Question about ranger tab thing that goes over name tape (do not drail!)

[maverik]

Okay I need to prove a point and I can't find it. If "rangers " can't where their class (1st 2nd 3rd etc.) tape above their name tape where in the regs does it say that?

[lordmonar]

It is the other way around.

If it is not in 39-1 then you can't wear it.....unless it is specifically allowed via supplement and is one of the items identified by 39-1 to be under a commander's discresion.

Having said that....

PAWG has been wearing Ranger Bling for a long time and National has taken little if any action to stop it....ergo we have a situation where we just have to press on.

[maverik]

grr.. I was really hoping for a reg quote.

[NC Hokie]

Okay I need to prove a point and I can't find it. If "rangers " can't where their class (1st 2nd 3rd etc.) tape above their name tape where in the regs does it say that?

That's the wrong question.  The correct question is "Where does it say in the regs that Rangers CAN wear their tabs above their nametapes?"  It's not there, so you can't do it.

The logic behind this is that if we are free to do anything that the regs don't specifically prohibit, our uniforms would quickly look less like uniforms and more like NASCAR firesuits.

[Eclipse]

As indicated, military regulations are generally written as authorizations for a specific behavior to the exclusion of all else.  Usually if there is a prohibition included its because people aren't "getting" that and some behavior or action is common enough, yet not authorized, that the regulator needs to tell people explicitly to "knock it off".

Our regulations would be prohibitively large if they needed to delineate everything we can't do.

The axiom to live by in CAP is, if it doesn't say you "can", you can't.  This can be difficult for some people to deal with because civilian laws in the US are generally just the opposite - assuming most behavior is legal until it is specified as not.

For anyone looking to make the argument on this, just ask them for the regs that shows the measurements for wear, etc. - say what you want about 39-1, but in most cases its pretty specific about the positioning of anything that's authorized.

[FW]

At the August 2006 NB meeting, the NB approved the wear of all Hawk Mt. and Blue Beret devices and patches to the BDU and Blue field uniform HOWEVER, the Air Force must approve for the BDUs.  To date, I haven't seen any approval for their wear on the BDUs.  Wear on the blue utility uniform is allowed. 

Of course it doesn't say so in CAPM 39-1.  Who bothers with that old manual anymore. 

Edited for those who actually read my posts 

[BrandonKea]

At the August 2007 NB meeting, the NB approved the wear of all Hawk Mt. and Blue Beret devices and patches to the BDU and Blue field uniform HOWEVER, the Air Force must approve for the BDUs.  To date, I haven't seen any approval for their wear on the BDUs.  Wear on the blue utility uniform is allowed. 

Of course it doesn't say so in CAPR 39-1.  Who bothers with that old reg anymore. 

Wooooooooah what? Anyone have a link to these minutes?

[Eclipse]

At the August 2007 NB meeting, the NB approved the wear of all Hawk Mt. and Blue Beret devices and patches to the BDU and Blue field uniform HOWEVER, the Air Force must approve for the BDUs.  To date, I haven't seen any approval for their wear on the BDUs.  Wear on the blue utility uniform is allowed. 

Of course it doesn't say so in CAPR 39-1.  Who bothers with that old reg anymore. 

Actually that was August 2006, and there hasn't been a lick of comment since.

Considering that PAWG went back to the table this year begging to wear the insignia on the shoulder, I'm inclined to move over to the side that believe that particular, contentious, discussion hasn't got much weight after all.

Wooooooooah what? Anyone have a link to these minutes?

See August 2006 National Board Minutes
AGENDA ITEM 19 Action
SUBJECT: New Business

4. ITEM: Wear of Blue Beret and Hawk Mountain Uniforms & Devices
COL FAGAN/MO MOVED AND COL LEVITCH/FL SECONDED that the National Board vote to allow wear of the Blue Beret and Hawk Mountain head gear by cadets and senior members on both the BDUs and dress uniform.
COL NELSON/CA MOVED TO AMEND AND COL OPLAND/DE SECONDED the amendment to allow wear of both activity head gear only on BDUs.
MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED
COL DAVIES/NATCAP MOVED TO AMEND AND COL FAGAN/MO SECONDED the amendment to allow wear of head gear at the discretion of wing commanders.
MOTION DID NOT PASS
MAJ GEN PINEDA RESTATED THE AMENDED MOTION: The members can wear the head gear that they get at Hawk Mountain and Blue Beret with their blue BDUs and green BDUs only.
COL LEVITCH/FL MOVED TO AMEND AND COL APPLEBAUM/PA SECONDED the amendment to allow the wear of any awarded items that go on the uniform or the head from Hawk Mountain and Blue Beret with BDUs only.
MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED
COL OPLAND/DE MOVED TO AMEND to allow wear of any distinctive head gear awarded at any national special cadet activities.
MOTION TO AMEND DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
ANOTHER RESTATEMENT OF THE AMENDED MOTION: All members that attend the Blue Beret and national Hawk Mountain training can wear any awarded items that go on the uniform or the head gear with their BDUs, blue or green.
AMENDED MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: National Headquarters implementation of policy, notification to the field and change to appropriate CAP regulations.

[BrandonKea]

But does the fact that it never made it to 39-1 mean it's dead anyways? *confused*

[MIKE]

Of course it doesn't say so in CAPR 39-1.  Who bothers with that old reg anymore. 

Its actually a manual, for those keeping score at home.

But does the fact that it never made it to 39-1 mean it's dead anyways? *confused*

Dead until it mysteriously appears in some ICL or actual manual years later.

[Eclipse]

But does the fact that it never made it to 39-1 mean it's dead anyways? *confused*

Check the search feature on this.

Quick answer - some of use hold that NB and NEC actions are immediately binding and that whether and when they are ever published or incorporated into the full regulation is irrelevant.

Some of us hold that NEC and NB actions are not binding until published to the masses, and that ICL's and related memos have built-in expiration dates.

These are deep ruts in a tired road.

[BrandonKea]

But does the fact that it never made it to 39-1 mean it's dead anyways? *confused*

Check the search feature on this.

Quick answer - some of use hold that NB and NEC actions are immediately binding and that whether and when they are ever published or incorporated into the full regulation is irrelevant.

Some of us hold that NEC and NB actions are not binding until published to the masses, and that ICL's and related memos have built-in expiration dates.

These are deep ruts in a tired road.

I would use the search feature, but the answer seemed easily answered by the post.

Obviously one of these answers is correct, either the NEC and NB actions are gospel, or they aren't. The "some of us believe" answer is the basis of a lot of discrepencies within CAP.

And trust me, I know all about the deep ruts on this topic, I've been hearing allll about it since 2000, and I'm sure the debat has been raging from long before.

/rant

[SilverEagle2]

In the meantime, some of us are patiently awaiting the publishing of the AF approval to add them back on per the approval.  :angel:

[BrandonKea]

Well that's the big thing is when it's approved, then wear it. As a Cadet, I ran into WAYYY too many Hawk grads who wore it despite knowing it wasn't authorized, and it really turned me off to the whole thing. When it's authorized, I'll be totally cool with it, until then, not so much.

[Short Field]

But 39-1 doesn't say I can't wear my Bozo wig as a cover....

[FW]

Quick answer - some of use hold that NB and NEC actions are immediately binding and that whether and when they are ever published or incorporated into the full regulation is irrelevant.

Some of us hold that NEC and NB actions are not binding until published to the masses, and that ICL's and related memos have built-in expiration dates.

These are deep ruts in a tired road.

Yes, we've been down this road more than a few times.  However, many of our regulations, pamphlets and manuals are out of date.  And, I have no idea why.  It is so easy to access the website and make the appropriate changes.  Anyway, as one who has a pretty good idea of how things work, the NEC/NB decisions are usually the last word.  Except where approval is needed from the Air Force or BoG.  Then again, it could change at that level.  Then again, it could wind up going into some black hole; never to be seen or heard from again.  Then again......... oh, I forgot what point I was making 

[Nathan]

As for the requested regulation quote...

Civil Air Patrol prescribes wear policy and the
use of CAP emblems, insignia, and badges on the CAP distinctive uniforms. Table 1-3 describes items that may be authorized by wing/region commanders. COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY. Any variation from this publication is not authorized. Items not listed in this publication are not authorized for wear.

And no matter which side one decides to take on the issue with NB minutes, NO uniform item for any USAF uniform is officially approved until the USAF gives the go-ahead on it. This isn't even an issue involving 39-1; it doesn't matter what the NB says if it involves the USAF uniform until the Air Force approves them.

Once we see something official that says the USAF has approved the tabs for wear, then we can have the debate as to whether or not we have to wait for CAPM 39-1 to reflect the changes. But until the USAF signs off, there isn't any discussion at all. No tabs.

[BrandonKea]

As for the requested regulation quote...

Civil Air Patrol prescribes wear policy and the
use of CAP emblems, insignia, and badges on the CAP distinctive uniforms. Table 1-3 describes items that may be authorized by wing/region commanders. COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY. Any variation from this publication is not authorized. Items not listed in this publication are not authorized for wear.

And no matter which side one decides to take on the issue with NB minutes, NO uniform item for any USAF uniform is officially approved until the USAF gives the go-ahead on it. This isn't even an issue involving 39-1; it doesn't matter what the NB says if it involves the USAF uniform until the Air Force approves them.

Once we see something official that says the USAF has approved the tabs for wear, then we can have the debate as to whether or not we have to wait for CAPM 39-1 to reflect the changes. But until the USAF signs off, there isn't any discussion at all. No tabs.

+1. Go Nathan!

[Eclipse]

As for the requested regulation quote...

Civil Air Patrol prescribes wear policy and the
use of CAP emblems, insignia, and badges on the CAP distinctive uniforms. Table 1-3 describes items that may be authorized by wing/region commanders. COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY. Any variation from this publication is not authorized. Items not listed in this publication are not authorized for wear.

And no matter which side one decides to take on the issue with NB minutes, NO uniform item for any USAF uniform is officially approved until the USAF gives the go-ahead on it. This isn't even an issue involving 39-1; it doesn't matter what the NB says if it involves the USAF uniform until the Air Force approves them.

Once we see something official that says the USAF has approved the tabs for wear, then we can have the debate as to whether or not we have to wait for CAPM 39-1 to reflect the changes. But until the USAF signs off, there isn't any discussion at all. No tabs.

Except that's not how the chain of command works, whether in a corporate or paramilitary environment.
Whether and if something is approved by the USAF is a matter for the NEC and NB to deal with.  If they pass a requirement for membership, we have to listen to them, to our detriment if we choose not to.

If they decide to require / authorize something before the USAF approves it, that's to their detriment, and might wind up costing the membership money (especially early adopters), but that's their issue with the USAF, not the problem of the general membership. 

Constant or repeated instances of their doing so might be grounds to file complaints or otherwise gripe, but that doesn't change their ultimate authority while they are posted.  I think the majority of early adopters, especially those that choose to act off of board minutes, etc., are well aware of the risk they take of having to reverse a change.

The general membership has no choice but to follow the will of the NEC and NB, any more than civilians have the right to ignore new laws the "might be struck down".  Until they are (struck), they are enforceable to their full extent.

[Nathan]

Well, then maybe I don't know how the process works.

Does the NB approve, then ask for military approval? Or is military approval required BEFORE the NB approves anything?

If it is the former, then it would be ridiculous for us to follow everything before the military approved it, since they are the second REQUIRED step in the process. The NB would be able to authorize pink cowboy hats for wear with the uniform, and we would be able to wear it until the military told us not to? That doesn't sound right.

If it's the latter, then, if we know the military hasn't approved it, then we would be following an illegal allowance. That's not allowed either, is it?