Blue Beret Awards

[Pace]

There are several questions that must be answered before this discussion can be concluded.  Some are concrete/have been addressed by NHQ.  Some have not been directly addressed by NHQ, regarding specifically NBB/HMRS in this instance.

1. Must the Air Force approve ALL items on the air force-style uniform?  If not, where is the line drawn?  By who? Cite?
[This one is obvious]

2. Does a ruling of the NB/NEC constitute an immediate policy change that may be acted upon, or must an official memo citing this change be published to all members? Or must the regulation itself be amended (are ICLs legit?)?
[This is the gray area that will settle this "discussion"]

3. Does para 2 of CAPM 39-1 ICL 2, dated 1 April 2008 apply to the NB ruling regarding wear of the blue beret?
[Two points of view here: 1) Refer to question #1; and 2) Many preceding proposals cited requiring Air Force approval specifically and were then not heard of again until the mention that Air Force approval was still pending on several previously sought-after uniform items.  I remind you that the NBB/HMRS item did not have such a statement in the meeting minutes as many other proposed items did]

4. Was question 3 left ambiguous on purpose by NHQ???

And one final note, everyone please review the membership code of conduct before I have to smite the with my dark s'member powers.
Prease

[MICT1362]

Agree.

Noted.

And is there anyway that we can get an "Escuse Me" light to mark this thread and others like it?

[Pace]

I could put some blinking lights up, but trust me no matter how many threads about berets I did that to every year someone will come in and ask the same question and start the process all over again.

[MICT1362]

Oh, I don't care about the question.  I just want the light! :clap:

[Pace]

There ya go.  Original post edited

[DakRadz]

I scrolled up and nearly had a heart attack.

Very effective Major!

Now we can go a few months without another of these discussions, perhaps?

[MICT1362]

 :clap:YOU ARE MY HERO! :clap:

[Pace]

It's so [darn]ed shiny!!!

[NCRblues]

Do you know what im talking about??

[Pace]

*tweeker voice* What, you wanna get high? */tweeker*

[Eclipse]

Awesome.

[FW]

I love the lights...

Anyway, I'll attempt to answer these deep insightful questions.

1. The Air Force MUST approve all uniform items on the Air Force style uniforms; BDU's included.  (letter to Board of Governors 2006 from CSAF)
2. Once the NB/NEC or BoG sets the policy.  The policy is immediately implemented.  This has been the standard of practice for years
3. Yes however, wear of head gear is different than wearing badges/patches on the uniform.  The last time the NB visited this issue, the board recognized this (see ans. 1)
To date, the Air Force has not given approval for wear of the patches on the BDU. They are still only authorized for wear on the BBDU.  Exception is the BB patch and HMRS "LL" patch.
4. Of course.  Or else we wouldn't have anything to discuss here on CT...

[Pace]

I was really hoping this would have died with the blinky lights, but no.

1. The Air Force MUST approve all uniform items on the Air Force style uniforms; BDU's included.  (letter to Board of Governors 2006 from CSAF)

That letter is super, but the authority is derived from AFI 10-2701 (29 July 2005) 1.3.1, 1.3.2, and 1.4 (specifically 1.4.3 and 1.4.4):

1.3.1. CAP Grade. CAP uses military style grade for its membership at the discretion and approval of the Air Force. CAP officer or noncommissioned officer grade does not confer commissioned or noncommissioned officer status. CAP personnel have no authority over members of the armed forces. CAP members who are active, reserve, and retired members of the armed forces will be treated according to their CAP status when acting in a CAP capacity. The Air Force has authority over the CAP grade structure.

1.3.2. Uniform Wear and Personal Appearance. CAP members are authorized to wear CAP or Air Force-style uniforms in accordance with CAP regulations (civilian clothing may be worn when specific missions dictate). The Air Force controls the configuration of the Air Force-style uniform worn by CAP members.

1.4. Air Force Authority and Control. By law, the SECAF, or his designee, may regulate and impose limitations on CAP.

Title 10 US Code, Subtitle D, Part III, Chapter 909, § 9448:
(a) Authority.— The Secretary of the Air Force shall prescribe regulations for the administration of this chapter.

FYI - Chapter 909 covers CAP's status as both a federally chartered corporation and as the civilian auxiliary to the Air Force.

1.4.3. CAP Corporate Activities. The Air Force will usually only regulate and oversee those corporate activities that are supported by appropriated funds, use assets procured with appropriated funds, or involve matters where CAP's activities could give the appearance of endorsement of the action by the Air Force or could be detrimental to the Federal government.

1.4.4. Regulations. The Air Force, through CAP-USAF/CC, has authority to review and approve CAP's corporate regulations, policies, plans, and programs that govern Air Force-assigned missions and CAP's use of Federally-provided resources, prior to implementation by CAP. CAP regulations, policies, plans, and programs shall not be construed as authority to conduct missions not otherwise authorized under this Instruction or to deviate from procedures set forth herein.

I was going to spend more time picking those apart, but it's clear enough that the SECAF has absolute authority over all things regarding the Air Force-style uniform (and pretty much everything else if the Secretary wants).

2. Once the NB/NEC or BoG sets the policy.  The policy is immediately implemented.  This has been the standard of practice for years

Standard of practice is a fancy way of stating "that's the way we've always done it", which is a far cry from "this is what is written and approved in regulations."

Article XX of the CAP Constitution and Bylaws
1. To further the orderly administration of the activities, business and affairs of the Corporation, the National Commander shall establish and maintain regulations which shall be applicable to all members of Civil Air Patrol. These regulations will be based on policies established by the Board of Governors,National Board, CAP-USAF, or law.

Yes, those entities do establish policies; however, those policies then have to be transcribed into regulations which are applicable to all CAP member.  The CAP/CC does have the authority to establish emergency regulations under these conditions:

Article XX of the CAP Constitution and Bylaws
3. The National Commander, upon declaration of a situation requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency or an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, may promulgate emergency regulations without the ratification of a majority vote of the National Board. Such emergency regulation shall remain in force unless revoked by a majority vote of the National Board.

Further, CAPR 5-4 authorizes the issuance of Interim Change Letters; however, their purpose and timeframe are very specific:

4. Interim Change Letters (ICL). Situations requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency, an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, or other contingencies that may require prompt action may result in an interim change letter being issued outlining immediate policies. ICLs may be issued by any level of command unless specifically limited or prohibited by the regulation or manual governing that subject matter. Issuance of policies by ICL is a temporary measure.
a. ICLs outlining immediate policies to be followed for a limited time will be issued with
a stated expiration date. Such expiration dates shall not be more than 180 days from the date the letter was issued.
b. ICLs outlining immediate policies that are intended to become permanent shall be incorporated into an appropriate publication within 90 days of the date the letter was issued.

I would submit that uniform policies do not qualify for the issuance of an ICL in the first place; and secondly, that all current uniform-related ICLs are null and void due to the amount of time that has lapsed since their questionable issuance.  By our own regulations, I could pull my reverse American flag off all my BDUs and be within the established/prescribed standards as set forth by the CAP regulations and manuals.

Further, CAPR 5-4 specifically defines manuals and regulations in this way:

f. "Manuals" announce procedures and guidance for performing standard tasks and usually contain examples.
l. "Regulations" announce policies, direct actions and prescribe standards.

Nowhere are meeting minutes specified as a venue to announce policies, procedures, or guidance.

3. Yes however, wear of head gear is different than wearing badges/patches on the uniform.  The last time the NB visited this issue, the board recognized this (see ans. 1)

Negative.  Once more, as authorized and enforcable by US Code:

AFI 10-2701:
1.3.2. Uniform Wear and Personal Appearance. CAP members are authorized to wear CAP or Air Force-style uniforms in accordance with CAP regulations (civilian clothing may be worn when specific missions dictate). The Air Force controls the configuration of the Air Force-style uniform worn by CAP members.

To date, the Air Force has not given approval for wear of the patches on the BDU.

If you are referring to the ranger tab patches, I concur as evidenced by not being in CAPM 39-1 or even one of the expired ICLs.  Similarly, there is no evidence that the NBB beret is authorized (outside the activity) per CAPM 39-1 or an expired supplement.

They are still only authorized for wear on the BBDU.  Exception is the BB patch and HMRS "LL" patch.

The way 10 US Code Chapter 909 is written, the SECAF could regulate the corporate uniforms as well if the uniform(s) incorporates military grade, will be used on AFAMs, cause the "appearance of endorsement of the action [of CAP] by the Air Force", or if the uniform's presence in certain situations "could be detrimental to the Federal government" (for example, a cadet in BBDUs and beret holding someone hostage - extreme, unlikely, and so far fringe it's barely logical to suggest, but the clause is still there).

You are correct in assuming that, at this time, the Air Force has not chosen to involve itself in CAP's corporate uniforms other than to dictate that Air Force ribbons and badges are not permitted on corporate uniforms.

[arajca]

You are correct in assuming that, at this time, the Air Force has not chosen to involve itself in CAP's corporate uniforms other than to dictate that Air Force ribbons and badges are not permitted on corporate uniforms.

Three letters: CSU
The AF has gotten more involved than just prohibiting the wear of military ribbons and badges.

[Pace]

Very true, but I meant the corporate uniforms that are in CAPM 39-1.  I just didn't state that very well.

[FW]

Daniel, thanks for filling in the details to my (semi serious) response.  The Air Force has final say on all our uniforms; even corporate.  However, they have not objected to the NBB patch or HMRS patch on the BDU's since they qualify for wear as per standards in the existing (but way out of date) CAPM 39-1.  Ranger tabs and other such "bling" is not.  We are still waiting for AF approval.  The AF has not objected to any "bling wear" on CAP distinctive unitforms to date. 
As to policies and regulations. Article XX is quite clear however, when the BoG or NEC or NB votes to allow a patch to be worn.  That patch is allowed to be worn the next day.   It's one of the reasons CAPM 39-1 is way out of date.   Uniform issues are CAP's favorite pastime...

[Pace]

We're on the same page on most things.  I disagree with your interpretation of Article XX and CAPR 5-4; however, I'm neither in a position of implementing/enforcing regulations, nor do I care enough to continue arguing.

[Patterson]

Perhaps a Wing Commander needs to take this to the meeting next Month.  Get a CLEAR and FINAL answer.  Enough of all this 3 answers for every question" crap. 

It is 2010.  Take these questions and get them answered.  If I were a Corporate Officer, I would be happy to press this issue, but I am not, and it seems like all of them are too scared to ask these questions for some reason.

We also need 1 (one) authority on uniform changes.  Ms Parker, General Courter, Wing Commanders, Region Commanders, Vanguard all seem to do what they want and never get together and have a single voice.  I am tired of learning about changes from CAPTALK, or the CAP Knowledge-base when we should just be able to open up the national Website (one national website please) and see what has changed.

Does anyone remember the 1980's and 1990's when all the changes were written into the CAP NEWS and each Squadron Commander got updates in the mail.

Well, post the changes online, email the info to all members.  How hard is that?

We have way more important things to answer than uniform questions that could have been finalized YEARS AGO. 

[FW]

Daniel, to tell you the truth, we are exactly in agreement.  It's just not that important for me to continue swimming against the current for uniform issues.  However, it's a slow day here in the mines and, I've got little else to do today except raise my post count...

[Ned]

As to policies and regulations. Article XX is quite clear however, when the BoG or NEC or NB votes to allow a patch to be worn.  That patch is allowed to be worn the next day.   

Sir,

The lawyer in me does not think it is all that clear.

Assuming you agree with me that Article XX confirms that the NB/NEC are "policy setting bodies," and the National Commander is responsible for establishing the regulations to implement the NB/NEC policies, I'm not sure it follows that "once the BoG/NEC/NB votes to allow a patch to be worn . . . [that the patch] is allowed to be worn the next day."

1.  Allowing the BoG/NB/NEC to dive down into the weeds and declare the wearing of certain patches as "policy" essentially eliminates any difference between "policy" and "regulation" . 

Most dictionaries define "policy" as "a plan of action" or a "prcedure of general applicability."

Picking and choosing specific patches or insignia sounds a lot more like regulations (or even tiny portions of a regulation) - which appear to be the province of the National Commander.  It doesn't sound like policy to me, anyway.

2.  Members are bound by regulation to obey regulations.  I can't find anything that suggests that individual members are required to obey policies not codified in regulations.  This problem is compounded when the policy in question is not publicized in a way that a typical member can be presumed to notice in the course of their duties.

3.  I certainly agree that for many years (up until the last year or so under General Courter's guidance) it has been the practice of the NB/NEC to debate, wordsmith, and finally vote on specific regulations.  This appears problematic in light of our C&BL, but as long as the final regulation goes out under the authority of the National Commander, it is probably OK.  It's as if the NB were to say "We set the policy; General Courter does the regulations.  Today, our policy is that you establish CAPR XX-XXX as we give it to you word for word."

Bottom line, reasonable minds can differ as to whether or not a NB resolution carries the force of a regulation and as to when - if ever - it is effective.

And having said that, we can all agree that we are still in substantial need of a new 39-1.

But I worry about the fate of CAPTalk if we were somehow to resolve all outstanding uniform issues.  Whatever would we talk about?