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.  

[RiverAux]

Pylon, that is one of the more sensible suggestions I've heard on a uniform item.  Obviously, it couldn't go forward.

[Hawk200]

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 always liked it. I don't think anybody wears anything in those locations. They're unique. Just don't make it gaudy. Some colors complimentary to the uniforms would be good, although that may take a little work considering that ABU's and BBDU's are completely different tones of color. No real reason to have the patch if you have the tabs.

[DNall]

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.

That's a good guess. I think a lot of people, including the AF chain, were VERY unhappy with the process of making changes immediate on the corp-style uniforms & waiting approval on the AF-style. It really got things out of alignment, made them expensive/excessive, and from the AF side you have to feel like they're putting you in a box where you can't really shoot it down w/o creating more undue cost on the membership even though you really don't want to approve. It's a very bad way of doing business.

As far as AF approval, they've on several occasions shot down both blue beret & hawk items, and cited reasons why. I tend to think they'll be consistent on that. It's just insane that we'd even vote on an item that hasn't been cross-staffed with the AETC uniform board so we know in advance it'll be approved & don't waste all this time.

I also agree the hawk items should be limited to rockers on the activity patch. I know it's less popular to say, but NBB should be limited to the activity patch when you get back home as well. The activity isn't significant enough for something as dramatic as a beret & never has been.

[RiverAux]

It's just insane that we'd even vote on an item that hasn't been cross-staffed with the AETC uniform board so we know in advance it'll be approved & don't waste all this time.

On the other hand, would you want the AF spending a whole bunch of time reviewing all the crazy uniform ideas that everyone comes up with when they don't even know if it is something that the CAP leadership supports?  It cuts their work down to reviewing things that CAP has officially said it wants. 

[DNall]

It's cross staffing. As in, "would the AF uniform board support these options if passed up by CAP?" It's an informal request for an opinion that's in no way binding, but is in a very big way indicative of it being approved or not when it comes up. And, it's going to a uniform board, which pretty much just looks at uniform items at the AU & then AETC level so they can recommend approval or not to their general, who is just making a recommendation to THE Air Force uniform board. That's all they do. You'd have to clean up our change process a bit to align with their boards, but is anybody really going to protest something that keeps uniforms the same for at least two years at a time.

[alamrcn]

Related...

This was maybe not the issue at the time (Aug '06) but are the Woodland Camoflauge BDUs an Air Force uniform anymore? I know that personnel can still wear them to a given date (), but they aren't sold to or given to any active duty persons anymore. Wouldn't the result then automatically make our current BDUs a corporate/civilian uniform and not an Air Force uniform?

I haven't had my tab on since the 90s, and even then it was with Velcro. At our Wing Conference just this year, our Wing/CC (who voted on this at NB) and two of his staff that attended Hawk last year were having the guest seamstress sew on their tabs - permanently - to their woodland BDUs.

-Ace

[RiverAux]

This was maybe not the issue at the time (Aug '06) but are the Woodland Camoflauge BDUs an Air Force uniform anymore? I know that personnel can still wear them to a given date (), but they aren't sold to or given to any active duty persons anymore. Wouldn't the result then automatically make our current BDUs a corporate/civilian uniform and not an Air Force uniform?

I have proposed that here before, but not many bought into it...they also didn't buy into my argument that the BDU uniform wasn't really an AF uniform since there is not one single thing on it that associates the wearer with the Air Force.   

[DNall]

The BDU uniform is an AF uniform because they designate it as such & that's all that matters legally. It doesn't matter who else does or doesn't use it, if it's commercially avail, whatever. And, it remains an AF uniform forever, even after they've quit using it.

[arajca]

As an aside, in 2004/5, the NB directed the PAWG commander to come up with a patch for Hawk Mountain training levels that DID NOT use the word "Ranger". We all know how far that went.

[Hawk200]

As an aside, in 2004/5, the NB directed the PAWG commander to come up with a patch for Hawk Mountain training levels that DID NOT use the word "Ranger". We all know how far that went.

Ironic, in a way. The original ranger had nothing to do with the military. There's an interesting book by John D. Lock that tells the history, including where the term "ranger" came from, and how the Army Rangers have evolved. I first read it in paperback, but apparently it's available in hardcover.

PA Wing has been known to do their own thing. I imagine the NB might eventually tell PA that it would be authorized for CAP wide wear if they actually produced something without the "ranger" terminology. Otherwise, NHQ will disallow it, and PA Wing will wear it at home anyway.

The BDU uniform is an AF uniform because they designate it as such & that's all that matters legally. It doesn't matter who else does or doesn't use it, if it's commercially avail, whatever. And, it remains an AF uniform forever, even after they've quit using it.

Actually, it isn't and wasn't an Air Force uniform, it was the Army's. They were the original developers, and as such it belongs to them. The Air Force was permitted to use and configure for their own purposes, including whether or not CAP was allowed it's use.

If the Army told the Air Force that we were allowed to use it, we could probably configure as we wish. I'm betting that the Air Force wouldn't permit it.

[Major Carrales]

It's cross staffing. As in, "would the AF uniform board support these options if passed up by CAP?" It's an informal request for an opinion that's in no way binding, but is in a very big way indicative of it being approved or not when it comes up. And, it's going to a uniform board, which pretty much just looks at uniform items at the AU & then AETC level so they can recommend approval or not to their general, who is just making a recommendation to THE Air Force uniform board. That's all they do. You'd have to clean up our change process a bit to align with their boards, but is anybody really going to protest something that keeps uniforms the same for at least two years at a time.

Dennis, how many times must I tell everyone that the USAF does not care about about the CSU.  We could adopt a WAR of 1812 like uniform and they would still not care.  It only the USAF style that they care about, and rightly so, since it is their uniform as well.

[DNall]

CSU is the corp-style service dress uniform, I think you're referring to BBDU though.

The issue is not if it's auth on BBDU or not, and it as of now is not (pending an ICL or new 39-1). The issue in that respect is BBDU & BDU policies are parallel. You are not supposed to auth it on BBDU until AF clears it for BDU. We just came out of an era where NB did a lot of that & it was not at all a good thing for anyone.

AF does care about BDU though, and these items are up for their review to be worn on those now. You saw a post earlier in this thread saying a particular Wg/CC had it sewn on his BDU while at Wg conf. That's a huge violation of CAP and AF regs, and a lot of people on both sides of that don't appreciate it. It's immature behavior that doesn't do anything to improve relations or the overall perception of CAP as a disciplined professional force with capable competent leaders/planners/managers/operators. That kind of behavior is harmful to CAP as a whole, and I for one certainly think it needs to be tightened up. I don't care if your stuff is perfectly creased or you look like you've ever even seen an honor guard on TV once, but you need to be subordinate to the system, or else I have to wonder if you're going to disobey my orders when it counts cause you don't agree or don't want to do what I'm telling you. That matters!

[SilverEagle2]

Anyone see what Col. Regena Aye was wearing on her BDU's on page 25 of the last Volunteer?

Interesting...

[jeders]

Anyone see what Col. Regena Aye was wearing on her BDU's on page 25 of the last Volunteer?

Interesting...

Yes, also saw it at NBB last month. Wondering when someone would bring it up.

[DNall]

It would be useful for command to send out a letter detailing the status of ongoing changes... ie, this was passed by NB & is awaiting review but is NOT authorized at this time.

On the other hand, I know the cmte is still working on revision of 39-1 & cleaning a lot of things up, so I tend to think most other uniform items are just tabled till that happens.

[caprr275]

after a chat  with Major General  Courter I was told if the NB passes something it becomes effective as of that date unless there is a phase in date. So the ranger tabs and the berets are currently authorized. I also confirmed this with Mrs Parker

[Eclipse]

You didn't have to speak to her, that power is in the CAP constitution.

However with that said, the authorization is tenuous at best, based on one sentence in board minutes from a contentious meeting and never published anywhere else, nor mentioned since, including in the ICL roll up in Jan/Apr this year.

As has been discussed here, CAP regulations expressly require that ICL's only live 180 days, and anything which requires an update to a regulation must be done within 90 days.  We're well outisde those times, which means on that basis alone the NB decision could potentially be considered void. The fact that rarely are CAP regs updated within the mandated 90 notwithstanding.

There is also the issue of the fact that the NB potentially violated AFI-2701 by extending the authorization to wear berets and HMRS insignia on a USAF-Style uniform without the express authorization of the USAF (still, as I understand in process).

Further, in the case of HMRS, there is no guidance, in any publication that has power in other wings, for how to actually wear the tabs, etc.

At a minimum, from at least the "i's" and "t's" angle this is far from a closed issue, and I would say there are as many or more people who currently have influence who would like to see things returned to pre-2006 status (i.e. items authorized for the activity only).

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Folks, let's face it:

Regulations are regulations. If it ain't in regulations, do we follow it?

The National Board needs the discipline to put things in regulations. CAP members need ONE definitive source for policy. They shouldn't have several sources of information, with one anointed as THE authority, but oh, wait, the National Board's minutes say something new....

I'm glad Gen. Courter says NB decisions are binding, because otherwise, the NB would be toothless and impotent. But the NB needs to ensure that regulations are updated, at least if regulations are going to continue to be treated as the final word.

So, to answer my question at the top of this post? If it's not in the book, wait until it gets there before you follow it. That way you KNOW it's law and gospel.

Do I hear an 'amen'?

[jeders]

Amen brother Buckeye

[RiverAux]

I'm glad Gen. Courter says NB decisions are binding, because otherwise, the NB would be toothless and impotent. But the NB needs to ensure that regulations are updated, at least if regulations are going to continue to be treated as the final word.

Actually, it is MG Courter's job to put out the regulations, not the National Boards.  If regulations are not created and/or updated quickly, the fault lies only with the National Commander.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

If it's Gen. Courter's duty to ensure that regulations are issued in a timely manner, I'm willing to give her a little bit of a pass, at least for a while. (Heck, she's gotta clean up the ICL mess her predecessor left behind!)

Funny... we had an entire uniform added to the organization by ICL, didn't we?

[lordmonar]

Well that is the crux of it......

We have competeing regulations....we have NB staffers who do not do their jobs....we have NB members who completely ingore regulations and their bosses allow them to do so.

So...once again it comes down to doing the best we can....keeping things in perspective and moving on.

If in doubt use the your chain of command. 

Don't trust my or anyone else's interpetation of the regulations.

[Bluelakes 13]

Anyone see what Col. Regena Aye was wearing on her BDU's on page 25 of the last Volunteer?

Interesting...

And the beat go on...

Speaking of the Volunteer, I had 5 of my photos published in this issue - and guess what - no uniform issues in them!

[SilverEagle2]

I just thought it interesting that a National Publication would show a Command Level Officer wearing an unauthorized uniform item.

Just shows that there is a real confusion on this issue whether it is or is not authorized if seasoned members like this are confused.

Really an observation if anything.

[Rangercap]

I just thought it interesting that a National Publication would show a Command Level Officer wearing an unauthorized uniform item.

Just shows that there is a real confusion on this issue whether it is or is not authorized if seasoned members like this are confused.

Really an observation if anything.

I'm surprised National didn't take the time to photoshop the Ranger Tab. Not like that haven't pulled of some REALLY bad attempts to photoshop picutres in the past with regard to uniform issues. Or what they at least thought were uniform issues.

Brian
PAWG

[BuckeyeDEJ]

The Photoshoppers at NHQ can't get to everything. From what I hear, many of the photos in the magazine have faux pas -- and they can't get 'em all.

[cap235629]

Is it just me or should this issue of volunteer be renamed CAP Cadet Illustrated.

Every article except the one announcing the election of the new national commander was about the cadet program in one way or another.

Personally I think it should have equal space dedicated to each of our missions and reflect the true membership, there are more seniors than cadets folks

sorry for the drift

[Grumpy]

They usually do that this time of year to get the word out about the National Cadet Special Activities for next year.  Dec 31 is the dead line for applications.

[jimmydeanno]

Is it just me or should this issue of volunteer be renamed CAP Cadet Illustrated.

Every article except the one announcing the election of the new national commander was about the cadet program in one way or another.

Personally I think it should have equal space dedicated to each of our missions and reflect the true membership, there are more seniors than cadets folks

sorry for the drift

Cadets are awesome, seniors are boring.  I don't want to read about old guys 

[Ned]

Personally I think it should have equal space dedicated to each of our missions and reflect the true membership, there are more seniors than cadets folks

Technically true, but there are more folks who work primarily in cadet programs (cadets plus the supporting seniors) than the other two missions put together.

Surely the Ops side of the house should be happy with a budget advantage of over 4 to 1 over CP without denying us the occasional favorable coverage in the Volunteer.


Ned Lee
Cadet Program Enthusiast

[flyerthom]

Is it just me or should this issue of volunteer be renamed CAP Cadet Illustrated.

Every article except the one announcing the election of the new national commander was about the cadet program in one way or another.

Personally I think it should have equal space dedicated to each of our missions and reflect the true membership, there are more seniors than cadets folks

sorry for the drift

Cadets are awesome, seniors are boring.  I don't want to read about old guys 

Cadet squad leader - send this cadet for donuts - double time!  :angel:

[SilverEagle2]

This thread is now squawking 7500..

[SilverEagle2]

Interesting note.

Looks like the NB approved Hawk/Blue Beret items again.

NB May 2008 Meeting Minutes, AGENDA ITEM - 5

Accepted during the Nov 2008 Meeting with no changes.

Wonder if the followup will occur.

[DNall]

It won't.

[cnitas]

It won't.

So what exactly is the point of continous NB votes if the policy is never implemented?

[lordmonar]

It won't.

So what exactly is the point of continous NB votes if the policy is never implemented?

It is implemented...in PAWG.