Unit Citation for NYWG

Hawk200 · October 03, 2009, 06:56:41 PM

Quote from: PHall on October 03, 2009, 06:27:29 PMWanna 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.

Quote from: PHall on October 03, 2009, 06:27:29 PMEverything 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 · October 03, 2009, 07:50:32 PM

Quote from: Hawk200 on October 03, 2009, 06:56:41 PM
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 · October 03, 2009, 08:31:30 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 03, 2009, 07:50:32 PMSee 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 · October 03, 2009, 08:45:43 PM

Quote from: Hawk200 on October 03, 2009, 08:31:30 PM
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.