Ranger Tabs Authorized?

[SilverEagle2]

According to the minutes from the 2006 August NB Meeting, it appears that Ranger Tabs are OK to wear on BDU's!

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.

Is this correct? Has there been an update? I was always told outside of PAWG you could not wear them. Seems that according to this motion, I can once again wear my coveted Advanced Ranger tab on my BDU's.

Looking for some insight please.

Thanks,

[Ned]

In fact, the spring NEC meeting revisited the issue and changed the policy somewhat.

But in any event, do not confuse the policy and guidance of the NB and the NEC with the actual regulation that governs our uniform wear, the 39-1.

I imagine that the next edition of the 39-1 will reflect the guidance of the NB and NEC.

You should probably wait until then.

Ned Lee

[Hawk200]

Only valid if a policy letter or supplement permits. National Board minutes are informational, not regulatory.

The letter or supplement is only valid if a later letter/supplement doesn't forbid it.

2006 minutes are seriously old news. Try something more current.

[SilverEagle2]

I am in no hurry to wear them, just was interested in when it was going to be policy.

OK by my book. Where are the Spring NEC notes that addressed this issue. I do not see them posted yet.

Thanks again,

[RiverAux]

If it was policy I'm sure it would have shown up in one of uniform-related ICLs we seem to have had since 2006. 

[FW]

Only valid if a policy letter or supplement permits. National Board minutes are informational, not regulatory.

The letter or supplement is only valid if a later letter/supplement doesn't forbid it.

2006 minutes are seriously old news. Try something more current.

Actually, NEC/NB action items become regulatory with a majority vote unless the BOG rescinds or modifies them.  It may be years before a new reg is published

In this case (uniforms), the items in question are allowed on the blue field uniform.  We're still waiting for approval for the BDU from the AF.  

[RiverAux]

Regulations aren't regulations until they are regulations.....Once the policy is made by BoG/NB/NEC it is up to the National Commander to turn it into a regulation (or ICL). 

Seeing as how it often takes months for the minutes of these meetings to even be made known to the members, I don't see how in practice decisions made at those levels in regards to regulatory matters can be said to be applicable to the members until they have been turned into a regulation that is available to them.  Especially when you consider that these decisions are not terribly specific.   

For example, last year the NB approved a motion to create a DDR specialty track.  Does that now mean that I can sign up as a Technician?  No, it means that we have to wait for a new CAPP to be written that includes all the specifics.  Sometimes, they do approve specific language, but not always. 

If regulation changes approved at that level were meant to take effect immediately, wouldn't you logically expect the members to be informed of such changes immediately? 

[FW]

^Well, yes and no.  

Yes: when the NEC/NB creates a "policy"  it's up to the National staff to come up with the regulation.  It then goes through "the process" and at a subsequent NB/NEC meeting gets passed or, rejected and sent back to the staff for rewrite and then back to the board.  

No: when the reg is voted on, it becomes official.  Or, when a change to a reg is voted on, it becomes official at the time of the vote unless a start date is specified; ie the change in the "command patch".  

There are some variables which can change the above process however, this is pretty much how things work.  It would be great if the changes/new regs would come out shortly after a vote however, (for reasons that escape me) that's not the case.  (I'm still waiting for the rewrite to CAPR 20-1).

[CAP Producer]

The tabs issue is currently with the Air Staff. As per the NEC action they are authorized for the Blue BDU not the Woodland BDU. Once the AF rules then you can count on an ICL.

[Eclipse]

Yes, once the tabs are confirmed disapproved for the woodland camo BDU's, an ICL will be issued removing them from the the blue field uniform as well.

Look for the same to happen to berets outside of NBB...



===================================================>

[Hawk200]

Actually, NEC/NB action items become regulatory with a majority vote unless the BOG rescinds or modifies them.  It may be years before a new reg is published

That is a perfect example of a jumping the gun mindset that is creating problems. National Board items are an intention to perform an action or make a policy change. What everyone seems to think is that once something is voted on it's perfectly OK to comply. Until you have something in a regulation, policy letter or supplement, it's not official. It's not directive in nature until the directive is created.

There's also the issue of double standards which occurs a great deal. People say "Oh, I like that decision, I'm gonna do that now." Or else they say, "Well, I'm not going to do that until they write a new reg." One way is absolutely wrong for selfish reason, the other is right, but only through stubbornness.

There are very few "immediate action" items voted on at the National Board. Most of them are on the CAP website before the Board is over, or very soon after. Safety related items are a good example.

We're still waiting for approval for the BDU from the AF.

Which is a perfect example of why we must hold off until you have a published directive from National Headquarters in hand. There are things from Boards years ago that never made it into the pubs released well after those boards. Which means that it was shot down somewhere, or determined that it was impractical or unacceptable.

Think about it. If there was something voted on  in 2006, we would have seen something on it by now. We haven't seen anything on the ranger tabs. It may be that the Air Force has already disapproved, and it hasn't been passed down yet. They were contrary to Air Force policy on their uniform variants anyway.

Also, CAP is not autonomous, and a lot of people need to get over that idea that we can do as we please. If that hasn't been learned by now, especially with what happened with our previous commander, then some folks need to find other places to contribute their services. Better to have a few people that understand that we have our publications for a reason than a whole bunch of loose cannons.

[jb512]

Put your stuff on and be proud.  I know that the amount of work a person has to do to get that patch qualifies you...

[DNall]

Actually, NEC/NB action items become regulatory with a majority vote unless the BOG rescinds or modifies them.  It may be years before a new reg is published

That is a perfect example of a jumping the gun mindset that is creating problems. National Board items are an intention to perform an action or make a policy change. What everyone seems to think is that once something is voted on it's perfectly OK to comply. Until you have something in a regulation, policy letter or supplement, it's not official. It's not directive in nature until the directive is created.

There's also the issue of double standards which occurs a great deal. People say "Oh, I like that decision, I'm gonna do that now." Or else they say, "Well, I'm not going to do that until they write a new reg." One way is absolutely wrong for selfish reason, the other is right, but only through stubbornness.

There are very few "immediate action" items voted on at the National Board. Most of them are on the CAP website before the Board is over, or very soon after. Safety related items are a good example.

We're still waiting for approval for the BDU from the AF.

Which is a perfect example of why we must hold off until you have a published directive from National Headquarters in hand. There are things from Boards years ago that never made it into the pubs released well after those boards. Which means that it was shot down somewhere, or determined that it was impractical or unacceptable.

Think about it. If there was something voted on  in 2006, we would have seen something on it by now. We haven't seen anything on the ranger tabs. It may be that the Air Force has already disapproved, and it hasn't been passed down yet. They were contrary to Air Force policy on their uniform variants anyway.

Also, CAP is not autonomous, and a lot of people need to get over that idea that we can do as we please. If that hasn't been learned by now, especially with what happened with our previous commander, then some folks need to find other places to contribute their services. Better to have a few people that understand that we have our publications for a reason than a whole bunch of loose cannons.

All good advice.

You have to remember that NB or NEC passing an item doesn't mean anything more than it has been proposed for approval to BoG, AF, etc. And, as has already been said, it's just approving the full-time staff to further develop the concept and put it in written form after some significant review & change, so that it can come back for final approval. Nothing is a rule till it's in the regs or otherwise altered by policy letters.

[SilverEagle2]

Put your stuff on and be proud.  I know that the amount of work a person has to do to get that patch qualifies you...

Was that a bit sarcastic or not... 

At the time I earned it, it was a lot of work, especially since I did R-A my first year at Hawk. Basically, I did all the quals for R-2, R-1, and R-A in one session.

But hey, if you were serious.... 

I guess I was asking if there had been an ICL or Reg change that I just missed. I have been out of the loop for a while and reading 39-1 sometimes is like figuring out a womans mind. Both are darn near impossible to do.   

[Hawk200]

It's best to hold off until there is something in a firm directive published by National. Having something in writing is the surest way to deal with the nay-sayers.

That being said, I think the tabs ought to be authorized. They represent hard work, and a lot of knowledge gained. As long as the wearer lets the insignia speak for themselves, and doesn't end up with a head that won't fit through most doors, they're fine. Just tone down the colors a bit, they're a little on the loud side.

[SilverEagle2]

As a senior member in a state now that does not know what Hawk is all about, it is nice to have a way when Cadets and I interact, for me to promote a great ES tool.

When one comes up and says; "Hey, what is that?" I can tell them all about Hawk and possibly get some otherwise non interested/knowing parties a desire to attend from Utah.

Hopefully the directive will come. I really want to promote rather than brag.

Good thoughts, thanks all.

[Pylon]

I guess I have to dredge up my old position on this. 

That being said, I think the tabs ought to be authorized. They represent hard work, and a lot of knowledge gained. As long as the wearer lets the insignia speak for themselves, and doesn't end up with a head that won't fit through most doors, they're fine. Just tone down the colors a bit, they're a little on the loud side.

Yep, the tabs represent a long-standing program in CAP and a lot of hard work.

I think the tabs can be easily incorporated into the CAP uniform in a manner that is consistent with how our uniforms are set-up.  Right now, the ranger tabs are placed in a weird spot.  The AF wears nothing there; CAP wears nothing else in that spot.

I recommended converting the tabs into rockers, which would go above or below the Hawk patch which is already authorized like other NCSA and activity patches on the BDUs.   It's neat, it's optional, it's in a "normal" spot for a patch and I think it would be the best middle-ground between both camps of thought on the matter.

My recommendation did not, obviously, get approved when the NEC clarified the NB's approval of Hawk and NBB bling.  *shrug*   Wait for official ICL or new CAPM 39-1, as nobody knows if the AF has yet approved any of it for wear on the AF-style uniforms.

[FW]

All good advice.

You have to remember that NB or NEC passing an item doesn't mean anything more than it has been proposed for approval to BoG, AF, etc. And, as has already been said, it's just approving the full-time staff to further develop the concept and put it in written form after some significant review & change, so that it can come back for final approval. Nothing is a rule till it's in the regs or otherwise altered by policy letters.

Gentlemen,
Here is the 2006 NB agenda item, discussion and results:

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.

This was in Aug 2006.   The directives were "clarified" at a recent NB meeting.  I would think the ICL would be published.

[Pylon]

This was in Aug 2006.   The directives were "clarified" at a recent NB meeting.  I would think the ICL would be published.

Slight correction, sir.    The NB's motion was cleared up at a recent NEC meeting, and it was amended to read that with the NEC's action, the uniform elements specified could be worn immediately on corporate field uniforms, but would need to be submitted to the AF for review on any AF-style uniforms.

My guess would be that the staff was going to wait to do one ICL for all Hawk & NBB items, instead of one for corporate uniforms and one shortly thereafter for AF-style.  The proposed revisions could very well be stopped at some point in the AF-approval process.  I can't imagine they'd want some of that stuff on the AF-style uniforms.  Hence, that's my educated guess as to why you haven't seen any ICLs yet.

[FW]

Thanks, Mike.  I couldn't remember which meeting it was brought back up at.  I'm glad we have some younger members around to keep us old guys in line.