New ribbon ideas?

[usafcap1]

If you could submit a new ribbon to NHQ what would you submit?

Thank you

[Luis R. Ramos]

1. The Blue Ribbon for the most posts in CAPTalk (light blue and a little more lighter just like CAPTalk colors)

2. The Gray Ribbon Award for the biggest ribbon rack

[usafcap1]

1. The Blue Ribbon for the most posts in CAPTalk (light blue and a little more lighter just like CAPTalk colors)

2. The Gray Ribbon Award for the biggest ribbon rack

I'm sorry. I can't tell if you are taking this post seriously or not. I'm serious. I'm not trying to grain more posts. I'm asking a legitimate question.


Thank you

[Panzerbjorn]

1. Post 9/11 Anti-Submarine Warfare Duty.  Device authorized for every five submarines sunk.

2. Air to Air Combat Ribbon.  Device authorized for every five aircraft shot down in a CAP aircraft.

3. Mascot Ribbon.  Device authorized for every ten hours spent in a Cadet Ken mascot costume.

4. Inter-Squadron Recruitment Ribbon. Awarded after convincing three cadets to leave their squadron and join yours.  Devices awarded for every five subsequent cadets.

5. The Burt Rutan Aerospace Award.  For successfully building, flying, and winning in a Red Bull Flugtag event.

6. The Chelsey Sullenberger Award.  Landing off airport as a result of bird strike or fuel exhaustion.  Device awarded for every four bird strikes.  Can only be awarded once for fuel exhaustion.

Those are just off the top of my head.

[MSG Mac]

Many years ago CAP had a ribbon for completing ECI ( now known as AFIADL) courses. Let's reinvent that one.

[Eclipse]

How about a 2b ribbon for anyone who submits new ribbon ideas?

Multiple awards are not authorized.

[lordmonar]

Okay....serious.....no....can't think of a single ribbon I would add.   I got a whole bunch I would consolidate or change.....but the only thing I can think of as and "add" would be to change the NRA marksman dangely to a ribbon.   

[JC004]

I'm generally against adding any ribbons, so the only one I would add would be a Recognition Ribbon, not unlike the AF has:

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13807.msg249657#msg249657

[GroundHawg]

I actually would suggest getting rid of a few ribbons instead of adding them. At least they allow cadets to short stack now which is a start I guess.

[Luis R. Ramos]

OP-sorry, you would have a far more successful response had you asked "If You Could Eliminate a Few Ribbons, Which Would You?"

[THRAWN]

How about a CAP MOH with a ribbon the color of the old berry boards? Or not. Too many already....

[Luis R. Ramos]

I would actually favor a ribbon if someone can find a photo of a CAP member berating a member of the military for not saluting. Maroon with gold and silver stripes. Devices for multiple photos...

[jeders]

3. Mascot Ribbon.  Device authorized for every ten hours spent in a Cadet Ken mascot costume.

Well, it is hazardous duty, so why not?

5. The Burt Rutan Aerospace Award.  For successfully building, flying, and winning in a Red Bull Flugtag event.

I actually kind of like that one, with red bull attachments for subsequent awards.

If you could submit a new ribbon to NHQ what would you submit?

Thank you

I have two better questions for you.

1. Given that we already have plenty of ribbons which are easily earned, why would we want to add more?

2. Since you started this little thread, what ribbon would you add?

[DoubleSecret]

I actually would suggest getting rid of a few ribbons instead of adding them. At least they allow cadets to short stack now which is a start I guess.

Consolidate the five ribbons acquired during professional development into one award with a numerical device. 

Make the Red Service Ribbon something that requires no administrative action.  Today's days minus eServices join date = authorized years to figure out basic plus devices.  I'd even add a field for "constructive join date" for folks with prior CAP service.  It could be used for this and for the rare person who actually wants to avail themselves of the incredible benefits of our retirement plan.

If certain aeronautical ratings are approved in eServices (itself a lengthy process), that should automatically allow for wear of the appropriate wings without having to do additional paperwork.  Unit commanders should be able to sign off for other cases (former CAP pilot who rejoins and wants to wear wings even though no longer rated).  If you don't trust them to authorize something that simple, they shouldn't be in command.

Since I'm well off the original post's reservation, how about empowering unit commanders to be the promotion approval authority when we get prior military officers in the door (not to exceed a CAP grade of Lt Col)?  It's ridiculous when some 20+ year retired service academy grad comes in and the process has to wend its way through multiple commanders before he/she can wear a rank equivalent to that worn in defense of our country.  It adds no value.  If a unit commander can directly appoint a prior-service E-9 to CAP CMSgt without all of those pit stops, certainly we can accord an active/reserve/retired/former field grade officer the same expeditious treatment.

[DoubleSecret]

And in keeping with the original post, we should establish the Belt Buckle Call-Out Medal.  It would be just below the bronze medal of valor in precedence.  It would be awarded to those who rightfully "call out" a senior member who chooses to wear the blue Air Force-style service uniform even though the senior member's gut prevents onlookers from seeing whether he/she is wearing a belt buckle.

The basic medal would be awarded for a rightful call-out.  Spontaneous utterances of "snap" from onlookers and pained looks from the callee could be mentioned in the accompanying citation.  Bronze and silver stars would denote multiple awards.  A gold "2B" device would be issued to those who sacrificed their CAP career in the course of an otherwise rightful call-out.

[Bobble]

Since you asked ...

A Patron Membership ribbon, aka the Shuman Award.

[Private Investigator]

I actually would suggest getting rid of a few ribbons instead of adding them. At least they allow cadets to short stack now which is a start I guess.

Consolidate the five ribbons acquired during professional development into one award with a numerical device. 

Make the Red Service Ribbon something that requires no administrative action.  Today's days minus eServices join date = authorized years to figure out basic plus devices.  I'd even add a field for "constructive join date" for folks with prior CAP service.  It could be used for this and for the rare person who actually wants to avail themselves of the incredible benefits of our retirement plan.

If certain aeronautical ratings are approved in eServices (itself a lengthy process), that should automatically allow for wear of the appropriate wings without having to do additional paperwork.  Unit commanders should be able to sign off for other cases (former CAP pilot who rejoins and wants to wear wings even though no longer rated).  If you don't trust them to authorize something that simple, they shouldn't be in command.

Since I'm well off the original post's reservation, how about empowering unit commanders to be the promotion approval authority when we get prior military officers in the door (not to exceed a CAP grade of Lt Col)?  It's ridiculous when some 20+ year retired service academy grad comes in and the process has to wend its way through multiple commanders before he/she can wear a rank equivalent to that worn in defense of our country.  It adds no value.  If a unit commander can directly appoint a prior-service E-9 to CAP CMSgt without all of those pit stops, certainly we can accord an active/reserve/retired/former field grade officer the same expeditious treatment.

https://www.capnhq.gov/news/Report_of_Recent_Membership_Action_Review_Board_Cases_MAR_10.pdf

Review paragraph f. That indiviual was fraudently a CAP member and Lt Col. Just when we believe eveyone is honest, Murphy sucker punches you. 

[James Shaw]

If you could submit a new ribbon to NHQ what would you submit?

Thank you

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=19356.0

From a similar thread.

[DoubleSecret]

https://www.capnhq.gov/news/Report_of_Recent_Membership_Action_Review_Board_Cases_MAR_10.pdf

Review paragraph f. That indiviual was fraudently a CAP member and Lt Col. Just when we believe eveyone is honest, Murphy sucker punches you. 

I don't believe everyone is honest.  Due diligence is called for, certainly.  There doesn't seem to be any administrative step where real assessment of bona fides occurs (i.e., getting the prospective promotee to sign a Privacy Act release and independently writing the appropriate agency to verify documentation).  Whether it's squadron-to-national or squadron-to-group (if any)-to-wing-to-region-to-national is irrelevant.  The present process seems more about making higher echelons feel important than about protecting the integrity of the process.

[Eclipse]

^ In this case, I don't see the actual issue in the text, so I am assuming there was a stolen valor or similar issue
at play.

Unless CAP pulls a FOIA request on every military equivalence promotion, there's not much it can do but request
substantiation and accept members' word, insuring that spidey sense is on full power. 

The member doesn't have to sign or authorize anything as military records are public documents (at least in regards to
service dates, decs, etc.).  Anyone can request anyone else's 214 and related record from the NPRC, and certainly
CAP should be able to short-shrift those requests via direct contacts with the USAF.

Perhaps that should be part of the process, and CAP should slow its roll on advanced promotions. I've always said
that every new member should stay a SMWOG for the first 6 months at a minimum, if not a year.  There's no
mission critical need to blast people to bars and oaks the second their check clears.

Frankly, a requirement to document all military grade, badges, and decs a CAP member intends to use or wear should be
a requirement day 1.  I can't tell you the number of times I've discussed that "so and so is wearing such and such and
no one thinks its correct..." my response is always "you're the CC, make him substantiate or take it off", but you know
how that goes.