Cloth Specialty Track Badges - Anyone?

[RiverAux]

Anyone want to bet how many seniors would recognize what any of the badges we have now mean, much less any being proposed?  A good percentage don't really care about the PD program at all, and even those that do are not going to take the time to learn what any of those badges mean other than the ones they've earned. 

[lordmonar]

Anyone want to bet how many seniors would recognize what any of the badges we have now mean, much less any being proposed?  A good percentage don't really care about the PD program at all, and even those that do are not going to take the time to learn what any of those badges mean other than the ones they've earned. 

Badges are about personal pride......I wear mined because I am proud of what I do....if someone does not know what badge it is...they can always ask.

[DNall]

Anyone want to bet how many seniors would recognize what any of the badges we have now mean, much less any being proposed?  A good percentage don't really care about the PD program at all, and even those that do are not going to take the time to learn what any of those badges mean other than the ones they've earned. 

You keep saying that, but it's really not the case, at least not the way you're painting it. Most people are only in the org for a year or two. In that timeframe they aren't and should not be concerned with a whole lot of PD. They need initial entry training, which is delivered at the local level, and they need the min essential trng for the task they joined for, which is pretty much ES or cadet programs, again local level. They don't really need to worry about an outside course for 2-4 years. Which is where it hits in the current PD process. I would venture to say that the majority of people that stay longer than three years do complete at least some of the PD requirements to progress.

That said, specialty tracks are NOT professional development. SLS/CLC/etc are PD. Tech/Sr/Master ratings are also a requirement for promotion, but they are not professional development, they are continuing and advanced education in specialized jobs we need people doing so we can function. Incentivizing that further learning is why the metal badges were developed. It's completely fair to carry those onto utility uniforms as well - a no brainer in fact.

[SarDragon]

That said, specialty tracks are NOT professional development. SLS/CLC/etc are PD. Tech/Sr/Master ratings are also a requirement for promotion, but they are not professional development, they are continuing and advanced education in specialized jobs we need people doing so we can function. Incentivizing that further learning is why the metal badges were developed. It's completely fair to carry those onto utility uniforms as well - a no brainer in fact.

HUH? 

Why then do the CAPP 200-series say Senior Member Training Program at the top? From CAP Regulation 50-17, 1 March 2003, Summary Of Changes - Senior Member Professional Development Program replaces Senior Member Training Program. And, why is completion of the three levels of training so prominent in CAPR 50-17 if the specialty tracks are not part of the PD Program?

[DNall]

It is somewhat confused isn't it? This is why in the military there is Professional military education (PME) on the one hand, and career field training on the other. PME is promotion requirement for everyone. Career field training is not so much, at least on the officer side.

So yes, specialty tracks are technically training directed at senior members; and, accomplishing levels in one of them is required to promote; BUT don't confuse the fact that it is a promotion requirement with it being professional development. PD is ONE of several requirements for promotion, it is not THE entire program. I know in recent years it has been used interchangeably, including in regulations, and that just makes it more confusing.

My point is the specialty tracks are job training, not quote unquote professional development - meaning they aren't designed to make you a better officer/more effective leader/manager/etc, they are designed to progress technical training in a specific job field.

None of this having anything to do with it being a good idea to have embroidered specialty badges or not, but a lot to do with dismissing cynical remarks that don't contribute to the conversation one way or another (river  ) 

[RiverAux]

CAP has one professional development program and it encompasses both specialty track training and general "leadership" development type courses as well as other matters.  There is no separation of the two and trying to apply military definitions to this aspect of CAP doesn't make any sense.  CAP has defined all of it as Professional Development so that is what we should use here.   

[DNall]

This is kind of semantics isn't it? When you're saying people don't do PD, you're talking about level I-V & the courses in particular, not specialty tracks. Spec tracks are mostly OJT/doing time in a staff duty with a few extra requirements, and really in & of themselves have nothing to do with promotions. People do participate in the spec tracks, usually several of them.

As far as people knowing what they mean... I don't know what half the AF specialty badges mean, and I promise you people in other services don't understand almost any of them. Some of that is useful, but it's honestly bonus. The point is much more what Patrick said, to incentivize training, and develop pride/esprit-de-corps. All of which is furthered with embroidered versions on utilities, at no real cost to the org. In fact, it can be implemented (as has been stated in this thread) in a way that reduces the amount of crap on our uniforms & brings us more in line with the AF rules. That's one of those rare best of all worlds things. Where's the down side?

[Larry Mangum]

At a large mission base, as an IC, I have made sure that admin, at sign-in, ensures that all mission base staff members are assigned a position bade that is pinned to their uniform in a prominent position.  That way there is no doubt who's the IC is or the Air Boss are any other key person.  In some case we have gone as far as badging aircrew and ground team members so we could easily control access to operational areas.  While I like the occupational badges, when I am try to decide who to slot into a position, I ususally do not look at the uniforms to see what badges they are wearing, instead I am looking at 101 cards and talking to people with the appropriate ES ratings to determine if they are a good fit for the mission.

[DNall]

^ This really doesn't have ANYTHING to do with ES. How does my GBD or IC or MO badge do any good on my BDUs at encampment? My Master CP or admin, pers, etc badges might be meaningful though.

If you want to talk ES though, they're meaningful there too. I'd kind of like to know if I have an MSA that's got a senior rating in admin/pers and no one has FASC on a 101. If I don't have an IO, and equally don't have spare time, but I do have a guy with a senior PA badge that might be able to help write releases for me to approve/brief. I'm not saying you slam those folks in a job they aren't qual'd for cause they're wearing a badge. It's just extra information that can help you decide who to talk to about specific needs. If it helps a few people a few times in all the thousands of missions we do, what's that cost us?

That said, I just finished saying...

I don't know what half the AF specialty badges mean, and I promise you people in other services don't understand almost any of them. Some of that is useful, but it's honestly bonus. The point is much more what Patrick said, to incentivize training, and develop pride/esprit-de-corps. All of which is furthered with embroidered versions on utilities, at no real cost to the org. In fact, it can be implemented (as has been stated in this thread) in a way that reduces the amount of crap on our uniforms & brings us more in line with the AF rules. That's one of those rare best of all worlds things. Where's the down side?

[RiverAux]

People do participate in the spec tracks, usually several of them.

Not as many as you might think.  In my wing about 45% of senior members have not achieved the technician rating in any specialty track (That is not a wild guess at the numbers either, I looked it up).  This jibes pretty well with lack of progress in the senior member levels (almost 40% of our members in the rank of Capt/Maj/Lt Col haven't completed Level 2). 

[DNall]

I could use the simple answer here & say, "See, this supports the thesis that we need to further incentivize participation in that all-important training."

In reality though, those numbers are just completely worthless. What the hell does 45% of members mean? Is the guy that put in his paperwork & disappeared after a couple months when he found out it was hard work get counted in there? You know he does, and that skews the hell out of those numbers to the point of making them meaningless.

Most people don't stay in the program very long, and that's just talking dues paying. If you look at actual showing up members, you get a completely different picture. Those people are either sitting in a chair every week bored out of their mind & won't be around long, or they're doing a job, which is more like 90%. The fact that their time/work isn't getting documented is a reflection of piss poor personnel and program management.

I can tell you right now my record is all jacked up. It doesn't reflect things I've actually done & been awarded when I got signed documentation to prove it - and I frankly don't care cause it doesn't matter. You take the guy that's been in six months & barely knows what a tech rating is, he sure as hell doesn't understand how to force his chain and the system to give him the rating. That in turn jacks up level completion, as does a lack of PD courses, and overall bad PD/personnel mgmt. All of which further makes those number completely worthless to reality on the ground.

I sympathize with the situation. We don't have full time people to fix all this stuff for us like we have in the guard/reserve. We're supposed to have a staff member focused on it, but I can just about promise you it's among the most unfilled slots on the chart.

My point is that people who are active in the program and who do stay beyond a year or two (ie figure the system out & make it work) are participating in the spec tracks - or rather are doing a staff job for which you are supposed to get a spec rating.

However, NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with sufficient reasons that we should or should not have embroidered versions of the current spec track badges.

[RiverAux]

In reality though, those numbers are just completely worthless. What the hell does 45% of members mean? Is the guy that put in his paperwork & disappeared after a couple months when he found out it was hard work get counted in there? You know he does, and that skews the hell out of those numbers to the point of making them meaningless.

Well, if you want to play the active/inactive game....The numbers seem to hold up pretty well.  In my home squadron, which is one of the most active in the wing, almost a third of "active" members who have been around 3+ years haven't yet gotten their technician rating.  And only 1/3 of those who lack a tech rating (and have been in more than 3 years) are "inactive" (2/3 who lack a rating are "active"). 

Why does it matter to this thread?  Based on on my data almost half of CAP members would not qualify for any of these badges at all.  Assume only 1 cloth specialty badge would be worn at a time, the market for any single badge would be very, very small.  If we assume that half of senior members have BDU/BBDUs (which is being generous), then that leaves us with 6,000 potential customers (based on my estimate above).  If we assume that 15% will get Cadet programs and 15% ES (rough estimate on my part of the true percentage) with the others being divided equally, you'll see that we're talking production runs that are only in the hundreds for most badges, even if every BDU wearer buys a couple.

Bottom line is that its just not going to be cheap and won't effect enough members to be worthwhile.  I say the same things about the metal badges by the way.

[DNall]

Again, that's very poor program mgmt. That's your jacked up chain of command screwing members by not putting them in for what they've earned. About 90% of tech ratings require filling a staff position for six months & almost nothing else. Obviously, there are a couple exceptions, but that's pretty close to it. If they don't actually have a job then your unit is all kind of jacked up. Every unit I've ever been to is insanely undermanned. You get a job thrust on you pretty much while you're filling out the application. There is almost no circumstance when a member doesn't qualify for at least one tech rating easily within the first year of service. Your unit doing the paperwork is a whole other matter. Part of the reasons we have ribbons/badges for every little thing is not just as an incentive for the member to go do them, but as an incentive for the member to force the system to document service at the time performed so it's there down the road when they need it for promotions and such.

As far as production runs. You're talking about embroidered versions of existing (and already authorized on AF-style uniforms) badges. It'd cost a buck to members retail. What's the market for real military badges in white on ultramarine background... but you can still get those. Embroidery is just a design in a computer, stick some cloth under it that we already have laying around cause we make all your other badges on it, and push enter. If they can make metal badges for each specialty then they can very certainly make embroidered versions.

If you just want to play devils advocate all day we can do that, but I'm really waiting for legitimate reasons why this is a bad policy? So many things we see around here are all complicated & big changes to the program or serious costs. This is simple, makes perfect sense, very easy to implement, minuscule and completely optional cost to members, gives more bling possibilities to that crowd, while cleaning up & aligning the wear policy for the other crowd... and as far as I can tell there is no down side on it anywhere.

[RiverAux]

That's your jacked up chain of command screwing members by not putting them in for what they've earned.

Actually no, they definetely have not earned a tech rating despite being very active in other CAP activities.  But, I suppose facts aren't enough for you, so I'll let it go. 

[Hawk200]

I was on the fence of "Maybe it's worth looking into.." until River pointed out the low number of people that would actually be eligible.

Also, I can imagine a number of people just wearing something that they haven't earned yet. I've seen that in numerous wings as it is, so I know it's a common issue.

If, badges were to made, I'd suggest that they be distinctly different from ES style badges. ES qualification is different than specialty track levels, and therefore they should be easily identifiable as something other than ES quals. You can wear different badges on different uniforms, it's not like you're stuck wearing the same couple on every uniform you own. Wear the ES stuff on a uniform that you can to missions, but the specialty track stuff on your "home station" utilities.

It still amazes me that people want so many things to be "just like the Air Force", but will cry foul when someone even mentions an Air Force guideline. The common answer is "We are not the Air Force!". What do our members want? An Auxiliary that works hand in hand with it's mother service, or an organization that runs "cafeteria" style picking and choosing what they want to follow and ignoring the rest? Every member needs to make that decision, and then stick to it.

I don't think CAP uniforms should be an almost copy of the Air Force's. I wore the Air Force uniform daily for ten years, and I really have no desire to look "just like an Air Force officer". There are a few uniform items I think that really need to be cleaned up because I consider those items as excessive and gaudy, or just not aligned in a manner befitting an Air Force uniform, but it doesn't need to be "almost there". A few of our badges show us as a unique organization, no reason to copy everything from Mother Blue.

[DNall]

That's your jacked up chain of command screwing members by not putting them in for what they've earned.

Actually no, they definetely have not earned a tech rating despite being very active in other CAP activities.  But, I suppose facts aren't enough for you, so I'll let it go. 

The standards for each tech rating are different, but for most there really is no "earn" to it. It's literally doing a staff position satisfactorily for six months & having very basic general knowledge of the related regs - like which regs they are. A couple (CP, AE, comm, ES, Ops/air ops, & safety) are a little more complex or may require a very simple test, but they are the exception

It's hard to justify a "doesn't deserve." It's kind of like "doesn't deserve to be promoted," even though they've satisfied all the duty performance/PD & TIG requirements & remained active the whole time. You can only take subjective so far before it's arbitrary & you're hurting members in the long term & probably going to lose most of them when they're frustrated because of it.

If your members are meeting that standard and not being processed for ratings, that's an administrative failure by your chain. If they are not meeting that standard (or whatever interpretation of the standard they are choosing to enforce), then that's a serious leadership failure on the part of your chain for not implementing & holding to standard your member development program. It takes insanely little time/effort to do that. I'm sympathetic, but there's really no excuse.

[DNall]

I was on the fence of "Maybe it's worth looking into.." until River pointed out the low number of people that would actually be eligible.

Also, I can imagine a number of people just wearing something that they haven't earned yet. I've seen that in numerous wings as it is, so I know it's a common issue.

I'm not real confident about the numbers he's extrapolating, but whatever. We wear metal badges right now for the same number of people with those ratings, and they cost significantly more to make. That cost was justified and those things don't cost $12 a piece or anything, they are very reasonable. For an embroidered piece of cloth, the cost is somewhere between 60 cents & 2 bucks, regardless of if you make one or 5000.

As far as hasn't earned, that's a different issue that applies equally to wings or GT badges or mil badges or anything else. It doesn't have anything to do with this question, and I don't see how it'd be different or more frequent than anything else we're wearing.

If, badges were to made, I'd suggest that they be distinctly different from ES style badges. ES qualification is different than specialty track levels, and therefore they should be easily identifiable as something other than ES quals. You can wear different badges on different uniforms, it's not like you're stuck wearing the same couple on every uniform you own. Wear the ES stuff on a uniform that you can to missions, but the specialty track stuff on your "home station" utilities.

I agree they should be distinctly different, and they already are. The metal ones are on plain shields w/o an operational wreath. The GT, IC, EMT, etc badges have wreaths. That's plenty distinctive, and follows the AF heraldry/symbolism standards exactly, which is why they were approved that way by the AF for wear on the AF-style uniforms some 10 years ago or whatever it was.

It still amazes me that people want so many things to be "just like the Air Force", but will cry foul when someone even mentions an Air Force guideline. The common answer is "We are not the Air Force!". What do our members want? An Auxiliary that works hand in hand with it's mother service, or an organization that runs "cafeteria" style picking and choosing what they want to follow and ignoring the rest? Every member needs to make that decision, and then stick to it.

I don't think CAP uniforms should be an almost copy of the Air Force's. I wore the Air Force uniform daily for ten years, and I really have no desire to look "just like an Air Force officer". There are a few uniform items I think that really need to be cleaned up because I consider those items as excessive and gaudy, or just not aligned in a manner befitting an Air Force uniform, but it doesn't need to be "almost there". A few of our badges show us as a unique organization, no reason to copy everything from Mother Blue.

I agree with you there. The clean up guady & alignment is a big thing to me. It's like looking at a picture that's diagonal on the wall & it looks stupid as hell. If the guy that lives there tells you he wants it that way, it goes from the picture looks stupid as hell, to this guy is stupid as hell. That just doesn't belong in or on an AF uniform or anything else I want related to me.

What I'm saying in this case is real simple:
1) The existing metal specialty badges (shield type) are already approved by the AF for both their designs and wear on the AF-style uniform.
2) Embroider white on ultramarine versions of those for BDU/BBDU. That gets rid of a couple optional pocket patches, still limited to the same two slots over the branch tape.
3) I'm really not happy with the design of the CP, AE, and DDR badges. I think they should be standardized with the rest. The IC badge also needs the airborne style wings changed to the GT style wreath, or both updated to an AF-style wreath would be even better. None of that is happening any time soon though. It's too costly to change metal badges.

[RiverAux]

I would suggest holding off on something like this until we switch over (assuming we do) to ABUs in the relatively near future.  From a design point of view we don't know if we will stick with white on ultramarine badges and look like goofs, or not. 

[lordmonar]

It still amazes me that people want so many things to be "just like the Air Force", but will cry foul when someone even mentions an Air Force guideline. The common answer is "We are not the Air Force!". What do our members want? An Auxiliary that works hand in hand with it's mother service, or an organization that runs "cafeteria" style picking and choosing what they want to follow and ignoring the rest? Every member needs to make that decision, and then stick to it.

Well to be honest...most of us who say we should follow USAF guidelines....are different set of people who moan that "we are not the USAF".

I don't think CAP uniforms should be an almost copy of the Air Force's. I wore the Air Force uniform daily for ten years, and I really have no desire to look "just like an Air Force officer". There are a few uniform items I think that really need to be cleaned up because I consider those items as excessive and gaudy, or just not aligned in a manner befitting an Air Force uniform, but it doesn't need to be "almost there". A few of our badges show us as a unique organization, no reason to copy everything from Mother Blue.

Again...no one is really saying we need to copy the USAF uniform.....but we are saying that we should have "specialty track" badges for our BDUs.

[DNall]

^ CAP is a very diverse in the kinds of thinking we squeeze under this big tent, to my displeasure at times, but it makes us stronger in some ways too.

I'm on board with the crowd that says it should be THE AF uniform, with a chapter in the AFI stating the specific differences. Or, maybe just a ref in the AFI to the CAPR, which really only needs to be a supplement to the AFI covering our distinctive items.

Let me be clear. I do agree that we are and should in some ways be distinctive. I think those distinctions should be specific & should be highlighted by being the things that are different on the uniform. The things we hold in common should be the same to the letter.

For instance, we do different stuff our badges should be a bit different but still show the similarity. If possible, you should see a CAP badge and understand it's in the same family tree as the AF w/o it being attached to the uniform. However, the policy on how/where/how many/etc we wear should be in line w/ the AF. Same deal w/ patches. We're going to have org specific stuff, but it should be designed & worn according to the standards the AF uses.

OH.. and yeah, I can wait for ABUs on the change. In almost all changes I propose or endorse I usually go with waiting for ABUs on the implement for money & ease of transition. That's easily done there. The items are already approved for wear by AF though, it's not a matter of we have to go back thru the process with every little thing. When we go to ABUs, if we want to change background colors (PLEASE God let that happen) that's no issue as far as getting it embroidered in dif color/cloth. It's not like they go off & make 10k of these things. They run a couple dozen on one big sheet of cloth & cut it up, then run some more whenever they need. It takes a few minutes & costs pennies.