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?

[Eclipse]

^ neither of the above is supposed to be a question rank and file members should be asking.  We should simply be doing what NHQ says to do.

Our split personality, hyper-exposure and speed of the internet, combined with the idea that everyone should have an opinion is what causes the confusion.

[RiverAux]

From what I can tell the AF doesn't review it until CAP officially asks to change something, which means after it gets approved by the relevant national leadership.  They do give everything an initial review before the meetings (and you can see the CAP-USAF comments about them), but it would be a monster waste of AF time to really review every crackpot uniform idea that gets floated in CAP. 

That being said, I think it would make a lot of sense for the results of AF reviews of CAP-approved suggestions be noted in the national minutes.  This would let everyone know that the idea is dead.  Like with this situation we're apparently just sort of hanging. 

[Spike]

Real easy folks.  Until something makes its way onto a Change Letter, or into a Manual, Regulation, Pamphlet or instruction it is not allowed.

Some people here are putting way to much time into this argument.

Ranger Tabs are not allowed on AF style........PERIOD.  Until we see the letter/ memo/ 39-1 telling us differently, those that choose to do it are in violation. 

Just because one Wing chooses to violate the rules does not make it right. 

[FW]

"The Process"
1.  get's put in NB agenda for winter meeting
2.  get's approved for wear on uniform
3.  goes to Air Force for approval to wear on AF style uniform
4.  eventually gets to go in ICL or added to reg/manual.

Step 4 is in the process however, there is a black hole somewhere in the universe which seems to attract ICLs and uniform additions to CAPM 39-1.  However, except for uniform changes requiring Air Force approval, the NB approval makes the change official.  The ICL is the mech. for informing the membership of the change until the manual is amended.

Why the black hole is in existence is anyone's guess.  I think it has to do with the law of entropy.   

[RiverAux]

I really don't see what problem is.  If you gave me an editable version of 39-1 and the list of ALL the approved changes on the web page right now, I could insert that language in the document in a couple of hours.  Allow a few weeks for review and BAM.  Its done. 

Now, if you want a total rewrite, thats a different story.  But essentially it is not really any work to keep the regulations up to date and there is just no excuse for not getting them updated in the specified time after an ICL is made.

Heck, the PA shop manages to post updates in two different sections of their part of the web site every single day.  I don't know why the folks responsible for the regulation can't get their act together.

[Nathan]

^ neither of the above is supposed to be a question rank and file members should be asking.  We should simply be doing what NHQ says to do.

Our split personality, hyper-exposure and speed of the internet, combined with the idea that everyone should have an opinion is what causes the confusion.

First off, without our hyper-exposure, I doubt anyone would have easy access to the NB meeting minutes in the first place. The only reason this is being debated is BECAUSE we can see the minutes as soon as they are published, and the technology then does present itself as relevant. If the technology were not an issue, then we would simply be waiting around until we get mailed a change letter.

Second, it is absolutely our business as rank-and-file members to ensure that we are following the rules as best as we can. If we're going to play the "follow the regulation to the letter" game, then we are not authorized to wear what is, well, not authorized. If the USAF approves AFTER the NB (which seems to be the consensus, as far as I can tell), and we as knowledgeable members know this, then it is not only the letter of the regulation, but the SPIRIT of the regulation that we wait for complete approval from all necessary parties before we assume that anything is approved.

I'm not going to be taking three-day weekends just because my college professor tells me that HE says it's okay. I'm still going to wait to hear from the dean.

[Mendoza]

i find it very wrong that i am not allowed to wear my ranger tabs, (which i still do and will continue to do). Honestly, what is the big issue, its not like u see them ALL THE TIME, cuz u just don't. If its an Air Force issue then i find that very hard to believe, cuz ive gotten nothing but positive feedback from those in the air force that see them on my uniform...

[SJFedor]

i find it very wrong that i am not allowed to wear my ranger tabs, (which i still do and will continue to do). Honestly, what is the big issue, its not like u see them ALL THE TIME, cuz u just don't. If its an Air Force issue then i find that very hard to believe, cuz ive gotten nothing but positive feedback from those in the air force that see them on my uniform...

You find it wrong that you can't wear an unauthorized uniform item because it's unauthorized?

Growing up in a place where I did see them all the time (and wore one myself), it wasn't too big of a deal. Everyone thought they were authorized and no one heard any different. Things have changed now, though. We know better.

And honestly, when you break it down, all that your prized Ranger tab really is, is a merit badge. Like everything else on the uniforms, you checked the boxes off on the form, and they handed you a piece of cloth. Perhaps later in life, when you have more life experience, you'll understand that more. It's more then just wearing it "cuz you earned it", but wearing it correctly and following the rules for wear, which right now, are to not wear it.

[SilverEagle2]

^^^Please, for the sake of those that want them to be completely approved for wear, remove them until they are.

It is your type of behavior/attitude that creates the feelings/mentality that we experience. I am a proud Hawk Grad myself, R-ADV. However, I will not wear the tabs on my BDU's until I have authorization to do so.

cuz ive gotten nothing but positive feedback from those in the air force that see them on my uniform...

I have received more positive feedback for abiding by the regs on this one. They see my SAR patch on my Left Pocket and ask where my tab is. I tell them that I will not wear until it is authorized but will happily wear it when it is. I have changed many a mind here as to the feelings they had toward Hawk Mountain and grads.

Doing the opposite only incites people to believe the unfavorable rumors/opinions they have heard about Hawk and the notorious "Rangers."

So please, from one ranger to another, remove your tab until the AF says OK.

[swamprat86]

I also find it funny that you won't list your ribbons or "fake" ES quals because you don't feel the need to brag.  Then why do you wear the tab on your uniform or better, why do you feel you need to wear it regardless of whether you can or not?

[BrandonKea]

I also find it funny that you won't list your ribbons or "fake" ES quals because you don't feel the need to brag.  Then why do you wear the tab on your uniform or better, why do you feel you need to wear it regardless of whether you can or not?

Fake? I think the Hawk Mountain grads are very qualified...

Nvm, I'm slow today, I see his sigline...

[Mendoza]

i dont wear it to brag, if u see me in person ull know that i never brag about what ive earned. All that im saying is that ive never heard it said that u cannot wear something if its not in the regs, i understand if its something ridiculous, but its a minor tab that we have been wearing for a very long time. Belive me the last thing i want is to have more controversy over the tabs but it seems like there targeted much more than other unauthorized pieces of someones uniform...

[jimmydeanno]

Belive me the last thing i want is to have more controversy over the tabs but it seems like there targeted much more than other unauthorized pieces of someones uniform...

Like...?

[BrandonKea]

i dont wear it to brag, if u see me in person ull know that i never brag about what ive earned. All that im saying is that ive never heard it said that u cannot wear something if its not in the regs, i understand if its something ridiculous, but its a minor tab that we have been wearing for a very long time. Belive me the last thing i want is to have more controversy over the tabs but it seems like there targeted much more than other unauthorized pieces of someones uniform...

This argument has been stated over and over again. The regulation says what you CAN wear. If it ain't in the book, you can't wear it. And when you wear it anyways, it does a few thigs.

A. It sets a bad example for other members who see you "bucking the system."
B. It makes it a harder sell when it comes time for the Air Force to authorize it.
C. When you say "I don't care, I'll do what I want," you're insubordiante. Endo Facto

[Mendoza]

Like wen ppl POSE like the were in the "AIRBORNE" or have other special qualifications on their bdu's

[jimmydeanno]

...or have other special qualifications on their bdu's

Many of which actually are allowed, unlike your Ranger badge.

[Spike]

Like wen ppl POSE like the were in the "AIRBORNE" or have other special qualifications on their bdu's

That's called a felony where I come from.  Minimum sentence is 6 months and a $5,000 fine.  PLUS you get labeled as a felon for the rest of your life.

Come on people. Use your thinking part of your brains here, not your personal beliefs or opinions.  FACTS will tell us what is right or wrong here.  For instance, a fact would be that, the TABS were never approved by the AF yet for wear on AF-style. 

I don't care if you wear them or not, but when I see someone wearing one, I know they are wrong, and then I lose all respect for them no matter how cool the badge makes them look.

[Mendoza]

all my respects to those who have those quals, but ur gonna tell me that a  "large black subdued rifle with a wreath around it" is authorized on ur bdu, or better yet four shoulder tabs that say ranger, sniper, airborne, and special forces are alowed

[jimmydeanno]

"large black subdued rifle with a wreath around it" is authorized on ur bdu

That would be the combat infantry badge, and yes, it authorized, unlike your ranger badge (CAPM 39-1 table 6-5 #3).  The other tabs are not, but the number of people trying to wear them anyway is far fewer than the number of Hawk grads trying to wear theirs.

It helps if you read the book.

[Ned]

all my respects to those who have those quals, but ur gonna tell me that a  "large black subdued rifle with a wreath around it" is authorized on ur bdu, or better yet four shoulder tabs that say ranger, sniper, airborne, and special forces are alowed

This really isn't the best place to get advice about what other people can or cannot wear on their CAP uniforms.

The best place is the 39-1.

And even if another member is improperly wearing the uniform, I'm not sure how that affects your personal obligation to follow the current regulation.

[Larry Mangum]

all my respects to those who have those quals, but ur gonna tell me that a  "large black subdued rifle with a wreath around it" is authorized on ur bdu, or better yet four shoulder tabs that say ranger, sniper, airborne, and special forces are alowed

Mr. Mendoza, the "Combat Infantry Badge (CIB)", and any other military badge that was earned, according to CAPM 39-1, table 6-4, item 19 is allowed as long as the USAF permits it to be worn on the uniform. While I do not know about the airborne\Ranger\Snipe tabs, I do know that the CIB is definetly authorized and in fact was proudly worn by my TI at Lacland many years ago.

You have taken the wrong tack here, and making a fool of yourself at the same time. You need to pull in your horns, set down and read 39-1, and then after some deep thought and only then comment on such issues.

[Eclipse]

all my respects to those who have those quals, but ur gonna tell me that a  "large black subdued rifle with a wreath around it" is authorized on ur bdu, or better yet four shoulder tabs that say ranger, sniper, airborne, and special forces are alowed

We're not talking about Army Rangers and their awards, insignia, etc., we're talking about Hawk Mountain Ranger School insignia.

If you're going to chime in, at least have a clue what the discussion is about.   

You might also get a little more respect for your opinion if you take the time to spell check your postings, and not have a signature line which is personally insulting to a number of members on your first day as a member.

[SilverEagle2]

You might also get a little more respect for your opinion if you take the time to spell check your postings, and not have a signature line which is personally insulting to a number of members on your first day as a member.

Which more or less was what I was trying to say as well earlier.

[SJFedor]

...All that im saying is that ive never heard it said that u cannot wear something if its not in the regs...

To answer your question, I recommend you read the regulations sometime, since you're currently demonstrating you've yet to do so.

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.

Emphasis mine.

Any questions?

[AlphaSigOU]

This is the disclaimer I put on the cover sheet of my unofficial blue Corporate Service Uniform and flight suit/utility uniform wear guide (color and emphasis mine):

Consult CAP Manual 39-1 (Civil Air Patrol Uniform Manual), current interim change letters and region or wing supplements for official uniform wear guidance. This guide is provided as a quick reference, but does not replace official information.

The omission of a specific item or appearance standard in the CAP Uniform Manual (CAPM 39-1 and interim change letters) does NOT mean members have the personal choice to decide how they wish to wear the uniform.

The omission of a specific item or appearance standard does NOT automatically permit its wear.

Doesn't get any clearer than that, n'est-ce pas?

[rant]I guess our educational system has really gone down the tubes when people resort to using SMS text and nonexistent grammar on a message board. If you don't have access to your full computer or laptop, and can't be bothered to use simple punctuation, spelling and grammar, then DON'T post! There is a time and a place to use SMS text; this place is not one of them.[/rant]

[BrandonKea]

[rant]I guess our educational system has really gone down the tubes when people resort to using SMS text and nonexistent grammar on a message board. If you don't have access to your full computer or laptop, and can't be bothered to use simple punctuation, spelling and grammar, then DON'T post! There is a time and a place to use SMS text; this place is not one of them.[/rant]

wtf dood y r u such a ^3 (Sorry, couldn't resist)

This whole topic has gone downhill fast, like every other Ranger Tab discussion EVER.

[SJFedor]

[rant]I guess our educational system has really gone down the tubes when people resort to using SMS text and nonexistent grammar on a message board. If you don't have access to your full computer or laptop, and can't be bothered to use simple punctuation, spelling and grammar, then DON'T post! There is a time and a place to use SMS text; this place is not one of them.[/rant]

wtf dood y r u such a ^3 (Sorry, couldn't resist)

This whole topic has gone downhill fast, like every other Ranger Tab discussion EVER.

n00b.

[AlphaSigOU]

Especially when the subject line says 'do not drail' (sic). It's already a train wreck.

[Nathan]

Well, I think it's a little different than previous discussions, and it has a slightly new issue that needed to be cleared up. It wasn't being... drailed...?... until someone felt the need to spout off "ranger pride" in a discussion having really nothing to do with it.

The discussion isn't even really the hashed-out "Are NB decisions effective immediately?", but more, "Are NB decisions effective immediately when there is still another vital party in the process that has NOT approved the decision?" I think this fits within the bill of the original poster's question quite nicely, since the question asked for a reg cite. Current regs state no per CAPM 39-1, but then the question remains as to whether the NB minutes count when we haven't seen anything even unofficially from the USAF on the matter.

If we can get back to that, we can... rerail... the topic.

[Eclipse]

The discussion isn't even really the hashed-out "Are NB decisions effective immediately?", but more, "Are NB decisions effective immediately when there is still another vital party in the process that has NOT approved the decision?"

Yes.

There is no gray area, no room for discussion, and its very clear in the constitution.

Next.

[Nathan]

The discussion isn't even really the hashed-out "Are NB decisions effective immediately?", but more, "Are NB decisions effective immediately when there is still another vital party in the process that has NOT approved the decision?"

Yes.

There is no gray area, no room for discussion, and its very clear in the constitution.

Next.

You must have missed the part where I said that it WASN'T what was being discussed.

[Eclipse]

I did, however since your last thread ignores ignore the in force NEC directive that they can be worn, its salient, regardless.

And this is quite literally a discussion you and I have had before.

[Stonewall]

Like wen ppl POSE like the were in the "AIRBORNE" or have other special qualifications on their bdu's

I'm gathering you're in Florida Wing.  Please, let me know who is illegally wearing a military badge on their uniform and I'll address with them personally.

It is one thing to do something unknowingly; like a new CAP member who is a veteran and assumes they're free to wear one of their military badges that actually aren't authorized on a CAP uniform.

It's another thing to be so arrogant and cocky and think that you're too cool for the regs and knowingly violate the regulations.  As an example, you.  You willfully violate the regs because you think your Ranger badge is more important than the regulations.

[Eclipse]

The only member I can find with that name in FLWG is a C/Amn.

If that's you, you might want to dial it down a couple of notches...

[Stonewall]

The only member I can find with that name in FLWG is a C/Amn.

If that's you, you might want to dial it down a couple of notches...

I only mentioned the FLWG thing because he has this as his avatar:

[FW]

I did, however since your last thread ignores ignore the in force NEC directive that they can be worn, its salient, regardless.

And this is quite literally a discussion you and I have had before.

The NB, when making uniform decisions which require Air Force approval, directs the NHQ staff to forward up the chain via CAP-USAF.  The decision is NOT final until the approval is given by the Air Force uniform board or "designee".   However, for CAP distinctive uniforms, the NB has the final word.

The NEC does'nt usually address uniform issues unless the NB asks it to.

To date the only "ranger" patch allowed on the BDU is the "LL" patch.  And, it is not the one pictured above. 

I'm beginning to wonder why I'm even contributing to this thread. 

[Nathan]

I did, however since your last thread ignores ignore the in force NEC directive that they can be worn, its salient, regardless.

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm just questioning the validity of what it says if it is saying we can do something that still requires approval from the USAF. Legally, it may be written that way to ensure the USAF knows the exact wording of what they are going to approve, not necessarily as a directive to us.

And this is quite literally a discussion you and I have had before.

I don't remember it...

[Eclipse]

The only member I can find with that name in FLWG is a C/Amn.

If that's you, you might want to dial it down a couple of notches...

I only mentioned the FLWG thing because he has this as his avatar:

Profile says Miami, which doesn't necessarily mean much...

[SilverEagle2]

^^^ that avatar is just wrong. Use the original or none at all.

Final Summation:

If you wish to wear the ranger tab now, get the BBDU.
If you wish to wear the BDU, take the tab off until USAF approves.

Easy

[Eclipse]

Isn't that a legit patch from the Florida "Ranger" program?  Or is it just homemade?

[arajca]

Isn't that a legit patch from the Florida "Ranger" program?  Or is it just homemade?

Irrelevent on the uniform. It's not the Hawk Mountain Activity patch, so it's not authorized for wear on the uniform.

[SilverEagle2]

^^Agreed

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Civil_Air_Patrol_Rangers_Florida_Patch.gif

Guess it exists despite an obvious knock off.

[Short Field]

I'm beginning to wonder why I'm even contributing to this thread. 

Repeat after me :  Do not read anything in the Uniforms & Awards Forum!  Just keep repeating that each day.  Works for me   -  sometimes  -  maybe - well, ok, I'll start tomorrow....