[PHall]

I may go with only my highest training level on my future racks. Getting hard to find racks that fit the number.

The 50-17 authorizes you to only wear your highest training award if you need to minimize the number of ribbons.
I did that with mine and eliminated a whole row.

[Hawk200]

I may go with only my highest training level on my future racks. Getting hard to find racks that fit the number.

The 50-17 authorizes you to only wear your highest training award if you need to minimize the number of ribbons.
I did that with mine and eliminated a whole row.

Yeah, that's the plan. I wouldn't mind if we could wear four wide; or, preferably, there were miniature ribbons available. That's not an option, unfortunately. Not that I could find some of what I have in mini anyway.

[PHall]

I may go with only my highest training level on my future racks. Getting hard to find racks that fit the number.

The 50-17 authorizes you to only wear your highest training award if you need to minimize the number of ribbons.
I did that with mine and eliminated a whole row.

Yeah, that's the plan. I wouldn't mind if we could wear four wide; or, preferably, there were miniature ribbons available. That's not an option, unfortunately. Not that I could find some of what I have in mini anyway.

You can wear four wide. CAPM 39-1, Table 5-4.

[Eclipse]

You can wear four wide. CAPM 39-1, Table 5-4.

It looks weird, though, since its wider than the pocket.

[Hawk200]

You can wear four wide. CAPM 39-1, Table 5-4.

That only applies to coats. Shirts don't have lapels.

Figure 2-3, Note 3: "Worn resting on but not over top edge of left pocket and centered between the left and right edges with 3 in a row."

I thought so too, but it was mentioned otherwise here.

[PHall]

You can wear four wide. CAPM 39-1, Table 5-4.

That only applies to coats. Shirts don't have lapels.

Figure 2-3, Note 3: "Worn resting on but not over top edge of left pocket and centered between the left and right edges with 3 in a row."

I thought so too, but it was mentioned otherwise here.

There is a solution to this "problem", don't wear ribbons on blue shirts.

And I'm just shocked that there is a conflict in the 39-1. Of course there are conflicts in the 36-2903 too.

[ZigZag911]

Eclipse,

I was referring to common practice in early 1970s...at which time a lot of our senior officers were veterans of army air Corps in WWII....so I suspect, as you say, USAF reg has always been as described, these folks just automatically followed what they'd been taught in the service, without checking CAP reg....and passed same misinformation along to us cadets!

[Hawk200]

There is a solution to this "problem", don't wear ribbons on blue shirts.

I've got a good friend, still in the Air Force, that would attempt to beat me senseless if he ever found out I wore a blue shirt without ribbons on it. It's just an old habit. I almost never wear short sleeves, either, so I've got tie on as well. I rarely wear it with badges only.

And I'm just shocked that there is a conflict in the 39-1. Of course there are conflicts in the 36-2903 too.

There may be conflicts, but I think the ratio is a lot greater in 39-1. Not to mention the fact that -2903 gets supplemented, or rewritten, fairly consistently compared to 39-1. No hunting to see if there's yet another letter on uniforms.

[PHall]

And I'm just shocked that there is a conflict in the 39-1. Of course there are conflicts in the 36-2903 too.

There may be conflicts, but I think the ratio is a lot greater in 39-1. Not to mention the fact that -2903 gets supplemented, or rewritten, fairly consistently compared to 39-1. No hunting to see if there's yet another letter on uniforms.

Wanna bet that the 36-2903 is up to date? Try finding any mention of the ABU in it.

Everything about the ABU is in message traffic, which is not accessable from the AF Pubs website. :clap:

[Hawk200]

Wanna bet that the 36-2903 is up to date? Try finding any mention of the ABU in it.

There's an old mention, pretty obscure. But that's not the point. -2903  is far more consistent than 39-1 is. What's in it hasn't been changed by an external (to the pub) communication, with that external communication having something else that changes it at a later date, with yet another addressing the same issue.

The ABU is in a single message. Additional messages may add new allowances to what is permitted with the ABU, but I don't think any of them change what's in the first one.

Everything about the ABU is in message traffic, which is not accessable from the AF Pubs website. :clap:

Air Force message traffic really isn't any of our business, but it brings up a point to consider. How long is a message concerning something valid for? Until the new release of the pub. Which means a message could be valid for a few years.

How long is an ICL supposed to valid for? I don't even know. Some say six months, others say until it's included in a new pub. There are people here that believe that all the two year old ICL's aren't even valid.

I can't even find anything on "ICL's" in our admin regs. What exactly are they supposed to be? There's no real guidelines on them. Until I read about them here, I'd never heard of one.

[Eclipse]

I can't even find anything on "ICL's" in our admin regs. What exactly are they supposed to be? There's no real guidelines on them. Until I read about them here, I'd never heard of one.

See CAPR 5-4 for the answers you seek, however be aware that the regs conflict with the practice of the last 10+ years, as well as other similar agencies.

Regs = 90 days or new reg
Practice = no expiration until new reg, and even beyond if the new reg doesn't address the issue.

[Hawk200]

See CAPR 5-4 for the answers you seek ...

Well, there's part of my problem. I was thinking that a letter constituted "correspondance", and as such was looking at 10-1.

Yeah, I'd say the nature of most of our ICLs doesn't fit the reg that defines them. And, now, I'd have to agree that the folks that say they're invalid are right. So what do we do about it?

Come to think of it, have there been any actual ICLs that are published IAW 5-4?

[Eclipse]

Come to think of it, have there been any actual ICLs that are published IAW 5-4?

They are all published correctly, the issue is that the theoretical expirations are ignored.

Its a waste of time to discuss.

As we've said before, you either comply and move on, or don't, be denied access to an activity and opportunity, and then file an IG complaint based on the ICL being expired, and in the end you, as a volunteer, make a lot of noise and trouble for yourself and other volunteers to no end.

If its a meaningless issue, then its meaningless to everyone, but if the complaint ever got to a point at NHQ, they'd just issue a new version and negate your complaint.

If its something that is important and the complaint ever got to a point at NHQ, they'd just issue a new version and negate your complaint.

Regardless, it wastes everyone's time, all because of the date on a page and someone's attempt to "make a POINT!".

You'd be much better served yelling at the neighbor kids to get off your lawn, at least that would give you some immediate gratification.

To pretend the leadership at NHQ is not fully aware of the situation is ignoring reality to try and continue the argument.