Blue berets questions

[SarDragon]

That's OK, Phil, you can probably make a really kool hat out of all your Wing Conference certificates. 

[PHall]

You must attend and earn the beret and patch...its that simple.

Give me a reg cite, otherwise it's just a "personal opinion".

And I'm not interested in wearing the beret, the patch or anything else from NBB.  So please lose the 'tude.

I'm just pointing out that the regs are pretty loose and could use some attention.

[NCRblues]

Just like everything else in cap right?

You don't think their is anything more important than NCSA bling awarding for a reg rewrite?

[isuhawkeye]

let me make sure that I understand your question. 

You would like a reg cite on the following. 

You contend that you deserve the bling associated with a national special activity in which

1.  You did not apply
2.  You did not sign in
3.  You did not participate in
4.  You did not work for
5.  You did not pay for
6.  You did not receive credit for attending
7.  You did work for the air force as a part of your regular employment
8.  Your  work posted you at the same airport as the event

Do I have this correct?

If so I do not believe that there is a CAP regulation that will prove your point. 

I also dont believe that this is a good example to use to prove what ever point you are trying to make

[a2capt]

^^ Gee.. sounds like a particular member in CAWG that figured they and their cadet offspring would wear the Columbia Mission citation award just because they were (purportedly) members of CAP during the same period, but not of CAWG, and just happened to participate in the recovery in another state closer to the activity, and probably actually did "more" than most of what went on in the western states, but were not there, even in that state, as CAP, but rather under the direction of another command all together.

So they wore the ribbon  when it was awarded to the wing on the basis they participated when the award said "members of CAWG at the time the mission happened".

Does that make them eligible because they did stuff at the same time? No. Did they do more than most of the wing? Probably.  Did it make it right? Absolutely not.

[PHall]

^^ Gee.. sounds like a particular member in CAWG that figured they and their cadet offspring would wear the Columbia Mission citation award just because they were (purportedly) members of CAP during the same period, but not of CAWG, and just happened to participate in the recovery in another state closer to the activity, and probably actually did "more" than most of what went on in the western states, but were not there, even in that state, as CAP, but rather under the direction of another command all together.

So they wore the ribbon  when it was awarded to the wing on the basis they participated when the award said "members of CAWG at the time the mission happened".

Does that make them eligible because they did stuff at the same time? No. Did they do more than most of the wing? Probably.  Did it make it right? Absolutely not.

Sorry to disappoint you, but no, that's not it. (I already have 4 Unit Citations)

[NCRblues]

What point are you trying to prove here PHall??....... 

[Hawk200]

I'm beginning to think that everything in CAP to be earned needs some orders or some type of paperwork to be awarded. And nothing should be awarded unless there is paperwork proving that you actually attended the training/activity/mission in the first place. Don't have proof? Then you don't get it.

To just put something on without having actually attended the training/activity/mission is pretty jacked. It's the same thing as wearing medals/badges/etc. that haven't been earned.

[Nathan]

What point are you trying to prove here PHall??....... 

I think that at least part of the point is that there is nothing preventing a member from seeing the wording backwards. Since blue berets can be authorized by the wing king per CAPM 39-1 for justification not including NBB, then that implies that the hat is NOT specific to the activity. NBB would therefore not have any more of a unique right to the hat than if I were to create an NCSA called "Black Shoulder Cord Academy". Simply having the black shoulder cord in the name of my activity and awarding them at graduation does not prevent them from being awarded by other authorities, as is allowable for both berets and black shoulder cords per the publications.

The regs don't specify that the beret "belongs" to NBB or the graduates. Without that specification, it's simply a specially-authorized piece of felt. I think that because the beret is authorizable for wear at more activities than just the NCSA, this loss in uniqueness also means that it really has no place in being compared to any NCSA patch.

[lordmonar]

I don't think that was his point.

I don't think anyone has said that NBB has a lock on the blue beret.

His point was something along the lines of that there are no regulations spelling out what one has to do to wear the NBB beret.

It is understood that you have to "attend" the NBB but it is not writtend down in any regulation.

I don't know why he is stirring this particular pot.

[Nathan]

His point was something along the lines of that there are no regulations spelling out what one has to do to wear the NBB beret.

It is understood that you have to "attend" the NBB but it is not writtend down in any regulation.

Well, there is a reg pointing out who is authorized to wear the blue beret, and, per the wing king's discretion, that's pretty much anybody. He can correct me if he wants, but my interpretation is that there is no reg preventing a non-NBB graduate from wearing the blue beret as often as an NBB graduate can.

And that is technically true. If the wing king uses commander's discretion to decide that a squadron meeting is an activity warranting the wear of a blue beret, then it can be done. NBB grads don't have any special "right" to the beret merely by merit of having attended the airshow. That's what the patch is for.

But besides that, he's also right that there is nothing dictating that there is such thing as the "NBB beret." There is simply a blue beret, the only beret authorized for wear in CAP, and one of the ways it can be authorized for wear is through graduation of the NBB activity. But it's not the only way, so if his wing commander wanted to authorize it for all wing activities, the regulation dictating the limitations on the authority to do so are vague enough that it would likely be hard to challenge. Hence, you end up with a wing full of beret-wearing members, and it would be legal.

[Hawk200]

Since blue berets can be authorized by the wing king per CAPM 39-1 for justification not including NBB, then that implies that the hat is NOT specific to the activity....

The regs don't specify that the beret "belongs" to NBB or the graduates. Without that specification, it's simply a specially-authorized piece of felt. I think that because the beret is authorizable for wear at more activities than just the NCSA, this loss in uniqueness also means that it really has no place in being compared to any NCSA patch.

I can see your point, but I can think of ways it would be different. NBB uses the blue beret, but has a specific crest. Another activity may use it, but configure it differently.

As an example, if Hawk awarded a blue beret, but it had a cloth flash unique to Hawk, then those would be different awards. Hawk graduates couldn't (or shouldn't) wear a blue beret with the crest that NBB uses, or vice versa. Since the beret is the same, the only difference would be the emblems worn.

There are same color berets worn between the Army and Air Force, but the insignia is what shows the differences. And in some cases, the beret insignia might be the first noticed, and most obvious difference.

[Nathan]

Since blue berets can be authorized by the wing king per CAPM 39-1 for justification not including NBB, then that implies that the hat is NOT specific to the activity....

The regs don't specify that the beret "belongs" to NBB or the graduates. Without that specification, it's simply a specially-authorized piece of felt. I think that because the beret is authorizable for wear at more activities than just the NCSA, this loss in uniqueness also means that it really has no place in being compared to any NCSA patch.

I can see your point, but I can think of ways it would be different. NBB uses the blue beret, but has a specific crest. Another activity may use it, but configure it differently.

As an example, if Hawk awarded a blue beret, but it had a cloth flash unique to Hawk, then those would be different awards. Hawk graduates couldn't (or shouldn't) wear a blue beret with the crest that NBB uses, or vice versa. Since the beret is the same, the only difference would be the emblems worn.

There are same color berets worn between the Army and Air Force, but the insignia is what shows the differences. And in some cases, the beret insignia might be the first noticed, and most obvious difference.

Eh, I don't really have any of the pubs in front of me, and haven't seen that new letter from Gen Courter. But I will say that your argument does not work on principle alone.

I do not recall anything in the regulations that dictate the wear of flashes on the beret. I could be wrong; as I said, I don't have the regulation in front of me. But I only remember the BERET being authorized, and while I'm sure that implies that a flash may be worn with it, it doesn't say which flash can be worn. So, TECHNICALLY, the St. Alban's crest can be worn on the beret, no matter what. At least, if you were going to take this to the books.

On principle, you're right. It's the same principle that guides the wear of NCSA patches. BY THE BOOK, there is nothing preventing me from wearing a PJOC patch, despite the fact that I never went, since I did attend an NCSA and am therefore authorized to wear an NCSA. And if a person decides to wear a beret with an NBB pin attached to it, or a squadron patch, or a custom flash, there isn't anything in the regulations preventing that.

Of course, when we get to this level of barracks-lawyering, the person pushing the books is probably not so interested in ensuring fairness, and is more interested in picking a fight with someone.

[Hawk200]

Eh, I don't really have any of the pubs in front of me, and haven't seen that new letter from Gen Courter. But I will say that your argument does not work on principle alone.

First of all, not an argument, just some food for thought.

I do not recall anything in the regulations that dictate the wear of flashes on the beret.

There isn't anything on it. There's also nothing in the manual that says you actually have to have laces in your shoes or boots. Berets have some kind of insignia, it's just one of those givens.

... But I only remember the BERET being authorized, and while I'm sure that implies that a flash may be worn with it, it doesn't say which flash can be worn. So, TECHNICALLY, the St. Alban's crest can be worn on the beret, no matter what. At least, if you were going to take this to the books.

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that a person should wear the crest, flash, or combination of the two that is appropriate to the specific activity that the person attended. Wearing a beret with a St Albans signifies NBB attendance. If you didn't, it's a misrepresentation (at best). Technically, you're not saying that you did attend NBB if you're wearing it, people are going to assume (which in this case isn't a stupid assumption).

All in all, if people are going to acquire bling through technically's instead of actually's, then all the bling loses it's value. May as well not even have it.

[JC004]

I am fully aware of what Army Regulation 670-1 states,
but that is just an "Army Regulation" it has nothing to do with the C.A.P.

You should get your quote key checked.  There may be soda or something sticky under it.

[NBB0058]

I am fully aware of what Army Regulation 670-1 states,
but that is just an "Army Regulation" it has nothing to do with the C.A.P.

You should get your quote key checked.  There may be soda or something sticky under it.

How so?

[NBB0058]

Also, there is one thing that I do not believe has been mentioned yet,
The minutes from "that fateful national board meeting in 2006" that states that the blue beret and the hawk mountain bling can be worn on the BDUs at all times, that is the most current publication on the subject i believe.

[RickFranz]

When I was at National Staff College this year, I asked if CAPM 39-1 was going to be updated.  The answer I received is that there is a new Regulation (not a manual) already written but that it has not yet been published because of all the changes that are still being made. 

I would hope that a lot of the "grey" areas will be addressed so that we can spend less time talking about who and why someone can wear a beret, flash or ranger tab. 

[a2capt]

Sorry to disappoint you, but no, that's not it. (I already have 4 Unit Citations)

Actually, the intent of my post wasn't that this is what you were trying for, but rather likening it to the point you seemed to be going after, that the written regulation is vague and open for interpretation or such. That these members in their wisdom did the same thing except in that situation there is a lot less room for such interpretation as the award specifically says who were members of XXX wing at the time of the mission.

[Nathan]

Also, there is one thing that I do not believe has been mentioned yet,
The minutes from "that fateful national board meeting in 2006" that states that the blue beret and the hawk mountain bling can be worn on the BDUs at all times, that is the most current publication on the subject i believe.

First off, so what? That really isn't at discussion here. We're discussing whether or not a non-NBB grad can pull off wearing the beret and flash.

Second, your post is the equivalent of saying, "Release the Kraken!"

Everybody knows there is an endless debate as to whether or not the minutes are worth anything. Some will argue that the decision is regulatory as soon as it's made by the NB, which means that we can wear the beret. Others will argue that the decision needs to be put into written form, and that we can't wear the beret until there is either a new regulation or update letter released permitting that.

We've been having that debate for four years, and bringing it up now in a thread that is not even discussing anything around that topic seems mighty close to trolling.