Cloth Specialty Track Badges - Anyone?

[jb512]

Actually, I did say that was a basic utility uniform.  I'm good.

[lordmonar]

Equality is a good thing....why should Cops and air craft maintainers get badges and no one else?

As for showing pride...okay...there is a little bling love in there...I admit it......but it still goes back to the statement of equality....why should GTMs get a badge but not an admin or PAO guy?  Is this envy?  Okay maybe it is.....but is envy a good enough reason NOT to give other people a badge?

I wouldn't say envy is a reason not to give a badge. Not where I'm coming from at all. I just don't see the point of creating a new item. And yes, it is creating a new item, as cloth specialty badges do not currently exist.

If it's such an issue to some people that don't have an embroidered badge for their BDU's, then there's a problem somewhere. Neither of the two specialty tracks I have worked for the last six years of CAP have badges. It's never been an issue to me. Everyone in the unit knew exactly what I was. Anyone outside the unit isn't relevant.

Also, there's complaints of uniformity issues. What's it going to look like if there are even more things to wear? At what point will it be literal pot luck to get your uniform right? I think everyone here knows someone that still wears an outdated patch of some kind. Why contribute to that mess?

For now, let's get our uniforms straight and aligned before we start bothering with new stuff.

Again....not everyone is the same.  What is so wrong with creating something new?  It is not like I am suggesting that we allow someone who is wearing two badges (say GT and IC) to be able to add to his BDUS his master IT, master CP and Tech Admin.....but he would have the option to choose two and where those.

We created badges in the first place so that those who have qualifed to wear them.....can show them to the world....that is called pride.  Why do we only care about the pride of ICs, GTs, Chaplains and Aircrew?

You don't see the "need" because you are a 'have' or you a 'I don't wear anything' sort of guy.  Look at it from the 'have nots' and 'bling monkeys' point of view.  Assuming that we keep it professional (only two badges as currently allowed) and we make the badges professional looking what's the problem?  So what if we have 100 different badges.....if we 100 different specialties and ES ratings?

[lordmonar]

Wear would they "show up to help out"?

They can't even walk into a mission base as "only an admin person", so what does "only an admin person" even need BDU's for to start with?

They don't....but then no one is reqired to have them so your argument is moot.

[Eclipse]

Wear would they "show up to help out"?

They can't even walk into a mission base as "only an admin person", so what does "only an admin person" even need BDU's for to start with?

They don't....but then no one is required to have them so your argument is moot.

I can agree with that, but the whole premise here is to create cloth badges for members with non-operational specialties for uniforms that aren't really even appropriate for the jobs they are qualified to perform.

So what's the point?

[Hawk200]

You don't see the "need" because you are a 'have' or you a 'I don't wear anything' sort of guy.  Look at it from the 'have nots' and 'bling monkeys' point of view.  Assuming that we keep it professional (only two badges as currently allowed) and we make the badges professional looking what's the problem?  So what if we have 100 different badges.....if we 100 different specialties and ES ratings?

Depends on how you look at it. In one aspect, I'm a "don't wear anything" guy.  When it comes to "don't have", there are no badges for Personnel, Cadet Programs, or Senior Programs to wear on BDU's. So I don't have, but it's never been an issue. As I said before, everyone in my unit knows what position I hold, and people outside the unit aren't relevant.

As for "have nots", how many are just completely distraught by not having a badge? I bet the list is far smaller than most people might think.

Concerning "bling monkeys", that is no reason to create something. It's wasteful, and indicates priorities that we shouldn't be entertaining.

Now when it comes to create a new style of badge that is worn differently, there's an overlap problem. You will get people that will wear the old pocket type badge, and the new "Air Force style" specialty badge. We both know that it would be wrong, but it will be done. So, to eliminate that problem, phase out the old pocket badges, and some time later authorize the new style.

Some people may come to the conclusion that they did without it for a while, so they really don't need it to do their job. Which could result in more pride in their competence, not in their bling.

[lordmonar]

Wear would they "show up to help out"?

They can't even walk into a mission base as "only an admin person", so what does "only an admin person" even need BDU's for to start with?

They don't....but then no one is required to have them so your argument is moot.

I can agree with that, but the whole premise here is to create cloth badges for members with non-operational specialties for uniforms that aren't really even appropriate for the jobs they are qualified to perform.

So what's the point?

Because some of those members who DO wear BDUs want to wear their non-operations specailities on their uniform.

And who said BDUs are not appropriat for their jobs?  Are you suggesting that we limit BDU to "field conditions" only?

[Lancer]

Because some of those members who DO wear BDUs want to wear their non-operations specailities on their uniform.

And who said BDUs are not appropriat for their jobs?  Are you suggesting that we limit BDU to "field conditions" only?

I would hope nobody would limit that. I'm not sure how the rest of the world does it, but at my home unit, which is a cadet unit, the UOD for the cadets is the UOD for the Senior Members (except for PT nights, when we wear the polo combo), otherwise we mirror the cadets for uniformity.

I'd say at this point, there is more support for doing this than not, so what would be the next step for getting the ball rolling on something like this? I'd like to hear Lt Col White weight in on this since he's the lead for the uniform committee.

Besides, I'd like to hear where we are on the whole update to 39-1 issue anyways... Lt Col White?

[lordmonar]

You don't see the "need" because you are a 'have' or you a 'I don't wear anything' sort of guy.  Look at it from the 'have nots' and 'bling monkeys' point of view.  Assuming that we keep it professional (only two badges as currently allowed) and we make the badges professional looking what's the problem?  So what if we have 100 different badges.....if we 100 different specialties and ES ratings?

Depends on how you look at it. In one aspect, I'm a "don't wear anything" guy.  When it comes to "don't have", there are no badges for Personnel, Cadet Programs, or Senior Programs to wear on BDU's. So I don't have, but it's never been an issue. As I said before, everyone in my unit knows what position I hold, and people outside the unit aren't relevant.

As for "have nots", how many are just completely distraught by not having a badge? I bet the list is far smaller than most people might think.

Concerning "bling monkeys", that is no reason to create something. It's wasteful, and indicates priorities that we shouldn't be entertaining.

Now when it comes to create a new style of badge that is worn differently, there's an overlap problem. You will get people that will wear the old pocket type badge, and the new "Air Force style" specialty badge. We both know that it would be wrong, but it will be done. So, to eliminate that problem, phase out the old pocket badges, and some time later authorize the new style.

Some people may come to the conclusion that they did without it for a while, so they really don't need it to do their job. Which could result in more pride in their competence, not in their bling.

Okay...now you are overstating the situation....no one is distrough that they don't get a badge.

Also....what is wrong with pandering to the needs of bling monkeys?  Wasteful? How so?  Why should do you feel using visual reward as a motivator tool "indicates priorities that we shouldn't be entertaining."?

What should not be entertained?  We ask people to move up in their PD levels, we ask people to become experts in the specialty tracks....but we offer them no rewards?  Sure you don't jump for the bling....but others do.....and being a bling monkey is not a negative term in my book.  It is just an identifier of what motivates people to do the job asked of them.

Why is that such a hard concept to understand?  Leadership is the art of motivating people to accomplish the mission.  Please don't limit the tools that we can use.

[lordmonar]

Because some of those members who DO wear BDUs want to wear their non-operations specailities on their uniform.

And who said BDUs are not appropriat for their jobs?  Are you suggesting that we limit BDU to "field conditions" only?

I would hope nobody would limit that. I'm not sure how the rest of the world does it, but at my home unit, which is a cadet unit, the UOD for the cadets is the UOD for the Senior Members (except for PT nights, when we wear the polo combo), otherwise we mirror the cadets for uniformity.

I'd say at this point, there is more support for doing this than not, so what would be the next step for getting the ball rolling on something like this? I'd like to hear Lt Col White weight in on this since he's the lead for the uniform committee.

Besides, I'd like to hear where we are on the whole update to 39-1 issue anyways... Lt Col White?

Well the first step would be to redesign all the specialty badges (shrink them down, or make them more USAFish) and develope the cloth badges.

Second step would be to re-write 39-1 to limit the number of badges to two above the ribbons (and the CC's badge on the right side) to bring it in line with USAF practices.

[Eclipse]

And who said BDUs are not appropriate for their jobs?  Are you suggesting that we limit BDU to "field conditions" only?

Not necessarily, however, we're talking about members who have chosen to not participate in ES, so by definition their jobs are HQ-based.  No need for an uncomfortable field getup to file members' records and prepare forms.

If they want to sit at a desk with bloused boots and BDU's fine, but that doesn't mean we have to create cloth badges for them.

If CAP had designated duty uniforms like the USAF (flyers = "onsie", everyone else BDU's), that might be a different story, since we'd be telling people what they should wear.

[Eclipse]

Second step would be to re-write 39-1 to limit the number of badges to two above the ribbons (and the CC's badge on the right side) to bring it in line with USAF practices.

That exists today, you're currently allowed one specialty insignia and one aviation badge, to a total of 4 on the shirt (blues).

[Hawk200]

You don't see the "need" because you are a 'have' or you a 'I don't wear anything' sort of guy.  Look at it from the 'have nots' and 'bling monkeys' point of view.  Assuming that we keep it professional (only two badges as currently allowed) and we make the badges professional looking what's the problem?  So what if we have 100 different badges.....if we 100 different specialties and ES ratings?

Depends on how you look at it. In one aspect, I'm a "don't wear anything" guy.  When it comes to "don't have", there are no badges for Personnel, Cadet Programs, or Senior Programs to wear on BDU's. So I don't have, but it's never been an issue. As I said before, everyone in my unit knows what position I hold, and people outside the unit aren't relevant.

As for "have nots", how many are just completely distraught by not having a badge? I bet the list is far smaller than most people might think.

Concerning "bling monkeys", that is no reason to create something. It's wasteful, and indicates priorities that we shouldn't be entertaining.

Now when it comes to create a new style of badge that is worn differently, there's an overlap problem. You will get people that will wear the old pocket type badge, and the new "Air Force style" specialty badge. We both know that it would be wrong, but it will be done. So, to eliminate that problem, phase out the old pocket badges, and some time later authorize the new style.

Some people may come to the conclusion that they did without it for a while, so they really don't need it to do their job. Which could result in more pride in their competence, not in their bling.

Okay...now you are overstating the situation....no one is distrough that they don't get a badge.

Also....what is wrong with pandering to the needs of bling monkeys?  Wasteful? How so?  Why should do you feel using visual reward as a motivator tool "indicates priorities that we shouldn't be entertaining."?

What should not be entertained?  We ask people to move up in their PD levels, we ask people to become experts in the specialty tracks....but we offer them no rewards?  Sure you don't jump for the bling....but others do.....and being a bling monkey is not a negative term in my book.  It is just an identifier of what motivates people to do the job asked of them.

Why is that such a hard concept to understand?  Leadership is the art of motivating people to accomplish the mission.  Please don't limit the tools that we can use.

Well, you're making a couple of foolish mistakes here. One, I fully understand the concept, and as I said before, I don't see the point. If you want to go create specialty badges in the Air Force style, go ahead, I'm not stopping you. I don't care either way. If they're authorized, I'm not going to tell people that they can't wear. I just have no use for them.

Two, it's just my opinion, a concept you seem to be missing. I'm entitled to my opinion just as much as you are, and hopefully you've noticed that I didn't tell you that anything was wrong about it. Unless an opinion directly conflicts with facts, there's nothing right or wrong about it.

You could save yourself some stress by recognizing that I'm not going to change my mind without some very compelling arguments. So far it seems like you're either arguing just to argue, or else you think that I have to take your viewpoint.

It's a discussion forum. I've stated what I think, and I'm reading what others have posted as well. Someone may come up with something that does change my mind. So far, you haven't. Let it go, it's not worth creating a war over it, or the constant return fire.

[Bluelakes 13]

For gods' sake!  We need LESS bling, not more!

[Major Carrales]

For gods' sake!  We need LESS bling, not more!

Point of order...cloth badges do not "bling." 

On a related note...there are some that would argue that we don't need camo uniforms like BDUs, especially since we are required by the regulations to put a orange vest over them.  We wear them because they are the uniform of our MOTHER SERVICE.

There are some here too that might argue that we should follow the policy of the Aviators...flight suits while only at flight activities.  Thus, regular meetings might best be an evening sporting shirt and trosers instead of BDUs et al unless everyone in those uniform was working on UDF/GROUND TEAM work.

There are also those that might make the case that everyone at a FIELD EXERCISE should be in a field/flight uniform...still others that mission staff should be in a "staff uniform."

WOW...all those opinions.  I think Civilian_Pilot was correct, we make alot of "noise" about uniforms. 

I'm in favor of when the next MANUAL comes out that we place a 10 year moratorium on changes, no matter what the USAF does in that time that we stay consistant.  Yeah...I know, someone will invent a whole new science and we will need a badge for it.


Now, my solution to this meshegas...

Why not just have aviation bagdes, GT badges and one generic "SUPPORT" badge (at all three levels of course) for everyone else.

[lordmonar]

Hawk....that is what I am doing...discussing the subject.  If you don't care about the subject...why are you discussing it?

Major Carrales....

Why not just have aviation bagdes, GT badges and one generic "SUPPORT" badge (at all three levels of course) for everyone else.

So the only important things are aircrew, GTs...they deserve their own badge...but everyone else has to share?  I know this sounds a little petty but a generic support badge would make things worse.  Also...if you are going to allow a badge for the"other catagory'...why not just task small committee from each specialty track to make their own badge?  I will cost us nothing.  Any set up costs will pay for themselves over time...it is not like we would be adding any new bling....just more choices for what can go into slots A or B.

Eclipse....39-1 right now allows you to wear up to four badges on the blues.  One avaition wing over ribbons, one specialty badge over ribbons, one specilty centered left pocket and one specialty badge centered over name tag (to include the CC's badge).

I would change that to allow only two badges over the ribbons (1 wing + 1 specilty badge OR 2 specilty badges) and only the CC's badge allowed over the name tag.

[Major Carrales]

So the only important things are aircrew, GTs...they deserve their own badge...but everyone else has to share?  I know this sounds a little petty but a generic support badge would make things worse.  Also...if you are going to allow a badge for the"other catagory'...why not just task small committee from each specialty track to make their own badge?  I will cost us nothing.  Any set up costs will pay for themselves over time...it is not like we would be adding any new bling....just more choices for what can go into slots A or B.

The only really things that happen at SARex activities are AIR, GROUND, COMMAND, COMMs, SAFETY and SUPPORT for the former.  We don't need a Mission Staff Assistant badge nor one for Communications Unit Leader or any "mirco" management type badges.  We have, already, badges for AIR, GROUND, COMM and SAFETY.  A COMMAND and SUPPORT are all that is needed. (I am not sure if the IC Badge is already in the works for wear so I will not include it as a matter of inherency)

You know, you guys are hard to read.  Do you want more/less signage or functional signage?

[Hawk200]

Hawk....that is what I am doing...discussing the subject. 

Not the impression you gave. Read your own posts, maybe you'll realize how you came across.

The only really things that happen at SARex activities are AIR, GROUND, COMMAND, COMMs, SAFETY and SUPPORT for the former.  We don't need a Mission Staff Assistant badge nor one for Communications Unit Leader or any "mirco" management type badges.  We have, already, badges for AIR, GROUND, COMM and SAFETY.  A COMMAND and SUPPORT are all that is needed. (I am not sure if the IC Badge is already in the works for wear so I will not include it as a matter of inherency)

Never really thought about the breakdown, but that pretty much sums it up. Mission badges on BDU's are useful. Specialty track badges are just something to show. The primary uniform on missions is going to be BDU's. Yes, there are a few quals that would be appropriately wearing blues, but there's bling for those already, so creating any new type wouldn't be useful.

At a mission base, the ES stuff is the meat and potatoes. You can fill needs on a mission by identifying skills from badges and patches. Those skills should be indicated on the sign in sheet, but not everyone has a copy with them at every moment. A general ES badge would indicate that someone has a mission skill, showing the difference between someone training and someone qualified without the oversize patch that looks like someone is overcompensating.

[lordmonar]

The only really things that happen at SARex activities are AIR, GROUND, COMMAND, COMMs, SAFETY and SUPPORT for the former.  We don't need a Mission Staff Assistant badge nor one for Communications Unit Leader or any "mirco" management type badges.  We have, already, badges for AIR, GROUND, COMM and SAFETY.  A COMMAND and SUPPORT are all that is needed. (I am not sure if the IC Badge is already in the works for wear so I will not include it as a matter of inherency)

You know, you guys are hard to read.  Do you want more/less signage or functional signage?

No one is talking about an ES speicalty badges...but I do agree we should have one of those......we are talking about specilty track badges...and only specilty track badges for those who wear BDUs but have not ES specilty.

[Eclipse]

No one is talking about an ES speicalty badges...but I do agree we should have one of those......we are talking about specialty track badges...and only specialty track badges for those who wear BDUs but have not ES specialty.

Right, but the appellate court  already established this was silly, so barring a procedural error that the Supreme court is willing to hear, the matter is closed.   

[DNall]

I don't think you need to prioritize ES badges over specialty tracks.

In my career I've done more ES than the great majority of members ever have or will do while involved with CAP. I have observer wings, but haven't been current as an MO for 10 years, and I have a GBD badge and I do actually do that a few times a year. I'm not wearing that new IC badge, cause it's gay looking & they should have known better when they made it.

On the other hand, I've been extremely active with cadet programs & hold a master rating in that field. It's much more appropriate for me to be wearing a master CP badge on my BDUs than a master GT badge, particularly when at events like encampment where ES quals are meaningless but many of those other skill-sets are very much in demand.

POINT 2: I also strongly agree that the badge policy on BDUs (and future ABUs) should mirror the less-bling AF policy. That being limited to 2 over the branch (CAP) tape. I also favor embroidered version of the CC badge for over the name.

Point 3: I already stated my case for why CAP badges are currently designed and appvd by AF in the basic shield style & specifically w/o an operational wreath. If you think we should dismiss that whole concept & redesign our badges with wreaths just cause it looks cool, well you're entitled to that opinion, but it is not really part of a conversation on having or not having embroidered badges for BDUs.