FLWG Unit Citation?

[DC]

The FLWG Facebook page is reporting that the wing has been awarded a Unit Citation Award. I haven't been able to find any information on this anywhere else, is anyone here on CT in the know on this?

[DBlair]

I haven't heard anything about it yet other than what you mention on the Facebook page. I'm wondering if this was just for Wing Staff or for the entire Florida Wing. Either way, considering the conference is this weekend, we can probably expect award announcements to go out within the next week or so.

[MSG Mac]

I expect it will show up on the FLWG page within the next couple of days.

[BillB]

It's for the mission on the Gulf oil spill. It was awarded to Florida Wing.

[starshippe]

. . alabama did a lot of work too, as i remember, and mississippi was involved.

bill

dwh ic
georgia wing

[CAP Producer]

It was a team effort not just the work of 1 wing.

[Eclipse]

A properly submitted Unit Citation will include a Personnel Authorization with the list of names of the recipients, if you are on it, you will know.

[Mikecookis@yahoo.com]

Its for the entire wing membership from a certian time period. 

So if you were a lazy member and sat on your [Filter Subversion], you will benifit from the hard workers that really deserved it.....

I guess its the Wing Commanders way of 'Thanking us' .  I along with many are not happy about it.  There were only a handfull of key players responsible for the Mission, I belive around 50 from FLWG .  So lets award everyone else too!   

[Hawk200]

Its for the entire wing membership from a certian time period. 

So if you were a lazy member and sat on your [Filter Subversion], you will benifit from the hard workers that really deserved it.....

I guess its the Wing Commanders way of 'Thanking us' .  I along with many are not happy about it.  There were only a handfull of key players responsible for the Mission, I belive around 50 from FLWG .  So lets award everyone else too!

I did quake relief in Cali back in '94. One of the staff at the end of the mission talked of how National was discussing a Unit Citation for the wing. He didn't feel it was fair that everyone got something when only a percentage did anything directly supporting the relief. He got the names of everyone who showed up for the mission for at least a day, and wrote batches of Commendations for them.

There were different stories on what happened. Some folks say the wing king refused to sign them, it was too much paperwork for one shot. Others said that it was never submitted. Still not sure which happened.

[lordmonar]

A properly submitted Unit Citation will include a Personnel Authorization with the list of names of the recipients, if you are on it, you will know.

Right.....

NVWG got a National Commander's Unit Citation for the Fosset Search........we (that is the squadron) had to send the names to wing so they could do the PA.

[lordmonar]

It was a team effort not just the work of 1 wing.

Yes....but only one wing sent in the paper work.

[lordmonar]

Its for the entire wing membership from a certian time period. 

So if you were a lazy member and sat on your [Filter Subversion], you will benifit from the hard workers that really deserved it.....

I guess its the Wing Commanders way of 'Thanking us' .  I along with many are not happy about it.  There were only a handfull of key players responsible for the Mission, I belive around 50 from FLWG .  So lets award everyone else too!

Welcome to world of unit citations.

You have to take the good with the bad.  The real military has been dealing with this for eons.  What needs to happen is that the 50 key players form FLWG need to get individual awards for their actions.  The Unit Citation takes care of the other 100 who had some hand in the mission but were not "key" players and it covers the actions of those who took up the slack from the people who were busy with Oil Spill Mission.

[RiverAux]

Any unit citation will cover some folks that probably didn't do anything special to deserve it.  Thats part of the game. 

However, I think for a unit citation to be valid, a significant percentage of the unit must have been involved.  If the numbers involved are accurate and much less than 10% of the entire wing was involved, then unit citation for the entire wing is certainly not justified. 

Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to give unit citations to those squadrons or groups that actually did the most and then individual citations for others that were involved. 

[Spaceman3750]

When you look at it from a top-down perspective, I understand why the whole wing is getting a citation from higher HQ. When you look at the incident from a region or NHQ perspective, who did the work on the incident? It was the WING, not the 50 members of the wing. "Hey Joe, Florida Wing really did an awesome job on DWH", not "Hey Joe, Bob Jim Johhny Bill and Pete really did a great job at DWH".

The wing just needs to make sure to individually recognize those who did an outstanding job in a time of crisis.

[RiverAux]

Sure, but you have to drill down to the level that did the actual work so that there is at lease some plausible relationship between who gets the citation and who did most of the work.  I suspect that one or two groups did most of the response, so why not actually reward those groups specifically? 

[jimmydeanno]

The whole point of a unit citation is to recognize units that set themselves apart from others.  If 50 people from everywhere did something cool, is a unit citation really the best award for that?  Probably not.

However, you can't discount that there are people who have put forth effort "behind the scenes" in supportive roles that weren't related to a specific action.

If your squadron rocks the socks off the similar units they should get a unit citation.  If the criteria is mostly because of some super-awesome activities, growth rate, etc I can't imagine that the unit admin officer played a critical role to those successes, but none-the-less they are part of the unit and without them the unit wouldn't be as successful. 

The first step is to identify the appropriate award.  The second is to actually award it.  Personally, I think that the unit citation isn't awarded enough.

[SarDragon]

I have a couple of Unit citations. In no case do I feel that I was a significant part of the effort involved to get the citation.

#1 was awarded to the entire NE Region back in the late '60s, WIWAC. I still don't have any idea why the entire region got the award.

#2 was to CAWG for the 2003 Columbia recovery effort.

What's a guy to do?

[lordmonar]

However, I think for a unit citation to be valid, a significant percentage of the unit must have been involved.  If the numbers involved are accurate and much less than 10% of the entire wing was involved, then unit citation for the entire wing is certainly not justified.

The U.S. Military does not agree.

What matters is what got accomplished.....not how many people actually did it.

[lordmonar]

Sure, but you have to drill down to the level that did the actual work so that there is at lease some plausible relationship between who gets the citation and who did most of the work.  I suspect that one or two groups did most of the response, so why not actually reward those groups specifically?

No....because it is a UNIT award.  All members of the unit during the affected period get it.  Even if they joined the unit on the last day or left the unit on the first day.  The rule is if you were a member during the time you get it.

If you are going to drill down to specific accomplishments.....then you might as well just do the specific awards for the specific individuals.
The whole point of a unit citation is to reward everyone for a job well done....no matter who insignificant their contributions to the effort were.

[JROB]

This discussion kinda reminds me of a scene from Band of Brothers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPFjM0v-r1c Skip to 2:30

[JoeTomasone]

Well, let's take my particular example.

I am a member of Florida Wing, but was in Iraq for the entire oil spill mission and didn't perform a single task in connection with it.   On that basis, I likely don't deserve a Unit Citation.

On the other hand, what if some of the work I did before I left had an impact on the mission execution?   If I hadn't done x, would y have been possible or much more difficult?   

On a response of this size, I do think that there is a trickle-down effect of members helping each other out.   I know one Squadron Commander who spent 3 months (IIRC) in Tallahassee working the mission - someone had to fill in for him back home.   Should that person not be recognized?   What about the others?   I think it would be a very formidable challenge to fairly quantify individual awards in these circumstances.

[Hawk200]

Personally, I believe that anyone performing direct actions for the missions should be written for decorations. At least an Achievement, if not Commendation. The ones who did something should have recieve something personal for it.

[RiverAux]

However, I think for a unit citation to be valid, a significant percentage of the unit must have been involved.  If the numbers involved are accurate and much less than 10% of the entire wing was involved, then unit citation for the entire wing is certainly not justified.

The U.S. Military does not agree.

What matters is what got accomplished.....not how many people actually did it.

I am fully confident that if some battalion did a great job in Afghanistan that the Army wouldn't award the whole Division a Unit Citation.  They would give it to the unit that did the outstanding work. 

Its all about deciding what unit or units did the great job. 

Wouldn't you agree that if (numbers made up by me for this example), one of Florida's seven groups did 80% of the sorties and accounted for 90% of the personnel that were assigned to a high profile mission that it would be more appropriate to give the unit citation to that group rather than the entire wing? 

What if we look at that group and find that 95% of the flights were actually flown by a single squadron?  Wouldn't it be more appropriate to give the citation to that squadron than to the group? 

Now, there is no exact numerical standard that can ever be applied to these situations so argument is always possible.  Heck, there is probably never a CAP mission where more than 50% of any unit at any level is involved given the nature of our organization.  So, we have to live with the fact that unit awards will be given out to a unit in which a relatively small number of people did the work to earn it.  But, we still have to be reasonable about it.

Unit Citations should go to the absolute lowest level in the organization as possible.  If there was significant participation from a large number of units then you should look at giving the citation to the next level up that encompasses all the other other units. 

[lordmonar]

However, I think for a unit citation to be valid, a significant percentage of the unit must have been involved.  If the numbers involved are accurate and much less than 10% of the entire wing was involved, then unit citation for the entire wing is certainly not justified.

The U.S. Military does not agree.

What matters is what got accomplished.....not how many people actually did it.

I am fully confident that if some battalion did a great job in Afghanistan that the Army wouldn't award the whole Division a Unit Citation.  They would give it to the unit that did the outstanding work.

True.....but the wing did do oustanding work.....so all the squadrons go the award.

Its all about deciding what unit or units did the great job. 

Wouldn't you agree that if (numbers made up by me for this example), one of Florida's seven groups did 80% of the sorties and accounted for 90% of the personnel that were assigned to a high profile mission that it would be more appropriate to give the unit citation to that group rather than the entire wing?

True.....but what about the 20% of the work done by the other six groups?  If they were not there to do their 20% the entire mission would have been a failure.  The idea of the unit award is that everyone has to be doing their job to get the "war fighters" in a status and position to win the "war".

What if we look at that group and find that 95% of the flights were actually flown by a single squadron?  Wouldn't it be more appropriate to give the citation to that squadron than to the group?

Same story.  If you got to fly 100 sorties to get the mission done.......the accomplishment is the mission.  If my unit did the last five sorties then we were partially responsible for accomplishing the mission. 

Now, there is no exact numerical standard that can ever be applied to these situations so argument is always possible.  Heck, there is probably never a CAP mission where more than 50% of any unit at any level is involved given the nature of our organization.  So, we have to live with the fact that unit awards will be given out to a unit in which a relatively small number of people did the work to earn it.  But, we still have to be reasonable about it.

Why do we have to be reasonable about?  It is a bloody unit award.  There are always going to be someone who was on leave or just joined the unit or was out processing during the event...that really did nothing to affect the outcome of the mission.  But by the rules of the game they are just as deserving to wear the ribbon.  So why are we quibbeling about it?   FLWG (among others) did a good job and got a unit citation.  BZ....move on.

Unit Citations should go to the absolute lowest level in the organization as possible.  If there was significant participation from a large number of units then you should look at giving the citation to the next level up that encompasses all the other other units.

No....they should go to the units that particpated in the event.  It should be given at the most appropriate level to ensure that all units that particpated get recognised.  Hording awards like this will only build up animosity amongst the units.  Large unit A is able to field 50% of the needed units for the mission....Small units B, C, D and E picked up the slack....but they don't get an award because they did not have enough presences.  So yes...some one should take the time and do five different forms to get all five awards....or they can do just one for the entire group.....yes that means that Units F, G, H and I may suddenly have an award too.....but that is how the system works....in CAP and in the Military.

[RiverAux]

So, since I am in CAP and CAP did a great job in this mission, why am I not getting a Unit Citation?  By your reasoning it is appropriate since all of CAP was involved at some level.  This is the same silliness that resulted in all members of the Coast Guard and CG Aux getting a Presidential Unit Citation for Katrina. 

So, if we have a major missions in which a few Groups in a Wing did most of the work, but others participated, then it is logical to issue a Unit Citation to the whole Wing.  Now, since SER had a major mission and even though FL wing did most of the work, but a few members of Region staff participated and maybe a few random members from other Wings helped out, then it is justified to give a Unit Award to all of SER.  Now, obviously,  NHQ had some involvement so even though a few groups in one wing in one region did most of the work, then it would be appropriate to give a Unit Award to all of CAP. 

You've got to have a logical cut-off point.  Under your reasoning if my squadron somehow gets a mission that it handles well the whole Wing deserves  a Unit Citation if only a few members from other units participate?  Get real.

Even in the real military they don't look at it that way. 

There are always going to be someone who was on leave or just joined the unit or was out processing during the event..

That is not the issue as I've said several times.  The issue is that the UNIT that did the work should get the UNIT citation. 
Issue it to the squadrons or Groups that truly showed a strong effort at their level and give individual awards to the random people from other squadrons that participated. 

[lordmonar]

So, since I am in CAP and CAP did a great job in this mission, why am I not getting a Unit Citation?  By your reasoning it is appropriate since all of CAP was involved at some level.  This is the same silliness that resulted in all members of the Coast Guard and CG Aux getting a Presidential Unit Citation for Katrina.

All of CAP was not involved.  Like you said....the unit citation should be issued at the lowest level.  But once the appropriate level is determined....then you should just let it go.

So, if we have a major missions in which a few Groups in a Wing did most of the work, but others participated, then it is logical to issue a Unit Citation to the whole Wing.

Sure...that is what a unit citation is for.  When you get a unit citation for a squadron that did XYZ over a two year period.....not everyone in the unit did everything or even anything to accomplish XYZ.  But it is too hard to separate who did what exactly.......hence a unit award.

Now, since SER had a major mission and even though FL wing did most of the work, but a few members of Region staff participated and maybe a few random members from other Wings helped out, then it is justified to give a Unit Award to all of SER.  Now, obviously,  NHQ had some involvement so even though a few groups in one wing in one region did most of the work, then it would be appropriate to give a Unit Award to all of CAP.

Yes...that is a good argument....SER was the point for this mission......it would have totally justifiable, in my opinion, for the entire region to get the unit award.   But it seems that the powers that be, like you, did not think that was right and only issued a unit citation for FLWG.

You've got to have a logical cut-off point.  Under your reasoning if my squadron somehow gets a mission that it handles well the whole Wing deserves  a Unit Citation if only a few members from other units participate?  Get real.

No....I did not say that at all.  I said that if you wing got a mission that your squadron contributed a major portion of the accomplishment of the mission....then Region or National may feel that the entire wing should get an award....even if your squadron did the bulk of the work.  No different from a single individual doing the bulk of the work that results in a unit getting a unit award.

Even in the real military they don't look at it that way.

Never said it did......but you would be supprised what sort of stuff goes on in the military.
Seen several officer award packaged where they got credit for "directing" stuff that I know for a fact that they did not know about until I briefed them on when it was all done.

I got two AFOUAs with V for valor while my entire unit was stationed in JAPAN....but other units in the wing deployed personnel to the war zone.

I got an AFAM for an event that I was on leave for for 90% of the time.  I did help in the prep and planning....but the bulk of the work took place while I was in the states.....but everyone in the shop got an AFAM for it and so did I.

River.....I spent 22 years seeing this sort of thing....it happens all the time.  CAP is NOT doing anything different then the USAF is doing.  It is rewarding UNITS for doing a good job.  It is understood that some subordinate units and individuals will have had different levels of participation....everything from being the HMFIC to "We did what?".  If you personally don't think you deserve the award don't wear it.  But don't steal other people's bling.

There are always going to be someone who was on leave or just joined the unit or was out processing during the event..

That is not the issue as I've said several times.  The issue is that the UNIT that did the work should get the UNIT citation. 
Issue it to the squadrons or Groups that truly showed a strong effort at their level and give individual awards to the random people from other squadrons that participated.

So....define you terms.  Define "truly showed a strong effort" and I am all with you.  Set up a system where the people left out of the blanket award get their just reward and I am all with you.  I don't think you really want to go there.   I have had to deal with several award boards for just that sort of thing.  IFOR/SFOR for Bosnia, ALLIED FORCE for Kosovo, CENTCOM, for Desert storm/Norther and Southern Watch and the current OND/OEF awards boards.

Major waste of time and money for the military.....CAP just does not have that sort of resource.  So some one wrote one up for FLWG national signed off on it.....end of story.

[Ned]

My dear old Mom had a saying:

Just because something Good is happening to someone else does not mean something Bad is happening to you.

She was a very wise woman.

Now go out an play with your friends.

[Robert Hartigan]

^+1 :clap: :clap:

[DBlair]

On a somewhat-related note, does anyone have the list of awards presented at the 2011 FLWG Conference?

There seems to be some discussion of exactly who received what.

[FastAttack]

On a somewhat-related note, does anyone have the list of awards presented at the 2011 FLWG Conference?

There seems to be some discussion of exactly who received what.

good question i was there .. mostly group 7 members took most of the awards including best safety officer, best IC , best group commander

Also they told us for those that participated in Deep water horizon . we are waiting for final auth to wear the disaster relief ribbon with the V on it.
( I think they said 237 members or something like that they will list them on the flwg website. I participated as an MP ).

[Eclipse]

Best Group CC, seriously?  That's an award?

[FastAttack]

Best Group CC, seriously?  That's an award?

yeah first time i ever heard of such an award until this year lol

[DBlair]

On a somewhat-related note, does anyone have the list of awards presented at the 2011 FLWG Conference?

There seems to be some discussion of exactly who received what.

mostly group 7 members took most of the awards including best safety officer, best IC , best group commander

Group 7, seriously?  I'll leave that one without further comment. lol

...do you recall who received CP Officer OTY?

[FastAttack]

On a somewhat-related note, does anyone have the list of awards presented at the 2011 FLWG Conference?

There seems to be some discussion of exactly who received what.

mostly group 7 members took most of the awards including best safety officer, best IC , best group commander

Group 7, seriously?  I'll leave that one without further comment. lol

...do you recall who received CP Officer OTY?

actually they come a long way under their new group commander.. so they deserve most of the awards, but I think honestly that no one passed up the paperwork required for these awards. My UCC didn't even know you had to submit for them ( not his fault either he just assumed commander in December)

CP, Oh it was a group 7 guy as well lol

[starshippe]

. . the dwh participants received permission at last week's georgia wing conference to wear the disaster relief ribbon with the silver v.
. . i had also heard of a special ribbon being designed for dwh, as it was the largest cap mission since ww2.
. . might see u all at the s.e. region conf in june. we can find out then fer sure.

. . fast attack, was that an ssn reference? ssbn629 here.

bill
dwh ic

[Hawk200]

. . i had also heard of a special ribbon being designed for dwh, as it was the largest cap mission since ww2.

I would hope not. We have enough trouble with our current decs as it is. We don't need to be getting into the "campaign" decoration business.

[DC]

. . i had also heard of a special ribbon being designed for dwh, as it was the largest cap mission since ww2.

I would hope not. We have enough trouble with our current decs as it is. We don't need to be getting into the "campaign" decoration business.

This. We have too many freaking awards already, we don't need to invent a new one each time we have a big mission. What's next, retroactive special awards for Katrina, Rita, Wilma, et al., the Fossett search, and every other large/high profile mission I'm not thinking of that we have had in the last decade?

[Spaceman3750]

. . i had also heard of a special ribbon being designed for dwh, as it was the largest cap mission since ww2.

I would hope not. We have enough trouble with our current decs as it is. We don't need to be getting into the "campaign" decoration business.

This. We have too many freaking awards already, we don't need to invent a new one each time we have a big mission. What's next, retroactive special awards for Katrina, Rita, Wilma, et al., the Fossett search, and every other large/high profile mission I'm not thinking of that we have had in the last decade?

A specialty patch might be more appropriate - ILWG has a supplement authorizing a special Katrina contingent patch for those from our wing who went down.

[Eclipse]

Enough with the dots.

The dwh participants received permission at last week's georgia wing conference to wear the disaster relief ribbon with the silver v.

Recipients do not "receive permission" - either an approved 120 exists or it doesn't.  We've had this issue for years where senior officials
hand out decs at conferences with no substantiation, which then causes issues years later for members wearing unusual decorations with nothing on file.

I'd have no issue with a ribbon based on major missions - its not like we have that many, or that it would affect that many members as a whole.  The military does it with major engagements, wars, and relief efforts, why shouldn't we?  Besides, as defined, the DR-V is inappropriate for the Spill mission.

[DBlair]

Conference Award List: http://flwg.us/conferenceawards.aspx

Seems like the Sun 'N Fun airshow yet again proved to be an automatic decoration factory (then again, this is how it is advertised to members), and it looks like DWH was the favorite operation this year... pretty much every decoration noted is related to Sun 'N Fun or DWH.

As for the rest of the awards, they showcase the finest of CAP politics-- exactly what lead so many to roll their eyes and eventually get fed up and leave. Oh well, such is our organization. 

[FastAttack]

Enough with the dots.

The dwh participants received permission at last week's georgia wing conference to wear the disaster relief ribbon with the silver v.

Recipients do not "receive permission" - either an approved 120 exists or it doesn't.  We've had this issue for years where senior officials
hand out decs at conferences with no substantiation, which then causes issues years later for members wearing unusual decorations with nothing on file.

I'd have no issue with a ribbon based on major missions - its not like we have that many, or that it would affect that many members as a whole.  The military does it with major engagements, wars, and relief efforts, why shouldn't we?  Besides, as defined, the DR-V is inappropriate for the Spill mission.

We don't have a 120 approved.. so in reality not sure why GW is authorizing to wear it.

They specifically told us that the list of people that participated with the required form would be posted. Hell i don't think any of the participating wings have gotten any awards given yet.

As far as ribbons per major missions I would agree.. reflect your work as a volunteer. Although some people might just do it for the shirt candy.

[Kaye Downing]

Today FLWG members received information about the Unit Citation and it was not for a specified action but for actions and activities over a three year time period.

Here is the information:

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
CIVIL AIR PATROL
-USAF AUXILIARY-
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36112-6332
PERSONNEL ACTIONS) 12 April 2011 NUMBER NHQ 50)
The Civil Air Patrol UNIT CITATION AWARD is awarded to FLORIDA WING (ELEVENTH AWARD), for outstanding achievements, exceptional service, and high degree of performance during the,periods 1 February 2008 through 9 April 2011, effective 12 April 2011. AUTHORITY: CAPR39-3.
FOR THE NATIONAL COMMANDER
SUSAN P. PARKER
DISTRIBUTION:
Chief, Personnel & Member Actions
1 -Ea Individual Concerned
1 -Ea NEC Member
1 -Ea Wing Concerned
1 -Ea Region Concerned
1 -Ea CAP-USAF LR Concerned
1-EX
1-CC




Kaye Downing, Capt, CAP
Jacksonville Composite Squadron
FL-383

[Eclipse]

That just looks like a standard UC for FL001, not everyone in the wing.

[BillB]

It's for everyone in the Wing. It was not FL001 specific

[HGjunkie]

So, everyone in FLWG wears a UC ribbon now?

[RiverAux]

Having received one of these multi-year Wing-wide unit citations in the past, I'm not a great fan of them.  When we got ours it wasn't really for having done anything particularly special over that period.  Not even a REALLY big mission.  The time period happened to coincide with the term of a particular Wing Commander and I suspect that was the driving force to have it cover that time period. 

That being said, they can be legitimate, but since CAP hardly ever does any internal public affairs when such awards are given they really don't help inspire other Wings to try to one-up them since for the most part only the members of that Wing hear about it. 

[SarDragon]

That just looks like a standard UC for FL001, not everyone in the wing.

If it was for FL001, it would say Florida Wing Headquarters.

[Eclipse]

That just looks like a standard UC for FL001, not everyone in the wing.

If it was for FL001, it would say Florida Wing Headquarters.

I'd wait to see the 120 and the PA...

[ßτε]

That just looks like a standard UC for FL001, not everyone in the wing.

If it was for FL001, it would say Florida Wing Headquarters.

I'd wait to see the 120 and the PA...

You probably won't see the 120, but the PA was quoted above:

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
CIVIL AIR PATROL
-USAF AUXILIARY-
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36112-6332
PERSONNEL ACTIONS) 12 April 2011 NUMBER NHQ 50)
The Civil Air Patrol UNIT CITATION AWARD is awarded to FLORIDA WING (ELEVENTH AWARD), for outstanding achievements, exceptional service, and high degree of performance during the,periods 1 February 2008 through 9 April 2011, effective 12 April 2011. AUTHORITY: CAPR39-3.
FOR THE NATIONAL COMMANDER
SUSAN P. PARKER
DISTRIBUTION:
Chief, Personnel & Member Actions
1 -Ea Individual Concerned
1 -Ea NEC Member
1 -Ea Wing Concerned
1 -Ea Region Concerned
1 -Ea CAP-USAF LR Concerned
1-EX
1-CC

[Eclipse]

That isn't a PA, that is a note from Suzy Parker.

The PA, if properly processed, will specify the name of everyone who qualifies for the award.

[ßτε]

That is the PA issued by NHQ.

[starshippe]

. . i don't have a dog in this fight, not a big dog, anyway, but i noticed that this was the eleventh wing unit citation. so, florida wing unit citation awards seem to happen fairly often, maybe averaging one every 5 years or so, but certainly occurring more often, on the average, than once every 8 years.
. . if its national hq thats bestowing these, and they have issued a total of 50 pas, it appears that florida is getting their fair share.
. . what would be interesting is a list of all the wings, and the total number of unit citations issued to each. just wondering.

bill

[Eclipse]

That's NHQ PA #50, not UC #50.

[SarDragon]

That isn't a PA, that is a note from Suzy Parker.

The PA, if properly processed, will specify the name of everyone who qualifies for the award.

Well, I guess it doesn't work that way in this case. I have a PA, formatted exactly the same way, from NHQ, awarding some DSMs, some ESAs, an MSA, three CCAs, and the Unit Citation to AZ, CA, NV, TX, and UT for the Columbia disaster effort. We were told that it was the responsibility of the individual units to determine specifically who would get to wear the ribbon, since the units are best able to make that determination.

Here.

[Eclipse]

As written, your example specifically says "these units", so intention aside, that says "001" to me, not the general membership.  AZ001 is a unit, the entire wing is not.

Further, the unintended consequence of these blanket PA's is that empty shirts, patron members, members on disciplinary suspension, and those
without even Level 1 would potentially qualify.

The proper way to do this is solicit the member list before the PA is signed, and include it with the 120, not issue the decoration and then say "you guys figure it out".

That's what I insisted upon from my unit this year on their (ultimately approved) submission for a UC, and also for any decorations they wanted me to sign.

[RiverAux]

It is not practical to have a PA with several thousand names on it when a blanket statement saying that anyone assigned to the unit during the specified time period is eligible.  Such eligibility is easily determined. 

[Eclipse]

Its only not practical if you decide it isn't.  This is just like GBD's who feel they have to track 40 people, when in fact they only have to track 6 teams.

You send an email down the chain, then wait for the responses.  If your unit CC can't be bothered to take the time, no dec for you!

Units send their list to Group, Group to wing, one person consolidates the list for the PA.  No ambiguity, no hurt feelings, and no one who can
pretend they qual'ed when they didn't.

The Katrina PA's were about 15 pages long and spanned multiple wings and regions, yet someone was able to make it happen fairly timely.
Its not like their is a hurry on this.

[EMT-83]

In eServices, I believe that 001 shows everyone in the Wing. It confuses the heck out of me every time I try to look up someone at Wing HQ.

[EmergencyManager6]

The award is for EVERYONE in the wing.

[SarDragon]

As written, your example specifically says "these units", so intention aside, that says "001" to me, not the general membership.  AZ001 is a unit, the entire wing is not.

The entire wing is a unit - California Wing. CA001 is California Wing Headquarters. I have seen other PAs with that terminology, and the award was to just the wing staff assigned to CA001.

Just because you don't like that it's done that way, doesn't mean that it's wrong. The PA is an official document awarding a specific award to a specific group of people. Just because all the names aren't on it, doesn't mean that it's invalid.

How many people were listed on the Katrina PAs? We're talking somewhere between 6,000 and 7,000 members for the UCA I posted. You going to type that up for us?

[davidsinn]

In eServices, I believe that 001 shows everyone in the Wing. It confuses the heck out of me every time I try to look up someone at Wing HQ.

Click the box "show unit only." I have group level permissions for member reports and have to do that to isolate the three people actually assigned to group.

[starshippe]

. . doesn't someone have to type the names, somewhere?

bill

[Eclipse]

The entire wing is a unit - California Wing. CA001 is California Wing Headquarters. I have seen other PAs with that terminology, and the award was to just the wing staff assigned to CA001.

No, the entire wing is not a unit, it is a collection of units.  That's why there are independent charters, and separate staff for each unit, and the ability to assign people specifically, including permissions and authority, unless, of course, everyone in CAWG (etc) has CA001 on their membership card.

CA001 is a specific group of people with a non-operational, headquarters responsibility.  It is not the entire wing.

How many people were listed on the Katrina PAs? We're talking somewhere between 6,000 and 7,000 members for the UCA I posted. You going to type that up for us?

Just because something isn't "easy" doesn't make it "wrong" - do you think the military issues blanket orders or decs without, at some point, specific individuals being named?

If it really is "all", you can gen a list into an excel spreadsheet pretty easily, if it isn't "all", then I've already provided a simple process to cull the correct names.

[EmergencyManager6]

Eclipse..  we are NOT the military.

Whats the big deal?

[Eclipse]

Eclipse..  we are NOT the military.

Never mind then.

[RiverAux]

No, the entire wing is not a unit, it is a collection of units.  That's why there are independent charters, and separate staff for each unit, and the ability to assign people specifically, including permissions and authority, unless, of course, everyone in CAWG (etc) has CA001 on their membership card.

A Wing is not a unit?  20-1 would disagree.  As would the entire history of the US military.  Is a Division not a unit because the brigades and battalions within it each have their own separate honors and lineage and staff?

However, it is true that the charter number used for Wing headquarter elements (001) is unique to the members assigned to Wing staff.  It would be incorrect to use that 001 as a stand-in to represent the entire Wing.  In fact, CAP NHQ DIDN"T do this.  Someone else tried to say that the award was for 001 when the PA clearly said "Florida Wing" rather than "Florida Wing Headquarters".  I believe I have seen awards go just to wing headquarters before. 

[SarDragon]

Just because something isn't "easy" doesn't make it "wrong" - do you think the military issues blanket orders or decs without, at some point, specific individuals being named?

Indeed they do. I have two NEMs, two Battle E's, and a MUC that have no accompanying name lists. Sec Nav puts out the order (PA) stating the unit(s) an award goes to, and lets the units figure whose record to make the entries in.

[Spaceman3750]

Nevermind

[MSG Mac]

No, the entire wing is not a unit, it is a collection of units.  That's why there are independent charters, and separate staff for each unit, and the ability to assign people specifically, including permissions and authority, unless, of course, everyone in CAWG (etc) has CA001 on their membership card.

A Wing is not a unit?  20-1 would disagree.  As would the entire history of the US military.  Is a Division not a unit because the brigades and battalions within it each have their own separate honors and lineage and staff?

However, it is true that the charter number used for Wing headquarter elements (001) is unique to the members assigned to Wing staff.  It would be incorrect to use that 001 as a stand-in to represent the entire Wing.  In fact, CAP NHQ DIDN"T do this.  Someone else tried to say that the award was for 001 when the PA clearly said "Florida Wing" rather than "Florida Wing Headquarters".  I believe I have seen awards go just to wing headquarters before.

If the citation is intended for the Wing Headquarters, the citation will read "Headquarters, XX Wing", if intended for the whole wing, it will read "XX Wing"

[RiverAux]

Isn't that what I said?

[Kaye Downing]

This is the PA we received from our new Wing Commander concerning the UC.

PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATION 22 April 2011
No. 11-014
Florida Wing has been awarded a Unit Citation from National Headquarters, Civil Air Patrol, for
outstanding achievements, exceptional service and a high degree of performance.
All members of Florida Wing who were in good standing between 1 February 2008 and 9 April 2011 are
authorized to wear the Unit Citation Award Ribbon (first award) or, if appropriate, an additional bronze
clasp to be added to the first award. The award also applies to wing personnel who were members during
the above period, but have since transferred.
This is the eleventh time the membership of Florida Wing has been honored with a Unit Citation Award.
Previous Unit Citations were awarded as follows:
Citation Dates Reason for Award
UNIT CITATION AWARD 13 Aug 2004 - 30 Sep 2004 Florida Hurricanes
UNIT CITATION AWARD 11 Sep 2001 - 17 Sep 2001 Operation Enduring
Vigilance
UNIT CITATION AWARD 16 Jun 1998 - 8 Jul 1999 Florida Fires Support
UNIT CITATION AWARD 2 Jul 1994 - 21 Jul 1994
UNIT CITATION AWARD 23 Aug 1992 - 30 Sep 1992 Hurricane Andrew
UNIT CITATION AWARD 1 Jan 1985 - 31 Dec 1988
UNIT CITATION AWARD 1 Jan 1980 - 20 Jun 1980
UNIT CITATION AWARD 1 Jul 1978 - 30 Jun 1979
UNIT CITATION AWARD 1965
UNIT CITATION AWARD 1964
Michael N. Cook, Col, CAP Distribution:
Commander 1 – Each Individual
1 – Personnel Officer
1 – File
HEADQUARTERS FLORIDA WING
CIVIL AIR PATROL
United States Air Force Auxiliary
14750 NW 44th Court
Opa Locka, FL 33054



Kaye Downing, Capt., CAP
Jacksonville Composite Squadron
FL-383

[JoeTomasone]

In eServices, I believe that 001 shows everyone in the Wing. It confuses the heck out of me every time I try to look up someone at Wing HQ.

No, 001 contains only those assigned to Wing Headquarters.   There is no unit designator that contains everyone in the Wing.

[EMT-83]

My member search for 001 shows all senior and cadet members in the wing. If I click View Unit Only, just wing HQ members show up.

Not that this means that everyone in the wing belongs to 001, just that eServices shows it that way.

[Eclipse]

eServices will show you all the members at the highest echelon you have rights to - clicking 001 will show you the whole wing, including
subordinate units, clicking the charter number for a Group will show you the group staff and all subordinate units.

[lordmonar]

The entire wing is a unit - California Wing. CA001 is California Wing Headquarters. I have seen other PAs with that terminology, and the award was to just the wing staff assigned to CA001.

No, the entire wing is not a unit, it is a collection of units.  That's why there are independent charters, and separate staff for each unit, and the ability to assign people specifically, including permissions and authority, unless, of course, everyone in CAWG (etc) has CA001 on their membership card.

CA001 is a specific group of people with a non-operational, headquarters responsibility.  It is not the entire wing.

How many people were listed on the Katrina PAs? We're talking somewhere between 6,000 and 7,000 members for the UCA I posted. You going to type that up for us?

Just because something isn't "easy" doesn't make it "wrong" - do you think the military issues blanket orders or decs without, at some point, specific individuals being named?

If it really is "all", you can gen a list into an excel spreadsheet pretty easily, if it isn't "all", then I've already provided a simple process to cull the correct names.

Yes Eclipse....the military only names the UNIT in a UNIT citation.  In fact it is up the the individual military member to take their documentation to their MPF to get credit for an award.  There is never any correlation between a AFOUA and individual members....unless the specific unit goes out of their way and make sure it happens.  They will usually take care of current members....but departed members are on their own.

So Eclipse...since you were never in the military...please stop trying to use your incomplete knowledge to support you asinine positions.

[Eclipse]

You've just made my argument for me - "FLWG" is not a "unit" in the context that the UC is awarded.  FL001 is, and FL347 is, but "FLWG" is not.

Why is there no expectation that decorations like these be processed in an unambiguous manner for the sake of the membership?

It's always "too hard", or "too much trouble", etc., to take 20 minutes and generate a mail-merge document or a proper PA so that all those
eligible know they are, and those that aren't know that as well.

[RiverAux]

Are you nuts?  Just where in CAP regulations does it say that a Wing is not a "unit" eligible for a unit commendation?  50 years of CAP history documents such awards going to entire wings. 

There is no unit designator that contains everyone in the Wing.

Have you forgotten that every single member of a wing has the 2-letter abbreviation for that wing as part of their unit identification?  SER-FL-XXX in this case. 

In other words, if ANYONE actually thought that the point several of you are trying to make was important, someone could easily have said something like "Florida Wing (SER-FL) has earned...."

But, since common sense tells you that an award that goes to Florida Wing goes to all members assigned to Florida Wing units, it isn't necessary. 

[lordmonar]

You've just made my argument for me - "FLWG" is not a "unit" in the context that the UC is awarded.  FL001 is, and FL347 is, but "FLWG" is not.

Why is there no expectation that decorations like these be processed in an unambiguous manner for the sake of the membership?

It's always "too hard", or "too much trouble", etc., to take 20 minutes and generate a mail-merge document or a proper PA so that all those
eligible know they are, and those that aren't know that as well.

You seem to be the only one who does not under stand that the term "Florida Wing" is in fact a unit.  You want to go and split hairs....go ahead. 

[Eclipse]

Have a great Easter everyone!

[HGjunkie]

[starshippe]

. . did u ever wonder what a shaved bunny would look like?

bill

[HGjunkie]

. . did u ever wonder what a shaved bunny would look like?

bill

[Fooz]

So, not to beat a dead horse here, but...

Florida Wing just received a missive that we will be receiving a national commander's unit citation for members in Florida Wing during the period of 1 May 2010 and 30 October 2010. I have not seen the actual message from National Headquarters...all I have is the PA from Florida Wing.

In the email that had this PA attached to it, it is stated that "This PA will supersede Personnel Authorization 11-014, dated 22 April 2011".

My thinking of this is that it can't really do that, since the two awards cover different periods of time:

PA 11-014 covers 1 FEB 08 to 9 APR 11 (Unit Citation)
PA 12-002 covers 1 MAY 10 to 30 OCT 10 (National Commander Unit Citation)

If you were to have joined on, say 31 OCT 10, a superseding of PA 11-014 would essentially take away that ribbon and leave you with nothing, despite you having been around to have earned it. (We'll leave the concept of "earned" to a different discussion)

So, to my thinking, those in Florida wing who were around for both should be authorized to wear both, and superseding is not applicable.

Any thoughts?

[Eclipse]

You only "earn" what is approved.  If the original PA is disavowed, then the decs are respectively voided.

[RiverAux]

What in the world would be the justification for voiding a unit award covering one time period in favor of a new award covering an entirely different time period? 

If this is being accurately reported I just can't believe it was intentional. 

[Eclipse]

The first period was wrong?

[Duke Dillio]

What in the world would be the justification for voiding a unit award covering one time period in favor of a new award covering an entirely different time period? 

If this is being accurately reported I just can't believe it was intentional.

Perhaps they just wanted to award the Nat'l Comm. Unit Citation versus the green weenie....

Good on you FLWG...  Hopefully I can get some of my people some awards for the hard work that they've done...  In this wing though.... doubtful....