EMT Badge wear per regs

[CAPCom]

Was looking at this past discussion (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=9431.0) after doing a search on the topic of the EMT badge.  It raised more questions for me than it gave answers.  My first instinct is to go with the literal language in CAPM 39-1, but would still like some input from others.  Current regs say currently certified and previously certified EMTs may wear the EMT Occupational Badge.  My argument for previously certified EMTs wearing the badge comes from: the reg is the reg and doesn't read with a caveat; the fact that you don't lose the skills or benefit of field experience once you are no longer certified; and Civil Air Patrol doesn't certify EMS personnel, therefore it's a skills and previous, professional experience badge (e.g., "occupational") not a specialty track badge.

Thoughts and civil responses are welcome.

[tribalelder]

No consistent rule on badge currency-

Commander badge--it migrates location on graduated (past) commanders

flight badges-worn forever. 67 YO former cadet can still wear his solo wings

Legal officer- only while an appointed CAP legal officer. Retired from practice-no. Active practice w/o legal officer appointment -no

GBD-(Master GT)-not req'd to be WMIRS GBD-current

Opinions don't control here, manual does.

[Eclipse]

Do you mean "previously certified before you were ever in CAP?" No.

Current and previously certified EMTs can wear it, but you can't be approved for initial wear if you aren't current.

It's one thing to be certified and approved for the badge while you're in current status and then continue
to wear it once you've lapsed, another to expect to be allowed a badge for something you aren't "now".

the facts that you don't lose the skills or benefit of field experience once you are no longer certified

Yes, you actually do, which is why there is an expiration date on certifications.
Not only do unused skills go stale, procedures and accepted methods change as well.

You're local FD isn't going to accept a lapsed certification, why should CAP?

The "previously" is in the came vein as a GTM or aircrew badge.  And you can't get pilot wings
based on "I used to be a pilot".  You have to be a current pilot for initial qualification.

[CAPCom]

I'm still going back to the regs, should they be taken literally or not? CAPM 39-1 10.4.7 states: "10.4.7 Emergency Medical Technician Badges. Worn by current or previously certified Emergency Medical Technicians. The basic badge is for EMT-Basic, the badge with the star is for EMT-Intermediate and the badge with the star and the wreath is for EMT-Paramedic."

All of the regs in section 10.4 prior to .7 mention "duly appointed under <insert reg here>" or "qualifying as <insert duty assignment and reg here>", and so on.  .7 is the only one that does not state, specifically, whether or not the certification was obtained while the individual was a CAP member.

If you take the reg literally, there is no stipulation in relation to CAP.

[Eclipse]

I'm still going back to the regs, should they be taken literally or not?

No and yes.

The same reg asserts is it the sole and only authority on uniform wear, which it clearly is not.

Approval will be at the subjective decision of the unit CC and the rest of the ES-approval chain through Wing.
Since it's irrelevant to CAP operations, a lot of CCs wouldn't care either way, and others would hold to
a common-sense assertion that you have to be a current EMT at the time of initial approval.

[CAPCom]

"The same reg asserts is it the sole and only authority on uniform wear, which it clearly is not."

So, what you're saying is that these government regulations are fluid and not to be taken literally - is that correct?  I'm not trying to be an aggressive jerk in my response, I'm just not understanding why someone would suggest we don't have to follow the regs because of a perceived inconsistency within them.

"Approval will be at the subjective decision of the unit CC and the rest of the ES-approval chain through Wing. Since it's irrelevant to CAP operations, a lot of CCs wouldn't care either way, and others would hold to a common-sense assertion that you have to be a current EMT at the time of initial approval."

This also doesn't make sense to me because in order to wear ribbons and specialty track badges as outlined in 39-1, we don't have to have approval of the Wing.  One merely reads the regs re: those ribbons or other accouterments and wears them according to the Uniform Manual.  I wouldn't wear a ribbon I didn't earn because it states in the manual to not do that.  I wouldn't wear a specialty track badge I didn't earn because it also states in the manual to not do that.  In other words, there are specifics on wearing uniform accouterments and it's pretty plain when you can wear them and when you cannot.  I don't have to hear from my squadron commander that I can wear a ribbon or a specialty track badge before I do so.  Why would this be different?

(I'm honestly asking, not being a wisenheimer)   

[Eclipse]

Using the quote function properly makes it much easier to read and respond.

So, what you're saying is that these government regulations are fluid and not to be taken literally - is that correct?  I'm not trying to be an aggressive jerk in my response, I'm just not understanding why someone would suggest we don't have to follow the regs because of a perceived inconsistency within them.

These are not "government regulations".

There are any number of places that CAP regulations, pamphlets and policies are unclear, inconsistent, or in some
case even internally self-conflicting.

I was pointing out that if you wish to make a pedantic argument about a single point, you also
have to consider the totality of the situation.

"Approval will be at the subjective decision of the unit CC and the rest of the ES-approval chain through Wing. Since it's irrelevant to CAP operations, a lot of CCs wouldn't care either way, and others would hold to a common-sense assertion that you have to be a current EMT at the time of initial approval."

This also doesn't make sense to me because in order to wear ribbons and specialty track badges as outlined in 39-1, we don't have to have approval of the Wing.  One merely reads the regs re: those ribbons or other accouterments and wears them according to the Uniform Manual.

I don't have to hear from my squadron commander that I can wear a ribbon or a specialty track badge before I do so.  Why would this be different?

That it literally not how CAP decorations and badges work.

Everything on the uniform has been approved for wear in some form or another.  Much of it directly, some indirectly.
Many argue that every attachment and dec needs to be approved.

In some cases, wear of certain badges, once earned, is actually required.

[CAPCom]

-- "These are not "government regulations"."

Sure they are.  USAF+Total Force, written and approved at Maxwell AFB, for the auxiliary of the USAF, by people who wear government uniforms.  Yes, they are government regs, government approved.

-- " if you wish to make a pedantic argument"

Now, why did you have to go and personally attack with an insult?  Not really necessary, is it?

-- "That it literally not how CAP decorations and badges work."

So, what exactly did I write that is incorrect?

Is the Wing and/or a squadron commander required to contact each of us with an official notification that we are authorized to wear earned ribbons and specialty track badges?  Or do we just have to read the uniform regs (which are pretty plain and state the obvious)?  Again, seriously asking.  But now with a little pricklyness involved because you made a statement ("not how CAP decorations...") but didn't explain why your statement is more than personal opinion.  Is there a reg to support what you're claiming?

[Eclipse]

The conjecture here would be that you used to be an EMT, want to wear the badge, and were told it would
not be approved because you are not current.

EMT badges, like several others, are awarded / approved based on an external qualification, and
generally at some point acceptance of that qualification is a subjective call by the approving authority,
who in many cases is the unit CC.

Also, their approval isn't even consistent between wings, as some states don't have tiered EMT ratings
that would fall under the "senior" or "master" levels as indicated in 39-1.

Were you to bring this to me as a CC, I would not approve it, for the same reason I would not approve similar badges
that require an external qualification or certification.

Some badges from outside services, such as military aviation and MOS badges are approved in the same way
as CAP badges - perpetual wear  however you had to be current for initial qualification.

I can't begin to imagine why you would think an expired EMT certification that predates CAP membership
has any value in a CAP context.

[Eclipse]

-- "These are not "government regulations"."

Sure they are.  USAF+Total Force

You should read a little more on when TF applies in a CAP context, it is a >very< narrow lane
and the majority of members never enter into TF.  It isn't in anyway applicable to
this conversation, or for that matter any CAP regulation other then 70-1, 70-3, and maybe 39-2

The CP, AE, and day-to-day operations of CAP are not considered to be TF.  Unless you've involved
in AFAMs, you're specifically, by USAF publications, not in TF.

Is the Wing and/or a squadron commander required to contact each of us with an official notification that we are authorized to wear earned ribbons and specialty track badges?

Yes, or his designate.

BTW - you don't "earn" anything until that same Wing CC or designated authority approves the training and activities purported to qualify.

All ES ratings are approved by wing, SETs, many of the specialty tracks, most decorations, promotions, and anything
else worn on the uniform past the nametag.

[CAPCom]

-- "Yes, or his designate"

"His"?  Hmmm... 

Anyhoo, when is that supposed to happen, then? (haven't seen it happen yet and I've already qualified for two ribbons)  The question is mostly rhetorical because (drum roll, please) ... there's nothing in the regs OR the OBC training that states such.  Or is there? (if you have a location for such, I'd be interested to see it)

-- "All ES ratings are approved by wing, SETs, many of the specialty tracks, most decorations, promotions, and anything
else worn on the uniform past the nametag."

*The EMT Occupational Badge isn't an ES rating.  It's an Occupational Badge separate from ES.
*The wearing of ribbons obtained from membership, Yeager, and so on are already implied as approved (another drum roll, please) ... by CAPM 39-1.  This is also addressed in OBC training and - if my memory is correct - nothing in the training modules state you have to get official notification from the Wing or elsewhere to wear anything other than grade.

[Eclipse]

(haven't seen it happen yet and I've already qualified for two ribbons)

Well, I guess if you haven't seen it happen, it's not a "thing".

FWIW - the authority to award decorations is not provided below the Group Commander, and the authority to
award service ribbons, by reg, is not provided below the Wing commander, unless designated formally.

CAPR 39-3, Page 11:
https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/R039_003_83459660D4F44.pdf

"b. Wing commanders award activity and service ribbons to members of their staffs and to
members of units within their wings. Authority to award these activity and service ribbons may be
delegated to group and squadron commanders at the discretion of the wing commander."

Some wings do, others don't.  There is an active thread on this board discussing the fact that NYWG
holds the RSR to the Group's approval, even though that and the Membership ribbon are designated
to the Unit CC in most wings for convenience.

The same goes for badges and other accouterments, including military or EMT badges.  Substantiation
for their wear is supposed to be provided to the unit commander for approval of the wear.  The fact that
this practice isn't consistent doesn't change that fact.

If you think you can just the EMT badge "because", then wear it.  50/50 no one is even going to care
because it's irrelevant in a CAP context.  If your unit CC challenges it, then the appeal would be to
the Group or Wing CC.

nothing in the training modules state you have to get official notification from the Wing or elsewhere to wear anything other than grade.

Good luck with that.

[CAPCom]

You have now changed from your original response, "Current and previously certified EMTs can wear it, but you can't be approved for initial wear if you aren't current" to "Substantiation
for their wear is supposed to be provided to the unit commander for approval of the wear." - which takes me back to the reg that states "currently certified and previously certified".  Not trying to pick what you've said apart to the bone, but it does seem now that your responses are based on personal opinion rather than fact and regulations.  Whatever.  Thanks for the eye-opening experience of CAP Talk.  Which does pretty much seem to mirror too much of the worst of internet posting.

[Eclipse]

So seriously, who told you they would not approve your expired EMT?

[CAPCom]

-- "So seriously, who told you they would not approve your expired EMT?"

No one.  I'm asking because I have asked if clarification is needed for the reg as written (it could be seen as vague or it could be taken literally) and have received no response from my squadron commander who was, from last I heard two months ago, going to contact the Wing (or higher).  I was hoping for responses from those who may have previous experience with this query.

[CAPCom]

No consistent rule on badge currency...Opinions don't control here, manual does.

Thanks for that.  Best and most on-topic response yet.

[Eclipse]

So someone came to you as a/RRO and asked yo about wearing an EMT badge,
or you dug into regs and pamphlets looking for something, anything ambiguous just so you could ask the question?

I was hoping for responses from those who may have previous experience with this query.

Well you got one from someone who has, and then proceeded to argue the point anyway,
explaining in the process all about government regulations and TF.

This is a subjective call of the respective member's commander.  No more, no less.
There is no more support or other verbiage anywhere in the curriculum or regs, and there
is a lot more like that within the program in total.

There's probably 100 places where something is a subjective call of a commander or
other delegated authority.  A lot of it is "inconsistent" or "unfair" depending on the viewing angle.

[CAPCom]

-- "So someone came to you as a/RRO and asked yo about wearing an EMT badge, or you dug into regs and pamphlets looking for something, anything ambiguous just so you could ask the question?"

Why are you making assumptions?  Not the sign of a good leader.  At all.

-- "Well you got one from someone who has, and then proceeded to argue the point anyway"

I wasn't arguing the point, I was challenging your obviously uninformed responses that you pulled out of thin air (you don't seem to know that the EMT badge is an Occupational Badge, that EMT Occupational Badges are not part of the ES quals, what a Flight is).  This is why I have doubted your responses as being accurate, on-topic, and relevant to the point of where they are actually helpful.  Frankly, because of all this, I seriously doubt that you truly have ever been asked the question and able to give an appropriate answer.

Not that I don't think I can like you or trust what you have to say eventually, but so far, not impressed.  Sorry.

[SarDragon]

OK, this one's done, at least for the time being.
Old folks - lighten up a bit.

New person - Being argumentative is not getting you anywhere. You asked, we gave answers. Like them, or don't like them, they are what they are. Work with the info, and move on.