keeping GTM insignia?

[NCRblues]

So i got into kind of a heated debate over wearing GTM insignia after you are no longer a GTM/GTL/GBD...

Now i know pilots get to keep their wings after they are no longer certified, but what about GTM?

I tend to think that you don't get to keep them on your uniform, but i cant find any guidance in the regs.... help?

[cap235629]

it is an award, not a qualification.

[Майор Хаткевич]

It is the Ground Team Badge.

Once earned, it's there.

[MIKE]

Why should GTM be any different?  IIRC the EMT badges and CPR patches are the ones that must be removed when no longer current.  If someone has to remove their GT badge, then you shouldn't wear AFSC etc badges you are no longer current in either.

[NCRblues]

got it, well i was wrong...mark the date on your all's calender....

Thanks for the info

[cap235629]

Why should GTM be any different?  IIRC the EMT badges and CPR patches are the ones that must be removed when no longer current.  If someone has to remove their GT badge, then you shouldn't wear AFSC etc badges you are no longer current in either.

According to Suzie Parker, the EMT badge is in the same category as the GTM badges and is not required to be removed if no longer current.

[Eclipse]

According to Suzie Parker, the EMT badge is in the same category as the GTM badges and is not required to be removed if no longer current.

I'll accept her word on that as long as people also accept that it is GTM or EMT, not both as is common.

[SARDOC]

Why should GTM be any different?  IIRC the EMT badges and CPR patches are the ones that must be removed when no longer current.  If someone has to remove their GT badge, then you shouldn't wear AFSC etc badges you are no longer current in either.

According to Suzie Parker, the EMT badge is in the same category as the GTM badges and is not required to be removed if no longer current.

I'm still trying to Find Where in the Regs or ICL's where it even allows us to wear the EMT badge.  39-1 tells you where to place it but not the criteria.  The KB says you must be current to have it awarded, but there is nothing in there about removing it.  CPR Patches must be removed when no longer current

[MIKE]

^ IIRC the previous CAPM 39-1 did state all this in the table.  I will concede that the current edition does not.

[biomed441]

I'm not too sure about regs or ICL's about wear of the GTM Badge, but if you take a look at eServices, the GTM qualification, is not the GTM badge.  They are entered differently and the badge itself shows on your record with no expiration date while the GTM qualification does have the expiration.

[SarDragon]

And the same goes for the ES patch, Observer ratings, ES Ops Qual badges, and GT badges.

[Eclipse]

Bear in mind that the ability to award the badges themselves, separate from the rating, is pretty new in eServices - maybe a year or two at most.

Previous to that it was not uncommon to have older or less active members wearing badges they could not substantiate because the earned
them outside the qualification period and all the paper had long since been lost.

[N Harmon]

The CAP knowledge-base says you must be a licensed EMT to wear the EMT badge.

As for the Ground Team and EMT badges both being on a uniform, was that ever straightened out conclusively or is it still a matter of interpretation?

[MIKE]

I think it is pretty clear that there is no provision for wearing a specialty insignia above another.

[Nilsog]

I'll accept her word on that as long as people also accept that it is GTM or EMT, not both as is common.

Who says you can't wear both?

[MIKE]

^CAPM 39-1

[Nilsog]

^CAPM 39-1

6-5
CAP ribbons, CAP aviation badge and one additional CAP badge may be worn (specialty insignia, specialty badge or command badge).

I'm assuming thats what this means then.

[Eclipse]

The EMT badge occupy the same place on the uniform, in addition 39-1 saying so, we'v confirmed this with NHQ on more than one occasion.

The same goes for a military occupation badge and GT, etc.  I've seen more than one person wearing a subdued military badge under
a CAP GT badge as if it was ok, and plenty with a military badge and GT, or GT and IC, etc.

Gotta pick one.

[BGNightfall]

The same goes for a military occupation badge and GT, etc.  I've seen more than one person wearing a subdued military badge under
a CAP GT badge as if it was ok, and plenty with a military badge and GT, or GT and IC, etc.

Gotta pick one.

Slight threat drift, for which I apologize, but I also did not want to create a whole new thread for what should be a simple yes/no answer.  The quoted comment above is not explicitly stated in the 39-1, however it is explicitly noted in the Knowledgebase.  Is the CAP Knowledgebase considered a valid publication from NHQ?  Is it considered binding to the membership to adhere to the directives put forth in the Knowledgebase?

[Eclipse]

Slight threat drift, for which I apologize, but I also did not want to create a whole new thread for what should be a simple yes/no answer.  The quoted comment above is not explicitly stated in the 39-1, however it is explicitly noted in the Knowledgebase.  Is the CAP Knowledgebase considered a valid publication from NHQ?  Is it considered binding to the membership to adhere to the directives put forth in the Knowledgebase?

Yes, unless you disagree.

The KB is not, in and of itself, regulatory, and in more than a few cases has been shown to be incorrect.
In most cases it just quotes and shortcuts to existing regulations, so it's not being regulatory in and of itself, only quoting other pubs.

The challenge comes when a staffer writes a subjective opinion and posts it as fact.  NHQ staffers, while possibly sitting right next to
the person with the authority, or being in the meeting where the issue was discussed, or even being privy to the printing of the
reg that changes things, do not in and of of themselves have authority to make policy of changes our regs, so that leaves
room for people to argue about the regulatory nature of the resource.

So what most people do is use it as support for a subjective decision, or ignore it as not authoritative when they disagree.

Frankly, once the KB says something that is further backed by Suzy Parker, that is good enough for me, regardless of whether I personally agree.