Blue berets questions

[Eclipse]

A simple "it's not authorized for wear outside NBB..." would have ended the conversation nicely.

but that is not a true statement

Good luck with that...

ZMC - what did they tell you in this regard at NBB?

[jeders]

I earned my beret in '08 and, since it is not authorized by 39-1 or any ICL thereto, it sits on display on a shelf in my room along with the patch and challenge coin. I bring it out to meetings on occasion, along with other items, when I give a presentation on NCSAs, and then it goes back on the shelf. So to answer your question, should you wear it, no because it's not currently authorized outside of NBB. Should you hide it and forget about it, absolutely not because you worked hard and earned it.

Jeders, you're going to get one of the nice holiday cards this year!

Thanks, the not nice ones I get have a tendency to blow up.   

[NCRblues]

A simple "it's not authorized for wear outside NBB..." would have ended the conversation nicely.

but that is not a true statement

Good luck with that...

ZMC - what did they tell you in this regard at NBB?

They tell them its authorized (but to follow whatever the local commanders say)  ,  because that's what Curt Lafond and Mrs. Parker and the KB says...

So, if you have a massive insights into what the NB meant when they passed the beret and hawk tabs as authorized, I'm sure NHQ would love to hear it, because they disagree with you.... and they are well...in charge

[Eclipse]

Neither Mr. Lafond, Ms. Parker, nor the KB have authority on this matter.  They have an opinion like everyone else, but no more authority than you or I.  Further, Mr. Lafond is an SME for the CP, why would he have input on an ES / uniform question?  Cadets are not the only ones wearing the beret.

The entirety of the argument rests on an ambiguous sentence that was never followed up on nor clarified, hardly "final".

In the 6 years since that sentence, the powers that be have had ample time to clarify and end these discussions, yet they have chosen not to. I have no idea why, but that doesn't make it the writ, especially in that the sentences themselves need further approval from the USAF to fully implement - a permission that AFAIK has never been requested or received.

[NCRblues]

Neither Mr. Lafond, Ms. Parker, nor the KB have authority on this matter.  They have an opinion like everyone else, but no more authority than you or I.  Further, Mr. Lafond is an SME for the CP, why would he have input on an ES / uniform question?  Cadets are not the only ones wearing the beret.

The entirety of the argument rests on an ambiguous sentence that was never followed up on nor clarified, hardly "final".

In the 6 years since that sentence, the powers that be have had ample time to clarify and end these discussions, yet they have chosen not to. I have no idea why, but that doesn't make it the writ, especially in that the sentences themselves need further approval from the USAF to fully implement - a permission that AFAIK has never been requested or received.

We have gone over this before. NB motions are effective immediately. The AF had already approved the wear of the beret, we did not need to go back and ask permission again. Its an up or down thing. The AF says yes or no, we (cap) place the limit on when and where something can be worn, the AF does not care, nor has the time to deal with petty issues like this. 39-1 has not been upgraded for a long time, that argument holds no weight at all.

Mr. Lafond was the POC for NCSA's, and Mrs. Parker is the POC for all questions correct? So they lied to 200 CAP members and several members of the NEC and NB then eclipse?

Why is this such a big deal? Its authorized, get over it.

[lordmonar]

Neither Mr. Lafond, Ms. Parker, nor the KB have authority on this matter.  They have an opinion like everyone else, but no more authority than you or I.  Further, Mr. Lafond is an SME for the CP, why would he have input on an ES / uniform question?  Cadets are not the only ones wearing the beret.

The entirety of the argument rests on an ambiguous sentence that was never followed up on nor clarified, hardly "final".

In the 6 years since that sentence, the powers that be have had ample time to clarify and end these discussions, yet they have chosen not to. I have no idea why, but that doesn't make it the writ, especially in that the sentences themselves need further approval from the USAF to fully implement - a permission that AFAIK has never been requested or received.

And in that six years no one has stopped KB, Mr Lafond or Ms Parker from telling us it is authorised.  So there you go...back to square one...and my original advice to the OP.

As his commander and follow his instructions....because until NHQ and/or the NB gives us better information we fall back to commander's interpetation.  I won't give you a hard time if YOU tell your members not to wear it.  I won't give a wing commander or regional commander who does the same.

But by the same token I don't want anyone giving my cadets a hard time when my commander lets them wear their berets.

[Eclipse]

The AF had already approved the wear of the beret, we did not need to go back and ask permission again. Its an up or down thing. The AF says yes or no, we (cap) place the limit on when and where something can be worn, the AF does not care, nor has the time to deal with petty issues like this. 39-1 has not been upgraded for a long time, that argument holds no weight at all.

Cite please.

The USAF approved its wear for a very narrow subset of members at a specific activity, as outlined in 39-1.  I am unaware they have ever
reconsidered it for any other wear.

Mr. Lafond was the POC for NCSA's, and Mrs. Parker is the POC for all questions correct? So they lied to 200 CAP members and several members of the NEC and NB then eclipse?

Why is this such a big deal? Its authorized, get over it.

Activity POC's have limited authority over their activities, and that authority is only within and regarding that activity, and does not allow for the relaxation of regulations on a whim.  So at most, an NCSA POC could dictate headgear within and during that activity, not wholesale across the organization, any more than NESA can authorize the wear of the MAS "alternative uniform" of shorts and t-shirt or golf shirt for wear at a squadron meeting just because the activity POC authorized it.

All of us reading this know that CAP is all over the road in regards to the way it has been governed for at least a decade, we have conflicting regulations which purport to be the sole authority, time-locked ICL's with no expiration date which conflict with the regs,
and routinely issued directives from the board and NEC level which include directives for clarification and publication and the latter never happens.

Further, we all know people will do what they will do, regardless of regulations if it suits their fancy. (i.e. boonies, medics, encampment hats with metal grade on them, etc.).

That doesn't change the academic discussion of whether and if something was done in a way it was "legal" (in a CAP context), or who has the authority to change or dictate policy, procedures, and regulations.

To quote the single sentence issued on this which is the basis of the entire argument and supposed authorization:

See August 2006 National Board Minutes

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.

FOLLOW-ON ACTION: National Headquarters implementation of policy, notification to the field and change to appropriate CAP regulations.

Since the follow-on action never occurred, and we are to take that as "The Word", then there is no reason to ask anyone for permission, as the question has already been answered at the highest level possible, and as such, that includes berets, tabs, patches wherever HMRS decides to put them, belts, whistles, white-laced linesman boots, and whatever else is on the list.

There is no provision here for "local discretion", especially with the stuff which is sewn on.  So is that where we are?  Because the USAF hasn't approved any of that stuff, either, and people are purporting local authority to limit the things they don't like.

[Eclipse]

And in the end of all this, a lot of the reason for my reticence is the way this was done.

Berets and HMRS stuff have been contentious issues for years - certainly the entity of the 12 years I've been in - so when the issue comes
up to extend the areas they can be worn, resulting in more confusion and contention regardless, instead of writing a direct paragraph
to end the discussions, a work-product staff meeting discussion and vote is allowed to not only authorize the wear, but be the sole
and only verbiage on the subject for 6 years.

It makes the Second Amendment look like a flow chart.

[lordmonar]

Cite please.

The USAF approved its wear for a very narrow subset of members at a specific activity, as outlined in 39-1.  I am unaware they have ever
reconsidered it for any other wear.

WTF?  A narrow subset of people?  Like anyone the wing commander said could wear it?

Talk about cite Please.  Where do you come up with this?

As for USAF approval......we don't have to get approval for every single little thing.  The USAF already said we can wear the blue beret.  They have not  had any problem with the NBB'ers wearing at the bloody air show....why would they have a problem with us wearing at our home stations.

Again....this has been going on for a long time....and as far as I know the USAF has not said peep about it.

[Eclipse]

WTF?  A narrow subset of people?  Like anyone the wing commander said could wear it?

No, like, as per 39-1, only members who participate in the special activity that awards it, and only during that activity.
The only regulatory document fully vetted and approved by the USAF is 39-1, everything else was done by CAP with no apparent input or consultation of anyone at the USAF. 

As for USAF approval......we don't have to get approval for every single little thing.

Really?  And yet when they authorized boonies for field wear, they explicitly note they can't be worn until approved by the USAF (which to date, they have not). 

In fact, you and I both know that the USAF does have to approve "every little thing", and in fact, according to a number of people on this
forum, that includes both USAF-Style and corporate uniforms.

Every little thing.

Why haven't they said anything?  No idea.  Doesn't change a thing.

[N Harmon]

The USAF approved its wear for a very narrow subset of members at a specific activity, as outlined in 39-1.  I am unaware they have ever reconsidered it for any other wear.

The beret has been around since at least the 1980s. And back then it could be worn anywhere, not just at the activity. Thus the original USAF approval must have allowed more than the narrow conditions currently in 39-1. And it was CAP who implemented those conditions. CAP's self-imposed restrictions do not cause the USAF's approval to lapse. Only the USAF can rescind their approval. Thus CAP can drop those conditions without re-request permission from the USAF.

It would be like if the NB went crazy and decided CAP members could no longer wear the service cap. It would have no effect on the original USAF approval for Civil Air Patrol to wear that item. Thus a few years later they could reintroduce it without asking the USAF because the USAF's answer was "yes" all along.

[Eclipse]

Or...the USAF said, "...we don't like you wearing berets...", so they are now restricted to special activities, which is far more likely.

Conjecture aside, being a reg involving uniforms, the USAF is supposed to vet and approve changes, why they are changed is not the point,
and today it is very specific, with nothing regulatory or USAF-approved having changed that.

Does anyone really think the USAF reviewed or is even aware of that single sentence from a board meeting?  Especially since a follow-on was expected and never executed?

The repeated assertion is also that Wing CC's can authorize anything they want headgear-wise, and to that, again, I say "boonies".

[NCRblues]

Or...the USAF said, we don't like you wearing berets, so they are now restricted to special activities.

Conjecture aside, being a reg involving uniforms, the USAF is supposed to vet and approve changes, why they are changed is not the point,
and today it is very specific, with nothing regulatory or USAF-approved having changed that.

Does anyone really think the USAF reviewed or is even aware of that single sentence from a board meeting?  Especially since a follow-on was expected and never executed?

Ok so here is the question eclipse...

Is NHQ (in the form of Mrs. Parker, and Mr. LaFond) wrong when they say it is authorized? If you believe so, please cite your sources.

If they are wrong, than who is correct?

Do i get to pick and choose which regs, or NB items i get to follow because I have never seen the AF approval behind any of them?

[Eclipse]

Yes, I believe they are, and I've stated my specific position on this about 12 times.  I can't cite a negative, which is the point of my position.

No one is correct, and that's the problem.  The change was made incorrectly, was not followed-on as it should have been, and was never approved by the USAF.  This isn't even an ICL, and authorizes actions beyond the authority of the NB.

The people at NHQ are citing what they believe to be the intent of the action and / or the steady state of the regs if they are ever fixed.

They are also, apparently, telling people cadets can wear the marksmanship badge.

So you there you are.

[N Harmon]

Yes, it is possible that the USAF actually did rescind our permission to wear the beret. If that were the case, do you believe the SMEs at NHQ would be insisting the prior approval was still valid?

The simple fact is that it isn't in the reg, so you will never be wrong not wearing it.

[NCRblues]

So, correct me if i am wrong on any of this but,

You believe the people at NHQ who get paid to deal with issues like this every day are wrong.

You also believe the NB action was never followed up on, or that the AF is just to busy to read out meeting minutes (even though CAP-USAF is in the room, and adds concur or non-concur to every agenda item).

You also believe no one is correct on this issue.

So the NB acting within the power granted by the CAP constitution and bylaws acted, and it passed with at least a simple majority vote of the NB, and they we wrong?

So you need to see a sheet of paper signed by (who btw?) that says, "yes, wear of the beret is authorized" signed COl. Snuffy cap-usaf? Because if that's the road you want to go down, CAP is in serious trouble, we have a lot of uniform items that need that paper than.....

[Eclipse]

You believe the people at NHQ who get paid to deal with issues like this every day are wrong.

Yes.  I respect and value their contributions, but there have been any number of occasions where they have provided incorrect information, or an interpretation outside their authority.

You also believe the NB action was never followed up on,

"FOLLOW-ON ACTION: National Headquarters implementation of policy, notification to the field and change to appropriate CAP regulations."
We all know for a fact this was never done.

or that the AF is just to busy to read out meeting minutes (even though CAP-USAF is in the room, and adds concur or non-concur to every agenda item).

This was a "new-business" item by the NB, and there is no indication of any comment either way by CAP-USAF.  Col. Hodgkins is indicated as being present, but not noted in this agenda item.  It has never been mentioned or discussed on the record by the NEC or NB since that time 
6 years ago.

So the NB acting within the power granted by the CAP constitution and bylaws acted, and it passed with at least a simple majority vote of the NB, and they we wrong?

The board has the power to act in any way they wish, but the AFI's reserve the authority over USAF-style uniforms.

So you need to see a sheet of paper signed by (who btw?) that says, "yes, wear of the beret is authorized" signed COl. Snuffy cap-usaf? Because if that's the road you want to go down, CAP is in serious trouble,

Yes, the document(s) I am referring to are called "regulations", or at the least an "ICL", though there are those that would have an issue with that.  I, myself, have argued that NEC and board actions are effective immediately, however in this case the statement is too vague to be used as a basis for anything but selective, benevolent, authorization (i.e. I can do whatever I want).   We're assuming this is primarily berets, but they don't wear berets at HMRS, yet they are also mentioned.

Unless this vague sentence authorizes tabs, belts, and other HMRS bling, it can't be used as the basis of wear of the beret outside NBB, since the HMRS bling would also require CAP-USAF approval, and it not mentioned anywhere in 39-1.

we have a lot of uniform items that need that paper than

Yes, we do.  In fact, everything we wear is supposed to have specific authorization and definition.  Our regulations regarding uniforms are a mess.

[NCRblues]

Well, i wish you the best of luck with all that eclipse...

But I'm going to follow what those at NHQ have to say because well....they speak on behalf of the commander, and in our oath we say "I agree to abide by the decisions of those in authority of the Civil Air Patrol".

[Eclipse]

NHQ staffers are not in the chain of command, nor do they have any rights granted by the constitution.  Many are tasked with director status over specific activities, etc., but they do not have the golden pen in regards to regulations.

[Zen Master Charlie]

I can't cite a negative, which is the point of my position.

No one is correct, and that's the problem. 

Im ashamed... you harp on me for citations all the time yet in this situation you yourself are arguing for something you can't cite... Thats reason enough for me, if Eclipse can't cite it, then I can wear it!   

So all in all gentlemen (and ladies (I don't think there were any on this discussion but I didn't check)) No one can prove anything here... some argue the NB decision is correct (which I side with because of the fact that CAP-USAF was present, and had it been the wrong decision, Col H would have stepped in and said something) and others argue that if its not in the regulation, then its not approved... Which, as much as I wan't this to be true, my beliefe can be represented by this:

I challange anyone to find table 1-4 in CAPM 39-1    Crap, guess cadets can't wear shoulder chords for special perpose activities anymore! (this is something I'm trying to use CAC to get fixed) Table 1-4 is refferanced twice... but unfortunatly it doesnt exist! 

Anyway, my decision has been made, simply on the fact that the man who knows all, can't pull this one off!  :clap: