Where are squadron patches allowed on flight suits?

[Blues Brother]

Where are squadron patches allowed on flight suits?  what is the approved location to put them on flight suits and flight jackets??

I have to get some velcro sewn on my flight suit and jacket and want to make sure its in the correct location before its done.  THanks in advance for any input! 

[Shotgun]

The short answer is they are not.

[Eclipse]

On the right shoulder as one of the optional patches, only if your wing has an approved supplement allowing them to be worn, otherwise they are not allowed.

[Blues Brother]

OK  thanks for the info.  I was mistaken on this one.  I thought that one squadron patch was approved on a flight suit.  my mistake.  thanks for the feedback!

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

On the right shoulder as one of the optional patches, only if your wing has an approved supplement allowing them to be worn, otherwise they are not allowed.

Which is where I wear mine, attached with Velcro.

[Blues Brother]

OK so you CAN wear one, but in place of a wing patch then??

[Eclipse]

OK so you CAN wear one, but in place of a wing patch then??

On the right shoulder as one of the optional patches, only if your wing has an approved supplement allowing them to be worn, otherwise they are not allowed.

[Larry Mangum]

Actually, you can not and the wing is not allowed to supplement what is worn on the flight suit. See figure 2-19 in CAPM 39-1, note 6. Also see table 2-4. 

[Eclipse]

Actually, you can not and the wing is not allowed to supplement what is worn on the flight suit. See figure 2-19 in CAPM 39-1, note 6. Also see table 2-4.

Cite please.

The wing is, of course, allowed to supplement most regulations, including 39-1.  Mine has, as have many others.

[Larry Mangum]

See Chapter 1-1, paragraph 1-1.
"Wear of the AF-style uniforms, as well as the insignia, badges, and devices worn on these uniforms are as prescribed by the Commander, CAP-USAF, with the approval of Headquarters USAF." Therefore a wing commander cannot supplement a uniform controlled by the Air Force.

" Table 1-3 describes items that may be authorized by wing/region commanders."


Table 6-4 also  clearly delinates what patch can be worn on what uniform.

[Eclipse]

You can quote that text all you want, or accept the fact that even the most current uniform ICL from NHQ conflicts with the regulation.

There are a number of wings with properly approved supps to 39-1 and other regulations.

If you're trying to make an academic argument, so be it, but reality conflicts with your assertions about what Wing and Region CC's can and have done.

[Larry Mangum]

Eclipse, I do not know of any approved supplement anywhere in the country that changes what can be worn on the flight suit. Do you?  Yes CAPM 39-1 has been supplements by many wings, but only on things the regulation says wing and region commanders are authorized to approve changes. The Air Force has been mores strict about what can be worn on that particular uniform than any other uniform. 

[Eclipse]

Yes.  Mine. 

I have no idea where the assertion about the the USAF being more concerned about the flight suit, specifically, comes from, other then then
questions about still wearing plastic-encased grade, I don't think there's been much, if any, discussion on anyone's part about the flight suit(s)
for a decade.

[Larry Mangum]

Which is what wing or region?

[SARDOC]

Eclipse you asked Larry Mangum to cite his argument and he did.  Just because other's choose to ignore the letter of the regulation doesn't make it right.  The Regulation clearly identifies the items that Region and Wing Commanders have the latitude to approve. 

You can't supplement or alter a regulation that specifically prohibits that alteration.  If you want to make those changes they should follow the process identified in the regulation.

As far as wearing Squadron Patches on Flight Suits...I don't really care.  If you have a Supplement that was submitted and eventually approved by CAP-USAF as stated in the process identified in the regulation then I think that NHQ failed to publish that authorized change to everyone. 

The Interim Change Letter that was issued 17 Dec 2012 to CAPM 39-1 is in effect, however, I would challenge the validity of the ICL from 12 Mar 2012.  Just because another ICL says it is in effect until further notice actually violates the CAPR 5-4. 

[Cool Mace]

The Interim Change Letter that was issued 17 Dec 2012 to CAPM 39-1 is in effect, however, I would challenge the validity of the ICL from 12 Mar 2012.  Just because another ICL says it is in effect until further notice actually violates the CAPR 5-4.

Just another example on how ICL's can mess up a lot of stuff.

[Eclipse]

You can't supplement or alter a regulation that specifically prohibits that alteration.  If you want to make those changes they should follow the process identified in the regulation.

39-1 does not prohibit it being supplemented.

It also asserts that it is the only and sole authority on uniform wear, which it clearly is not.

The Interim Change Letter that was issued 17 Dec 2012 to CAPM 39-1 is in effect, however, I would challenge the validity of the ICL from 12 Mar 2012.  Just because another ICL says it is in effect until further notice actually violates the CAPR 5-4.

No argument there.

[SARDOC]

You can't supplement or alter a regulation that specifically prohibits that alteration.  If you want to make those changes they should follow the process identified in the regulation.

39-1 does not prohibit it being supplemented.

It also asserts that it is the only and sole authority on uniform wear, which it clearly is not.

I have a working understanding of Parliamentary Procedure.  I agree, I made some mistakes in my previous assertion.  The real problem is that CAPM 39-1 is that it is NOT a regulation.  It's a Manual.  A Manual by definition is to announce procedures and guidance for performing standard tasks and usually contain examples.  A Procedure is a step by step process in order to perform a task.  Guidance is just that Guidance on how something SHOULD be done.

It does declare that Compliance with Publication is Mandatory.  This is similar to my problem with the ICL.  Just because they state a condition that isn't supported by regulations doesn't make it so.  A Manual, OI, ICL, Supplement, etc...That Contradict established regulations should be immediately declared invalid.

The Fix to that would be to actually create a Regulation that adopts the CAP Manual 39-1 by reference.

[Pylon]

The National Commander has the authority to change any part of the regulation or manual, at their pleasure.  So if the National Commander (or his delegated authority) approves a wing supplement that contradicts something in the regulation, he or she is in effect approving a change to the regulation for that wing or region.  If the regulation/manual says "Wing and region commanders may approve X, Y, and Z" that doesn't bind the national commander's hands as the approving/change authority for the reg.

[JeffDG]

The National Commander has the authority to change any part of the regulation or manual, at their pleasure.  So if the National Commander (or his delegated authority) approves a wing supplement that contradicts something in the regulation, he or she is in effect approving a change to the regulation for that wing or region.  If the regulation/manual says "Wing and region commanders may approve X, Y, and Z" that doesn't bind the national commander's hands as the approving/change authority for the reg.

Bingo.

If it says Wing Commanders may do x,y,z, that's pre-permission for them to do so without higher-approval.  If they want to do w, then they need permission.