Ranger Tabs Authorized?

[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.