Cloth Specialty Track Badges - Anyone?

[Lancer]

So I was pondering to myself the other day...

"Self, we have cloth insignia for Chaplain, Medical, Legal Officer and Ground Team Insignia and aviation wings, but we don't have cloth insignia for Specialty Track badges, I wonder why?"

So I now bring this question to the group. I know the uniform mavens here would have the answer I'm looking for, so what say you? What's the opinion/reason behind this? Is it feasible for the future?

I know I would like something on my uniform that expresses my particular specialty to the membership at large, esp. since I'm not a pilot, ground team member, medical officer or legal officer or chaplain.

[Flying Pig]

Please.....no more patches.

[Major Carrales]

So I was pondering to myself the other day...

"Self, we have cloth insignia for Chaplain, Medical, Legal Officer and Ground Team Insignia and aviation wings, but we don't have cloth insignia for Specialty Track badges, I wonder why?"

So I now bring this question to the group. I know the uniform mavens here would have the answer I'm looking for, so what say you? What's the opinion/reason behind this? Is it feasible for the future?

I know I would like something on my uniform that expresses my particular specialty to the membership at large, esp. since I'm not a pilot, ground team member, medical officer or legal officer or chaplain.

I too have pondered the answer to this.  I think it might best be represented in the idea of having a functional and operational specialty.  

The badges you mentioned at more of an operational type and thus, would have a legitimate place on one's field uniform or flight suit.  They show what your operational abilities are (should be).

The others are more of a squadron function type badge.  A badge that would best be worn on blues or the aviator shirt to a meeting.

Well, that is my short at an answer.  I don't think there is any "quotable documentation" this occasion.  If not and there is, please quote it hence...

[Lancer]

The badges you mentioned at more of an operational type and thus, would have a legitimate place on one's field uniform or flight suit.  They show what your operational abilities are (should be).

Yes, but who's to say that 'functional roles' don't have a place in operations? Specifically my role as an ITO. That function falls under Operations and more and more lately, larger missions have been needing an ITO on hand to handle technology issues. If I was an IC I'd want to be able to look at see, hey, that guy is an ITO, he can fix the problem we're having with the IMU, or help setup the wireless router.

What about Public Affairs, the same could be said for that.

Sure you don't need to know who's rated in Cadet Programs at a mission, but I belief all insignia should translate from the 'dress' uniform, to the 'field' uniform. I don't see anything wrong with me having a shield that denotes my role as an ITO or PAO, or other chosen role when I'm wearing a field uniform.

[MIKE]

IIRC, COMM and Safety have patches.  However I would not like to see the badges in their current form translated into cloth badges or pocket patches.  IMO you would need to change the badge design to those similar to USAF occupational  badges... which IIRC has been beat to death here before.

Now, if the COMM and IT badge looked more like this:


MLO:


Personally... These are more important than GTM and that ugly IC badge which could be covered under the ES/Ops badge

[Major Carrales]

Yes, but who's to say that 'functional roles' don't have a place in operations? Specifically my role as an ITO. That function falls under Operations and more and more lately, larger missions have been needing an ITO on hand to handle technology issues. If I was an IC I'd want to be able to look at see, hey, that guy is an ITO, he can fix the problem we're having with the IMU, or help setup the wireless router.

Intersting, but an expected response from a fellow that has a laptop on his portal person.   Again, the difference is subtle, showing the two sides that all active CAP Officers have in terms of Squadron Function (Staffer) and deployable Operations function.  I could accept that some sort of COMM/IT badge might be called for, however there are those that would say the uniform is already to cluttered.

What about Public Affairs, the same could be said for that.

Not quite, there is a world of difference between a PAO, Public Affairs Officer, and an IO, Information Officer.  The prior sells the unit to the community by organizing open houses, writing feature and news stories for the local press and reports/represents the unit at community functions.  An Information Officer is part of the ICS staff and controls the flow of information from a Mission Base to the press.  The IO also handles potentially hostile "press" and other "media" personnel...to cite the questionable practice that has marred the Fossett Search.

Even in the above statements, it is obvious that one side is more Squadron Function and the later is Operations Function.

Sure you don't need to know who's rated in Cadet Programs at a mission, but I belief all insignia should translate from the 'dress' uniform, to the 'field' uniform. I don't see anything wrong with me having a shield that denotes my role as an ITO or PAO, or other chosen role when I'm wearing a field uniform.

This is a worthy belief, I too share it to a degree.  However, I will point to the discussions the Civilian_Pilot has made on being too focused on uniforms.  If it were up to me, we would have "functional" badges that would show your skills and knowledge to the IC and Squadron Commander from first look, but, you will find that many do not want any patches at all on the BDUs, other utility uniforms or any future wear on any future uniform (i.e...ABU)

[Flying Pig]

Ive never been on a search where people went looking for what patches were in the crowd when they needed a job filled.   We have so many badges and patches now that I dont think anyone really even notices them anymore. Its getting to the point where they all look the same anyway.

[Major Carrales]

Ive never been on a search where people went looking for what patches were in the crowd when they needed a job filled.   We have so many badges and patches now that I dont think anyone really even notices them anymore. Its getting to the point where they all look the same anyway.

My point is not that we have loads of patches or that we mandate the wear of patches for identification purposes; but rather, that should be the ideal. 

We should have identifiers for the following...

ICS Positions
Incident Commander
Information Officer
Liaison Officer
Planning
Finance

MISSION STAFF
COMM
Safety

Field and said Field Supervisors
Aviation- MP & MO
Ground- GT levels
(the different levels to denote Air/Ground Branch et al)

Anything else is a bit much.

[Lancer]

Ive never been on a search where people went looking for what patches were in the crowd when they needed a job filled.   We have so many badges and patches now that I dont think anyone really even notices them anymore. Its getting to the point where they all look the same anyway.

So why do we wear anything on the uniform anymore? Is it about professionalism? If so, then the first thing to go should be the Pluto ES Patch, what does a dog wearing a wheel cap and headphones have to do with Emergency Services?

Why does the legal officer need to wear his function on his field uniform? So the IC can go, "Hey! Quick, you there, go chase that ambulance!"

Logic should dictate what is on our uniforms, not tradition.

[Major Carrales]

Ive never been on a search where people went looking for what patches were in the crowd when they needed a job filled.   We have so many badges and patches now that I dont think anyone really even notices them anymore. Its getting to the point where they all look the same anyway.

So why do we wear anything on the uniform anymore? Is it about professionalism? If so, then the first thing to go should be the Pluto ES Patch, what does a dog wearing a wheel cap and headphones have to do with Emergency Services?

Why does the legal officer need to wear his function on his field uniform? So the IC can go, "Hey! Quick, you there, go chase that ambulance!"

Logic should dictate what is on our uniforms, not tradition.

Now, now...your need to temper your comments.  I can see a few folks offended by those comments.

All that aside, I generally agree with you.  We should wear the monikers that show what we do, and what we do best.  Badges that reflect that in an OPS setting might be a way to do that.

The "Pluto Patch" is older than most of us here, and many many of our squadrons.  It is as much a part of ES as anything, even being an older design than the current CAP Pilots wings.  Asking to remove it because it is unprofessional in your opinion is akin to asking the 101st Airborne to remove the "screaming eagle" or the USAF to get rid of the stylized "HAP Arnold" insignia it currently employs because it is driven by tradition.

The commentary on lawyers is not cricket, my friend.  Simply not cricket!!!

[Eclipse]

My pluto went years ago.

In a CAP context, "career specialties" have no place on operational uniforms. 

If you want to work on implementing badges for other operational qualifications such as IO, SE, etc., fine, but it doesn't matter to me if you are an LG or Historian during a mission, and if those are the only quals you have, you're not in a mission base, and why would you even own BDU's?

Since we can only wear one badge of this type, most members who have an operational qualification as well as a career specialty would opt for the GTM badges.

As I said, no issue with more badges for mission specialties, but leave the career stuff on the service dress equivalents.

[PHall]

My solution, redesign the speciality badges to the same format as the Air Force Speciality Identification badges and wear them the same way.

Tech rating = basic badge.
Senior rating = basic badge with star.
Master rating = basic badge with star and wreath.

And we could ask the Air Force if we could wear the Air Force badges instead of designing a new one (i.e. The folks in the Administration track would wear the AF Administration badge.)
They might say no, but until you ask you never know.

And Vanguard definitely has them in stock!

[lordmonar]

Ive never been on a search where people went looking for what patches were in the crowd when they needed a job filled.   We have so many badges and patches now that I dont think anyone really even notices them anymore. Its getting to the point where they all look the same anyway.

My point is not that we have loads of patches or that we mandate the wear of patches for identification purposes; but rather, that should be the ideal. 

We should have identifiers for the following...

ICS Positions
Incident Commander
Information Officer
Liaison Officer
Planning
Finance

MISSION STAFF
COMM
Safety

Field and said Field Supervisors
Aviation- MP & MO
Ground- GT levels
(the different levels to denote Air/Ground Branch et al)

Anything else is a bit much.

I agree that we need identifiers for these positon.....using badges sewn on the the field or BDU uniforms is NOT the way to do it.

IC is a temporary position...that is there is only one IC even if you have 15 IC qualified individuals.  The same for all the rest of the mission base position.  Going off the badges on a BDU uniform will not help identify what position you are filling that day.

Badges...like most bling is for morale purposes.  It is so the individual can show the world what he/she has done.

I agree that we "wear" too many patches.....but that does not mean we should limit who can wear them. 

If you are an admin type person...they should have the same opportunity as everyone else to show their pride in their job.

I agree we should NOT follow the current example of COMM, SAFETY and CISM who wear full sized patches on their pockets.

They need to develope badges that are more like the USAF's Specialty Badges and limit the number that can be worn to two (2) maximumn (including wings) on both the blues and DBU uniforms (and their CAP counter parts).

[DNall]

IIRC, COMM and Safety have patches.  However I would not like to see the badges in their current form translated into cloth badges or pocket patches.  IMO you would need to change the badge design to those similar to USAF occupational  badges... which IIRC has been beat to death here before.

Now, if the COMM and IT badge looked more like this:


MLO:


Personally... These are more important than GTM and that ugly IC badge which could be covered under the ES/Ops badge

POINT OF ORDER: the wreath is for combat operational qualifications. Hence the AF medical specialties are a shield (same shape as ours but smaller) w/o wreath. It is correct for ours to be the same (ie w/o wreath). Now, the cartoon designs, those can go. The AE, CP, etc badges need to get converted to standardized shields also.



With that out of the way... come/safety/etc should be converted from full size patches, and everything should go to standard embroidered badges worn in the same place they are worn on the blues, or limited to just two over the pocket. We don't need to make this complicated, and you really don't need your whole resume on set of BDUs, much less ABUs when those come along.

The commander badge also ought to get an embroidered version.

[Hawk200]

POINT OF ORDER: the wreath is for combat operational qualifications. Hence the AF medical specialties are a shield (same shape as ours but smaller) w/o wreath.

Fraid not. I wore an Air Force Electronic maintenance badge (which has the wreath like those above) while in the Air Force, and I never received any type of combat related training. None. The wreath doesn't mean combat related, even the Air Force bands have wreaths around theirs.

[DNall]

electronic maint, and you were still a deployable combatant. Versus, medical which is non-combatant. We can argue about the particular adjective, but non-operational is sans wreath. The GT badge with wreath is debatable, I guess in the sense that it's operational for us. It's not like like I'm making this up, that's the reason the AF badges are like that & there's lots of source on it.

[Eclipse]

As usual, Wiki has the answers (all hail Wiki) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Occupational_Badge

An Air Force Occupational Badge is a military badge of the United States Air Force which is awarded to those members of the line Air Force community who are engaged in duties "other than flying". The purpose of the Air Force Occupational Badge is to denote and recognize training, education and qualifications received in a particular career field and to provide recognition in an outwardly displayed badge.

The first Air Force Occupational Badges began appearing on Air Force uniforms in the late 1950s. Prior to this time, the only Air Force badges authorized were the Pilot's Badge and other aeronautical career badges such as the Navigator Badge and Flight Surgeon Badge.

An Air Force Occupational Badge is received upon completion of initial career field training and assignment to an active command. As a service member advances in their career field, the occupational badge may be upgraded to the level of Senior or Master. Such upgrades are denoted by a star and wreath, centered above the Occupational badge. For enlisted personnel, the Senior badge denotes award of the "7 skill level," a skill level typically reached at the rank of Staff Sergeant. Skill levels are as follows: 1-Student, 3-Apprentice, 5-Journeyman, 7-Craftsman, and 9-Superintendent. The master badge is awarded to master sergeant or above with 5 years in the specialty from award of the 7-skill level(AFI 36-2903 5.9). For officers, the Senior badge is worn after seven years service in the specialty and the Master badge after fifteen years.

For those service members in support aerial career fields, such as flight surgeons and air battle managers, it is common to receive both an aeronautical badge and an occupational badge depending on the level of training and education received prior to assignment. Unlike the aeronautical badge, wear of the occupational badge is optional.

The Air Force also maintains a series of medical badges and religious pins, issued on the same principle as the occupational badges. The Parachutist Badge, Explosive Ordnance Disposal Badge, Weapons Director Badge, and the Space and Missile Badge are also issued under the same guidelines as occupational badges.

[Major Carrales]

Funny, according to DNALL...the Band Member and the Historian badges are combat devices.  Sorry, Dennis, couldn't resist.

[lordmonar]

POINT OF ORDER: the wreath is for combat operational qualifications. Hence the AF medical specialties are a shield (same shape as ours but smaller) w/o wreath.

Fraid not. I wore an Air Force Electronic maintenance badge (which has the wreath like those above) while in the Air Force, and I never received any type of combat related training. None. The wreath doesn't mean combat related, even the Air Force bands have wreaths around theirs.

Comm is a combat related...and you did receive combat related training...chem warfare, M-16 qualifications, self-aid and buddy care, LOAC.  Plus have you heard of those units called COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS SQUADRONS?  I spent 4 years in one....got shot at a couple of times.  COMM is most certainly a combate related field.

[lordmonar]

Funny, according to DNALL...the Band Member and the Historian badges are combat devices.  Sorry, Dennis, couldn't resist.

Everyone in those AFSCs has what is called a WARSKILL that is they are cross trained into a vital combat support skill.  Bus driver, buldozer operators, cop, and a whole host of other skills.

[jb512]

Put an oval wreath around our specialty badges as the real AF does, make them occupational, and let people wear them in that place on BUDs.

Problem solved.

[DNall]

Again, while I certainly agree that it looks much better, the wreath is an operational designator. It implies that the specialty is combatant (big dif btwn that & an infantryman) and supports the operational mission of the AF. Thereby, it is not really appropriate for use on CAP badges.

Likewise, the globe used on many AF occupational badges indicates the global application of the specialty in support of the AF mission.

The AF reviewed and approved the current CAP specialty badges. There's a reason they don't have a wreath or globe like the AF versions, but rather use the same foundation shield as medical & a few other badges. That is appropriate per AF heraldry. I know I proposed specialty badges with wreaths & globes thru my Wg CC back over 10 years ago before we had the current ones and they were not approved, but they sure did look cool.

If you want to get rid of the cartoon crap and come up with something more professional/appropriate, that's great. I can tell you that's been proposed a few times, including by me. It does have to stick to the design rules though.

Anyway, embroidered for utilities I'm on board with.

[wuzafuzz]

Why not wear vests at mission base with your ICS position title?  Lots of other organizations do that, they are highly visible, they can be shared as needed, and they don't have to come from Vanguard.  If you don't like vests you could have laminated ID badges with clips, which would still be more visible than small cloth badges, can be shared as needed, and you can make a pile of them on the cheap.

It does seem odd that a few operation ratings earn badges and others don't. Why is there a Ground Team Member badge but nothing for Mission Information Officer, or Communications Unit Leader, etc?  I don't care about the bling, but the apparent inconsistency does make me wonder.

[Pylon]

Again, while I certainly agree that it looks much better, the wreath is an operational designator. It implies that the specialty is combatant (big dif btwn that & an infantryman) and supports the operational mission of the AF. Thereby, it is not really appropriate for use on CAP badges.

The laurel leaves wreath is already used on CAP badges... legal and ground team badges both have them.   The IC badge shamelessly rips off the Army furled feathers wreath even though an IC, just by nature of being in their position, doesn't actually move through the air in any capacity.   Face it, you can take just about any heraldry out there and with enough crafty wording and stretching, make it sound applicable;  CAP does it all the time.

Don't think we should rip off the AF heraldry by using the laurel wreath?  Fine - how about an oak leaf wreath?  Whatever style of "leaf" we go with, the point of the matter is that our specialty badges would make sense styled as AFSC badges.  Everybody in CAP has a specialty (well, anybody who has been in longer than a month or two), so everyone's specialty or specialties should be reflected on their uniforms just like the AF does.  It's a point of pride, shows where your skills lie, and may even encourage continued development in each person's respective specialties.

The "Pluto Patch" is older than most of us here, and many many of our squadrons.  It is as much a part of ES as anything, even being an older design than the current CAP Pilots wings.  Asking to remove it because it is unprofessional in your opinion is akin to asking the 101st Airborne to remove the "screaming eagle" or the USAF to get rid of the stylized "HAP Arnold" insignia it currently employs because it is driven by tradition.

Actually it's not an old patch; it's not older than my squadron and not older than me.  The Pluto patch came on the scene as a new patch in the late 90's as a "replacement" for the oval airplane ES patch.  However, CAP never set a phase-out date for the oval version and so two patches continue in co-existence for the same purpose.  They're both useless in my opinion.

The unprofessional look is not akin to what you describe.  The 101st's patch is worn in the same manner and placement as other distinctive unit patches the Army wears, and is worn in the same colors as similiar patches - it conforms to the Army's standard.  The ES patches aren't similar to anything the AF wears, don't say all that much about the wearer (the wearer could have just GES and MSA, or have every qualification in ES short of MC), and the design just looks silly.

It does have to stick to the design rules though.

Nah, I really don't think CAP does have to stick to the design rules.  Again, look at the IC badge that got passed.  Nobody cared that we were using the feathers from the military airborne wings for a CAP IC badge and that the justification for such was strained and thinly veiled at best. 

Whether or not somebody is actually holding CAP badges to some set of standards I agree, though, that the design still should be appropriate and not usurp prestige from military badges - the IC badge definitely crosses into that territory.

Change the laurel leaves to another type of wreath (oak leaves may be a good choice - nobody really using them now), put a small tri-prop triangle at the base of the wreath and plop our existing specialty badges into it.  Drop the enamel for the metal versions and get them embroidered for utilities.  Authorize them to be added to the ASNPs for flight suits and call it a day.

[Hawk200]

Actually it's not an old patch; it's not older than my squadron and not older than me.  The Pluto patch came on the scene as a new patch in the late 90's as a "replacement" for the oval airplane ES patch.  However, CAP never set a phase-out date for the oval version and so two patches continue in co-existence for the same purpose.  They're both useless in my opinion.

The Pluto patch design dates back to WW2. The Patch we have today is just modernized a bit, and has the script added. I've even seen an old WW2 patch worn on BDU's. By strict interpretation, it's probably not authorized, even though it looks better. The current one is just too big.

As far as being useless, don't know. I don't really see a purpose to them. If you have an ES qual badge, I don't see the need to wear the patch.

I could get on board with a General ES badge(worn above ribbons and BDU tapes), but only allow it's wear if you don't have one of the other ES quals. I don't see the point of getting two badges for the same thing, for example: a GT member only wears a GT badge, an observer only wears their wings. We got enough bling, we don't need double awards.

As for specialty track badges, I don't really see a necessity for it. Those tracks don't even matter on a mission, because during a mission, you're not working your track, instead you're using ES quals. It's just more things to buy, and more things to get wrong.

[lordmonar]

Hawk....no one ever said that specialty tracks (and their badges) has anything to do with a mission.  It has to do with taking pride in what you do.  There are a lot of people who wear BDUs but never go to mission bases.  Why can't they show their pride in accomplishing their specialty tracks?

The USAF learned this lesson 15 years ago when they gave all AFSCs their own badge. 

[Hawk200]

Hawk....no one ever said that specialty tracks (and their badges) has anything to do with a mission.  It has to do with taking pride in what you do.  There are a lot of people who wear BDUs but never go to mission bases.  Why can't they show their pride in accomplishing their specialty tracks?

The USAF learned this lesson 15 years ago when they gave all AFSCs their own badge. 

They can, there are specialty badges for wear with blues and coroprate dress uniforms. It's really lame if you have to have a badge on your BDU's to take pride in a track. That's not pride in your job, it's pride in bling.

I was in the Air Force 15 years ago when the other badges were introduced. It wasn't about allowing people to show pride, it was about some people getting badges when others didn't. I was in one of the fields that had one prior to the McPeak overhaul and had more than a few people that were rude about it. Told them that it wasn't up to me, and I wasn't going to listen to their complaints, if they wanted one for their field, then they knew how to propose it. That was my experience with it, YMMV.

Current and prior military in CAP have this same problem on occasion. Military guy comes in with badges and ribbons, and some of the members will talk garbage. It's called "envy".

[Lancer]

They can, there are specialty badges for wear with blues and coroprate dress uniforms. It's really lame if you have to have a badge on your BDU's to take pride in a track. That's not pride in your job, it's pride in bling.

So it's lame to have some pride in what you do? Anyone who does a job simply to wear a symbol or badge is what's lame.

I'm looking at this from the logical standpoint of, 'if it's good for one uniform, it's good for the other', and it seems that's where the different starts, with specialty track badges.

Does a pilot need to have wings on his uniform in order to fly a plane? I'm sure the answer is no, but if you told all the pilots in CAP they couldn't wear their wings on their BDU's/Flight Suit's anymore, I'm sure you'd cause a firestorm of bellyaching about it.

Current and prior military in CAP have this same problem on occasion. Military guy comes in with badges and ribbons, and some of the members will talk garbage. It's called "envy".

If a non-military CAP member has to be envious of someone with military service under their belt, they have bigger problems than are apparent. At this point, I'd *love* to bring an experienced member of the military into my cadet squadron, and the last thing I'm going to be concerned with is if my cadets flock to admire this person over me in my position of deputy commander. My role is to make the cadet experience the best it can be for my cadets and I'm not going to let something like envy get in the way, I'd probably be admiring this person as much as the cadets are.

[DNall]

Again, while I certainly agree that it looks much better, the wreath is an operational designator. It implies that the specialty is combatant (big dif btwn that & an infantryman) and supports the operational mission of the AF. Thereby, it is not really appropriate for use on CAP badges.

The laurel leaves wreath is already used on CAP badges... legal and ground team badges both have them.   The IC badge shamelessly rips off the Army furled feathers wreath even though an IC, just by nature of being in their position, doesn't actually move through the air in any capacity.   Face it, you can take just about any heraldry out there and with enough crafty wording and stretching, make it sound applicable;  CAP does it all the time.

Don't think we should rip off the AF heraldry by using the laurel wreath?  Fine - how about an oak leaf wreath?  Whatever style of "leaf" we go with, the point of the matter is that our specialty badges would make sense styled as AFSC badges.  Everybody in CAP has a specialty (well, anybody who has been in longer than a month or two), so everyone's specialty or specialties should be reflected on their uniforms just like the AF does.  It's a point of pride, shows where your skills lie, and may even encourage continued development in each person's respective specialties.

I agree that the specialties should be designated on the utility uniforms.

I don't agree that they should have an operational wreath. Even if you're going to STRETCH the "operational" designation to a CAP specific version that means ES operational, then still most of the specialties have no requirement to ever participate in that aspect. If that were the case, admin/personnel specialty tracks would involve qual as MSA on the low end and FASC on the high end. I personally think that's a very appropriate change to several specialty tracks, but now you're talking about a lot of revision, not just adding already approved embroidered badges.

If you do want to put a wreath around badges I really think it should be the AF style one. That includes updating the GT badge to that style.

It does have to stick to the design rules though.

Nah, I really don't think CAP does have to stick to the design rules.  Again, look at the IC badge that got passed.  Nobody cared that we were using the feathers from the military airborne wings for a CAP IC badge and that the justification for such was strained and thinly veiled at best. 

Whether or not somebody is actually holding CAP badges to some set of standards I agree, though, that the design still should be appropriate and not usurp prestige from military badges - the IC badge definitely crosses into that territory.

Change the laurel leaves to another type of wreath (oak leaves may be a good choice - nobody really using them now), put a small tri-prop triangle at the base of the wreath and plop our existing specialty badges into it.  Drop the enamel for the metal versions and get them embroidered for utilities.  Authorize them to be added to the ASNPs for flight suits and call it a day.

This is the same thing we talked about a while back on patches. There are AF heraldry rules that CAP doesn't for the most part follow & a whole lot of us think we should. It's not that the AF is all supreme and we must do everything just like them. That's not the case at all. It's a matter of things need to be organized in a logical well structured manner that makes sense. The AF provides a good established guide for that, and support for us if we want to follow it. That's a lot better than running off in whatever direction we feel like at the time.

I could go with GT style wreaths on everything, but I really do like the AF style wreaths also. Whatever the AF will let fly is the deal. The IC badge is jacked up, that's obvious. I appreciate the hard work Maj Shaw & the others have done on some of this stuff, but I'm disappointed a lot of times with their diverging from the set rules & not working with AF institute of heraldry or pushing the board to adopt those rules for patches & such.

[Hawk200]

They can, there are specialty badges for wear with blues and coroprate dress uniforms. It's really lame if you have to have a badge on your BDU's to take pride in a track. That's not pride in your job, it's pride in bling.

So it's lame to have some pride in what you do? Anyone who does a job simply to wear a symbol or badge is what's lame.

That was my point, as well. Apologies for not being clear on it.

I have known people that went to do certain things just for the badge. If they do the job well, then they earned the badge. I think it's the wrong reason to do a job, but earned is earned, regardless of reasons.

I'm looking at this from the logical standpoint of, 'if it's good for one uniform, it's good for the other', and it seems that's where the different starts, with specialty track badges.

I understand your point, although I don't necessarily agree. We should be working in BDU's, not decorating them. I've come to this conclusion after reading a lot here on this board. At this point in time, I don't see a valid reason to make cloth versions of specialty tracks. Put the ES qual stuff on the work uniforms, and save the bling for the dress clothes.

Does a pilot need to have wings on his uniform in order to fly a plane? I'm sure the answer is no, but if you told all the pilots in CAP they couldn't wear their wings on their BDU's/Flight Suit's anymore, I'm sure you'd cause a firestorm of bellyaching about it.

I imagine there would be loads of unkind words and thoughts. But those are existing badges, the nature of this thread was creating new ones. Those badges show what the person can do in the field, which is what the uniforms are designed for.

Current and prior military in CAP have this same problem on occasion. Military guy comes in with badges and ribbons, and some of the members will talk garbage. It's called "envy".

If a non-military CAP member has to be envious of someone with military service under their belt, they have bigger problems than are apparent. At this point, I'd *love* to bring an experienced member of the military into my cadet squadron, and the last thing I'm going to be concerned with is if my cadets flock to admire this person over me in my position of deputy commander. My role is to make the cadet experience the best it can be for my cadets and I'm not going to let something like envy get in the way, I'd probably be admiring this person as much as the cadets are.

I can appreciate the respect, but some of what borders on "hero" worship is a little out there. So far, I've gotten the cadets in my unit to stop going "Wow!" when someone mentions that I crew on Blackhawks. It's a job. For me, it's the greatest thing in the world, but it's still a job.

I was well recieved in my unit when I joined, but there was a few people that showed out the first time I showed up in blues, complete with decorations, badges and wings. One individual referred to my decorations as "ostentatious". I was a little annoyed by that, but in the long run decided not to let it get to me. But it was there.

I'm sure a few people here remember the thread of the Army guy that asked about what he was allowed to wear, and related that he was told by a few fellow members not to wear things "for a while".  Why would he be told that if the items he earned were authorized on our uniforms? Seems like simple envy again.

I've always thought that you do your work in BDU's, and do your styling and officer work in blues(or equivalent). That's why blues have ribbons and other badges for it, and the BDU does not. Why go too fancy with BDU's/flightsuits in the first place?

[lordmonar]

Hawk....no one ever said that specialty tracks (and their badges) has anything to do with a mission.  It has to do with taking pride in what you do.  There are a lot of people who wear BDUs but never go to mission bases.  Why can't they show their pride in accomplishing their specialty tracks?

The USAF learned this lesson 15 years ago when they gave all AFSCs their own badge. 

They can, there are specialty badges for wear with blues and coroprate dress uniforms. It's really lame if you have to have a badge on your BDU's to take pride in a track. That's not pride in your job, it's pride in bling.

I was in the Air Force 15 years ago when the other badges were introduced. It wasn't about allowing people to show pride, it was about some people getting badges when others didn't. I was in one of the fields that had one prior to the McPeak overhaul and had more than a few people that were rude about it. Told them that it wasn't up to me, and I wasn't going to listen to their complaints, if they wanted one for their field, then they knew how to propose it. That was my experience with it, YMMV.

Current and prior military in CAP have this same problem on occasion. Military guy comes in with badges and ribbons, and some of the members will talk garbage. It's called "envy".

Equality is a good thing....why should Cops and air craft maintainers get badges and no one else?

As for showing pride...okay...there is a little bling love in there...I admit it......but it still goes back to the statement of equality....why should GTMs get a badge but not an admin or PAO guy?  Is this envy?  Okay maybe it is.....but is envy a good enough reason NOT to give other people a badge?

[Hawk200]

Equality is a good thing....why should Cops and air craft maintainers get badges and no one else?

As for showing pride...okay...there is a little bling love in there...I admit it......but it still goes back to the statement of equality....why should GTMs get a badge but not an admin or PAO guy?  Is this envy?  Okay maybe it is.....but is envy a good enough reason NOT to give other people a badge?

I wouldn't say envy is a reason not to give a badge. Not where I'm coming from at all. I just don't see the point of creating a new item. And yes, it is creating a new item, as cloth specialty badges do not currently exist.

If it's such an issue to some people that don't have an embroidered badge for their BDU's, then there's a problem somewhere. Neither of the two specialty tracks I have worked for the last six years of CAP have badges. It's never been an issue to me. Everyone in the unit knew exactly what I was. Anyone outside the unit isn't relevant.

Also, there's complaints of uniformity issues. What's it going to look like if there are even more things to wear? At what point will it be literal pot luck to get your uniform right? I think everyone here knows someone that still wears an outdated patch of some kind. Why contribute to that mess?

For now, let's get our uniforms straight and aligned before we start bothering with new stuff.

[DNall]

I've always thought that you do your work in BDU's, and do your styling and officer work in blues(or equivalent). That's why blues have ribbons and other badges for it, and the BDU does not. Why go too fancy with BDU's/flightsuits in the first place?

You've seen lots of people in ACUs with 4 badges stacked up, just like I have. That's over the top.

The AF limits it to two badges over the branch tape, and if you have wings then those are required to be one of them. I'm all for following that rule. All we're talking about is adding more options to wear in those same slots. I don't see how that effects uniformity or is in any way ostentatious. I think it's standard to what the AF does; for very similar reasons to why they do it; and, much less "over the top" than what the Army does.

[Hawk200]

I've always thought that you do your work in BDU's, and do your styling and officer work in blues(or equivalent). That's why blues have ribbons and other badges for it, and the BDU does not. Why go too fancy with BDU's/flightsuits in the first place?

You've seen lots of people in ACUs with 4 badges stacked up, just like I have. That's over the top.

Agreed, it's a lot. But that is how the Amry chooses to do it. Five badges is a bunch. Personally, I don't see why there should be more than three.

The AF limits it to two badges over the branch tape, and if you have wings then those are required to be one of them. I'm all for following that rule. All we're talking about is adding more options to wear in those same slots. I don't see how that effects uniformity or is in any way ostentatious. I think it's standard to what the AF does; for very similar reasons to why they do it; and, much less "over the top" than what the Army does.

I don't mind a third, positioned on the pocket flap. I've seen a third badge on the pocket, and I think it looks stupid. But getting that for our utility uniforms would require AF approval, or the Air Force doing it in the first place on theirs.

I am hoping that CAP doesn't take the same stance as the Air Force, and disallow other service badges. It's not very sincere for CAP to attempt to recruit military personnel from branches other that the Air Force, and then tell them they can't wear what they earned. We could use any current or former military in good standing, allowing those other service badges would go a long way.

For the time being though, we need to get our uniforms straightened out. Be consistant across the board, it makes it simpler for all members. This thing of "You wear that badge here on this uniform, but there on that one.." shows a serious lack of well thought out policy. Phase out the older badges prior to allowing the new ones. The transition will be far easier.

[Eclipse]

I am hoping that CAP doesn't take the same stance as the Air Force, and disallow other service badges. It's not very sincere for CAP to attempt to recruit military personnel from branches other that the Air Force, and then tell them they can't wear what they earned. We could use any current or former military in good standing, allowing those other service badges would go a long way.

We are recruiting people with military experience for their knowledge and abilities, not their badges.  The fact that members can wear anything from their military career is a "nice to have" unique to CAP, and we should accept it for what it is and move on - try wearing your air assault wings on your ARC or CERT golf shirt and see how long that lasts.  The ARC, especially, is an organization with a much higher ops tempo than CAP and much stricter expectations.  You play their game or go home.

For the time being though, we need to get our uniforms straightened out. Be consistent across the board, it makes it simpler for all members. This thing of "You wear that badge here on this uniform, but there on that one.." shows a serious lack of well thought out policy.

What badges are moving around?  Of badges allowed on multiple uniform styles I can't think of any that move around.

[jb512]

Geeze.  Just let people wear their badges on their uniforms, no matter what color it may be.

There's no reason why an admin person who will only be an admin person their entire CAP membership can't wear that patch on their BDUs if they happen to show up somewhere to help out.  Limit the number, but open it up to everyone.

[Eclipse]

Wear would they "show up to help out"?

They can't even walk into a mission base as "only an admin person", so what does "only an admin person" even need BDU's for to start with?

[jb512]

Wear would they "show up to help out"?

They can't even walk into a mission base as "only an admin person", so what does "only an admin person" even need BDU's for to start with?

Maybe a wrong choice of words.  If an admin person goes to an encampment as admin, or a mission as admin, etc., then they could have that badge on their BDU. 

How could any person in any capacity not need BDUs?  They are a basic utility uniform for people who meet the AF requirements.

[Eclipse]

BDU's are first and foremost a field uniform, they are not the "basic" uniform for members, that is the aviator whites (which, btw, contrary to popular belief, are required for all senior members, especially if they don't wear service dress).  If your only function in CAP is as an admin person, you have no reason to go through the expense and hassle of configuring BDUs, and would be better served sticking with the golf shirt.

...and before anyone takes violent exception to the above statement:

1-5. Uniform Combinations. Various combinations of CAP uniforms are authorized in order to allow
for various climatic conditions, availability of uniforms, etc., but no member is obligated to equip
himself/herself with all or even a major part of the combinations described in this publication. Members
will equip themselves with the basic uniform. The minimum basic uniforms for male and female cadets
and senior members, which will satisfy most occasions, are listed below. Members may obtain and wear
the additional uniform items authorized in this publication on an optional basis. Uniform clothing may
be altered to improve fit. However, alterations must not change the intended appearance of garment as
designed. It is the member's personal responsibility to equip himself/herself with a proper uniform.
Commanders may assist if they have the capability, through use of unit funds and/or donations or by
acquiring surplus uniforms. Cadets are required to have the minimum basic uniform. A commander
may require cadets to wear other optional uniform items only if the purchase is voluntary or if the
uniform is supplied without expense to the cadet. The omission of a specific item or appearance standard
does not automatically permit its wear.

a. Minimum Basic Service Uniform. Male: Short-sleeve, light blue shirt; dark blue trousers; blue
belt/silver buckle, blue flight cap; black shoes, and socks. Insignia: CAP nameplate, shoulder patch,
collar/lapel insignia, embroidered epaulet sleeve, and flight cap emblem. Female: Short-sleeve light
blue blouse; Dark blue skirt or slacks; flight cap; neutral nylon hose; black shoes; black handbag.
Insignia: CAP nameplate, shoulder patch, collar/lapel insignia, embroidered epaulet sleeve, and flight
cap emblem.

b. CAP Distinctive Basic Uniform (senior members only). Male: Short-sleeve, white aviator shirt;
gray trousers; black belt; black shoes and socks. Insignia: CAP nameplate, embroidered epaulet sleeve.
Female: Short-sleeve, white aviator shirt; gray slacks or skirt; plain black shoes. Insignia: CAP
nameplate, embroidered epaulet sleeve.

So if you choose "only" the basic uniform, its the whites, not a golf shirt as the minimum.

[jb512]

Once again, the literal wording has been taken as the meaning of the reply.

BDUs are a "basic" field uniform for those meeting the weight/grooming standards.

Let's see what you come up with now...

[jb512]

Actually, I did say that was a basic utility uniform.  I'm good.

[lordmonar]

Equality is a good thing....why should Cops and air craft maintainers get badges and no one else?

As for showing pride...okay...there is a little bling love in there...I admit it......but it still goes back to the statement of equality....why should GTMs get a badge but not an admin or PAO guy?  Is this envy?  Okay maybe it is.....but is envy a good enough reason NOT to give other people a badge?

I wouldn't say envy is a reason not to give a badge. Not where I'm coming from at all. I just don't see the point of creating a new item. And yes, it is creating a new item, as cloth specialty badges do not currently exist.

If it's such an issue to some people that don't have an embroidered badge for their BDU's, then there's a problem somewhere. Neither of the two specialty tracks I have worked for the last six years of CAP have badges. It's never been an issue to me. Everyone in the unit knew exactly what I was. Anyone outside the unit isn't relevant.

Also, there's complaints of uniformity issues. What's it going to look like if there are even more things to wear? At what point will it be literal pot luck to get your uniform right? I think everyone here knows someone that still wears an outdated patch of some kind. Why contribute to that mess?

For now, let's get our uniforms straight and aligned before we start bothering with new stuff.

Again....not everyone is the same.  What is so wrong with creating something new?  It is not like I am suggesting that we allow someone who is wearing two badges (say GT and IC) to be able to add to his BDUS his master IT, master CP and Tech Admin.....but he would have the option to choose two and where those.

We created badges in the first place so that those who have qualifed to wear them.....can show them to the world....that is called pride.  Why do we only care about the pride of ICs, GTs, Chaplains and Aircrew?

You don't see the "need" because you are a 'have' or you a 'I don't wear anything' sort of guy.  Look at it from the 'have nots' and 'bling monkeys' point of view.  Assuming that we keep it professional (only two badges as currently allowed) and we make the badges professional looking what's the problem?  So what if we have 100 different badges.....if we 100 different specialties and ES ratings?

[lordmonar]

Wear would they "show up to help out"?

They can't even walk into a mission base as "only an admin person", so what does "only an admin person" even need BDU's for to start with?

They don't....but then no one is reqired to have them so your argument is moot.

[Eclipse]

Wear would they "show up to help out"?

They can't even walk into a mission base as "only an admin person", so what does "only an admin person" even need BDU's for to start with?

They don't....but then no one is required to have them so your argument is moot.

I can agree with that, but the whole premise here is to create cloth badges for members with non-operational specialties for uniforms that aren't really even appropriate for the jobs they are qualified to perform.

So what's the point?

[Hawk200]

You don't see the "need" because you are a 'have' or you a 'I don't wear anything' sort of guy.  Look at it from the 'have nots' and 'bling monkeys' point of view.  Assuming that we keep it professional (only two badges as currently allowed) and we make the badges professional looking what's the problem?  So what if we have 100 different badges.....if we 100 different specialties and ES ratings?

Depends on how you look at it. In one aspect, I'm a "don't wear anything" guy.  When it comes to "don't have", there are no badges for Personnel, Cadet Programs, or Senior Programs to wear on BDU's. So I don't have, but it's never been an issue. As I said before, everyone in my unit knows what position I hold, and people outside the unit aren't relevant.

As for "have nots", how many are just completely distraught by not having a badge? I bet the list is far smaller than most people might think.

Concerning "bling monkeys", that is no reason to create something. It's wasteful, and indicates priorities that we shouldn't be entertaining.

Now when it comes to create a new style of badge that is worn differently, there's an overlap problem. You will get people that will wear the old pocket type badge, and the new "Air Force style" specialty badge. We both know that it would be wrong, but it will be done. So, to eliminate that problem, phase out the old pocket badges, and some time later authorize the new style.

Some people may come to the conclusion that they did without it for a while, so they really don't need it to do their job. Which could result in more pride in their competence, not in their bling.

[lordmonar]

Wear would they "show up to help out"?

They can't even walk into a mission base as "only an admin person", so what does "only an admin person" even need BDU's for to start with?

They don't....but then no one is required to have them so your argument is moot.

I can agree with that, but the whole premise here is to create cloth badges for members with non-operational specialties for uniforms that aren't really even appropriate for the jobs they are qualified to perform.

So what's the point?

Because some of those members who DO wear BDUs want to wear their non-operations specailities on their uniform.

And who said BDUs are not appropriat for their jobs?  Are you suggesting that we limit BDU to "field conditions" only?

[Lancer]

Because some of those members who DO wear BDUs want to wear their non-operations specailities on their uniform.

And who said BDUs are not appropriat for their jobs?  Are you suggesting that we limit BDU to "field conditions" only?

I would hope nobody would limit that. I'm not sure how the rest of the world does it, but at my home unit, which is a cadet unit, the UOD for the cadets is the UOD for the Senior Members (except for PT nights, when we wear the polo combo), otherwise we mirror the cadets for uniformity.

I'd say at this point, there is more support for doing this than not, so what would be the next step for getting the ball rolling on something like this? I'd like to hear Lt Col White weight in on this since he's the lead for the uniform committee.

Besides, I'd like to hear where we are on the whole update to 39-1 issue anyways... Lt Col White?

[lordmonar]

You don't see the "need" because you are a 'have' or you a 'I don't wear anything' sort of guy.  Look at it from the 'have nots' and 'bling monkeys' point of view.  Assuming that we keep it professional (only two badges as currently allowed) and we make the badges professional looking what's the problem?  So what if we have 100 different badges.....if we 100 different specialties and ES ratings?

Depends on how you look at it. In one aspect, I'm a "don't wear anything" guy.  When it comes to "don't have", there are no badges for Personnel, Cadet Programs, or Senior Programs to wear on BDU's. So I don't have, but it's never been an issue. As I said before, everyone in my unit knows what position I hold, and people outside the unit aren't relevant.

As for "have nots", how many are just completely distraught by not having a badge? I bet the list is far smaller than most people might think.

Concerning "bling monkeys", that is no reason to create something. It's wasteful, and indicates priorities that we shouldn't be entertaining.

Now when it comes to create a new style of badge that is worn differently, there's an overlap problem. You will get people that will wear the old pocket type badge, and the new "Air Force style" specialty badge. We both know that it would be wrong, but it will be done. So, to eliminate that problem, phase out the old pocket badges, and some time later authorize the new style.

Some people may come to the conclusion that they did without it for a while, so they really don't need it to do their job. Which could result in more pride in their competence, not in their bling.

Okay...now you are overstating the situation....no one is distrough that they don't get a badge.

Also....what is wrong with pandering to the needs of bling monkeys?  Wasteful? How so?  Why should do you feel using visual reward as a motivator tool "indicates priorities that we shouldn't be entertaining."?

What should not be entertained?  We ask people to move up in their PD levels, we ask people to become experts in the specialty tracks....but we offer them no rewards?  Sure you don't jump for the bling....but others do.....and being a bling monkey is not a negative term in my book.  It is just an identifier of what motivates people to do the job asked of them.

Why is that such a hard concept to understand?  Leadership is the art of motivating people to accomplish the mission.  Please don't limit the tools that we can use.

[lordmonar]

Because some of those members who DO wear BDUs want to wear their non-operations specailities on their uniform.

And who said BDUs are not appropriat for their jobs?  Are you suggesting that we limit BDU to "field conditions" only?

I would hope nobody would limit that. I'm not sure how the rest of the world does it, but at my home unit, which is a cadet unit, the UOD for the cadets is the UOD for the Senior Members (except for PT nights, when we wear the polo combo), otherwise we mirror the cadets for uniformity.

I'd say at this point, there is more support for doing this than not, so what would be the next step for getting the ball rolling on something like this? I'd like to hear Lt Col White weight in on this since he's the lead for the uniform committee.

Besides, I'd like to hear where we are on the whole update to 39-1 issue anyways... Lt Col White?

Well the first step would be to redesign all the specialty badges (shrink them down, or make them more USAFish) and develope the cloth badges.

Second step would be to re-write 39-1 to limit the number of badges to two above the ribbons (and the CC's badge on the right side) to bring it in line with USAF practices.

[Eclipse]

And who said BDUs are not appropriate for their jobs?  Are you suggesting that we limit BDU to "field conditions" only?

Not necessarily, however, we're talking about members who have chosen to not participate in ES, so by definition their jobs are HQ-based.  No need for an uncomfortable field getup to file members' records and prepare forms.

If they want to sit at a desk with bloused boots and BDU's fine, but that doesn't mean we have to create cloth badges for them.

If CAP had designated duty uniforms like the USAF (flyers = "onsie", everyone else BDU's), that might be a different story, since we'd be telling people what they should wear.

[Eclipse]

Second step would be to re-write 39-1 to limit the number of badges to two above the ribbons (and the CC's badge on the right side) to bring it in line with USAF practices.

That exists today, you're currently allowed one specialty insignia and one aviation badge, to a total of 4 on the shirt (blues).

[Hawk200]

You don't see the "need" because you are a 'have' or you a 'I don't wear anything' sort of guy.  Look at it from the 'have nots' and 'bling monkeys' point of view.  Assuming that we keep it professional (only two badges as currently allowed) and we make the badges professional looking what's the problem?  So what if we have 100 different badges.....if we 100 different specialties and ES ratings?

Depends on how you look at it. In one aspect, I'm a "don't wear anything" guy.  When it comes to "don't have", there are no badges for Personnel, Cadet Programs, or Senior Programs to wear on BDU's. So I don't have, but it's never been an issue. As I said before, everyone in my unit knows what position I hold, and people outside the unit aren't relevant.

As for "have nots", how many are just completely distraught by not having a badge? I bet the list is far smaller than most people might think.

Concerning "bling monkeys", that is no reason to create something. It's wasteful, and indicates priorities that we shouldn't be entertaining.

Now when it comes to create a new style of badge that is worn differently, there's an overlap problem. You will get people that will wear the old pocket type badge, and the new "Air Force style" specialty badge. We both know that it would be wrong, but it will be done. So, to eliminate that problem, phase out the old pocket badges, and some time later authorize the new style.

Some people may come to the conclusion that they did without it for a while, so they really don't need it to do their job. Which could result in more pride in their competence, not in their bling.

Okay...now you are overstating the situation....no one is distrough that they don't get a badge.

Also....what is wrong with pandering to the needs of bling monkeys?  Wasteful? How so?  Why should do you feel using visual reward as a motivator tool "indicates priorities that we shouldn't be entertaining."?

What should not be entertained?  We ask people to move up in their PD levels, we ask people to become experts in the specialty tracks....but we offer them no rewards?  Sure you don't jump for the bling....but others do.....and being a bling monkey is not a negative term in my book.  It is just an identifier of what motivates people to do the job asked of them.

Why is that such a hard concept to understand?  Leadership is the art of motivating people to accomplish the mission.  Please don't limit the tools that we can use.

Well, you're making a couple of foolish mistakes here. One, I fully understand the concept, and as I said before, I don't see the point. If you want to go create specialty badges in the Air Force style, go ahead, I'm not stopping you. I don't care either way. If they're authorized, I'm not going to tell people that they can't wear. I just have no use for them.

Two, it's just my opinion, a concept you seem to be missing. I'm entitled to my opinion just as much as you are, and hopefully you've noticed that I didn't tell you that anything was wrong about it. Unless an opinion directly conflicts with facts, there's nothing right or wrong about it.

You could save yourself some stress by recognizing that I'm not going to change my mind without some very compelling arguments. So far it seems like you're either arguing just to argue, or else you think that I have to take your viewpoint.

It's a discussion forum. I've stated what I think, and I'm reading what others have posted as well. Someone may come up with something that does change my mind. So far, you haven't. Let it go, it's not worth creating a war over it, or the constant return fire.

[Bluelakes 13]

For gods' sake!  We need LESS bling, not more!

[Major Carrales]

For gods' sake!  We need LESS bling, not more!

Point of order...cloth badges do not "bling." 

On a related note...there are some that would argue that we don't need camo uniforms like BDUs, especially since we are required by the regulations to put a orange vest over them.  We wear them because they are the uniform of our MOTHER SERVICE.

There are some here too that might argue that we should follow the policy of the Aviators...flight suits while only at flight activities.  Thus, regular meetings might best be an evening sporting shirt and trosers instead of BDUs et al unless everyone in those uniform was working on UDF/GROUND TEAM work.

There are also those that might make the case that everyone at a FIELD EXERCISE should be in a field/flight uniform...still others that mission staff should be in a "staff uniform."

WOW...all those opinions.  I think Civilian_Pilot was correct, we make alot of "noise" about uniforms. 

I'm in favor of when the next MANUAL comes out that we place a 10 year moratorium on changes, no matter what the USAF does in that time that we stay consistant.  Yeah...I know, someone will invent a whole new science and we will need a badge for it.


Now, my solution to this meshegas...

Why not just have aviation bagdes, GT badges and one generic "SUPPORT" badge (at all three levels of course) for everyone else.

[lordmonar]

Hawk....that is what I am doing...discussing the subject.  If you don't care about the subject...why are you discussing it?

Major Carrales....

Why not just have aviation bagdes, GT badges and one generic "SUPPORT" badge (at all three levels of course) for everyone else.

So the only important things are aircrew, GTs...they deserve their own badge...but everyone else has to share?  I know this sounds a little petty but a generic support badge would make things worse.  Also...if you are going to allow a badge for the"other catagory'...why not just task small committee from each specialty track to make their own badge?  I will cost us nothing.  Any set up costs will pay for themselves over time...it is not like we would be adding any new bling....just more choices for what can go into slots A or B.

Eclipse....39-1 right now allows you to wear up to four badges on the blues.  One avaition wing over ribbons, one specialty badge over ribbons, one specilty centered left pocket and one specialty badge centered over name tag (to include the CC's badge).

I would change that to allow only two badges over the ribbons (1 wing + 1 specilty badge OR 2 specilty badges) and only the CC's badge allowed over the name tag.

[Major Carrales]

So the only important things are aircrew, GTs...they deserve their own badge...but everyone else has to share?  I know this sounds a little petty but a generic support badge would make things worse.  Also...if you are going to allow a badge for the"other catagory'...why not just task small committee from each specialty track to make their own badge?  I will cost us nothing.  Any set up costs will pay for themselves over time...it is not like we would be adding any new bling....just more choices for what can go into slots A or B.

The only really things that happen at SARex activities are AIR, GROUND, COMMAND, COMMs, SAFETY and SUPPORT for the former.  We don't need a Mission Staff Assistant badge nor one for Communications Unit Leader or any "mirco" management type badges.  We have, already, badges for AIR, GROUND, COMM and SAFETY.  A COMMAND and SUPPORT are all that is needed. (I am not sure if the IC Badge is already in the works for wear so I will not include it as a matter of inherency)

You know, you guys are hard to read.  Do you want more/less signage or functional signage?

[Hawk200]

Hawk....that is what I am doing...discussing the subject. 

Not the impression you gave. Read your own posts, maybe you'll realize how you came across.

The only really things that happen at SARex activities are AIR, GROUND, COMMAND, COMMs, SAFETY and SUPPORT for the former.  We don't need a Mission Staff Assistant badge nor one for Communications Unit Leader or any "mirco" management type badges.  We have, already, badges for AIR, GROUND, COMM and SAFETY.  A COMMAND and SUPPORT are all that is needed. (I am not sure if the IC Badge is already in the works for wear so I will not include it as a matter of inherency)

Never really thought about the breakdown, but that pretty much sums it up. Mission badges on BDU's are useful. Specialty track badges are just something to show. The primary uniform on missions is going to be BDU's. Yes, there are a few quals that would be appropriately wearing blues, but there's bling for those already, so creating any new type wouldn't be useful.

At a mission base, the ES stuff is the meat and potatoes. You can fill needs on a mission by identifying skills from badges and patches. Those skills should be indicated on the sign in sheet, but not everyone has a copy with them at every moment. A general ES badge would indicate that someone has a mission skill, showing the difference between someone training and someone qualified without the oversize patch that looks like someone is overcompensating.

[lordmonar]

The only really things that happen at SARex activities are AIR, GROUND, COMMAND, COMMs, SAFETY and SUPPORT for the former.  We don't need a Mission Staff Assistant badge nor one for Communications Unit Leader or any "mirco" management type badges.  We have, already, badges for AIR, GROUND, COMM and SAFETY.  A COMMAND and SUPPORT are all that is needed. (I am not sure if the IC Badge is already in the works for wear so I will not include it as a matter of inherency)

You know, you guys are hard to read.  Do you want more/less signage or functional signage?

No one is talking about an ES speicalty badges...but I do agree we should have one of those......we are talking about specilty track badges...and only specilty track badges for those who wear BDUs but have not ES specilty.

[Eclipse]

No one is talking about an ES speicalty badges...but I do agree we should have one of those......we are talking about specialty track badges...and only specialty track badges for those who wear BDUs but have not ES specialty.

Right, but the appellate court  already established this was silly, so barring a procedural error that the Supreme court is willing to hear, the matter is closed.   

[DNall]

I don't think you need to prioritize ES badges over specialty tracks.

In my career I've done more ES than the great majority of members ever have or will do while involved with CAP. I have observer wings, but haven't been current as an MO for 10 years, and I have a GBD badge and I do actually do that a few times a year. I'm not wearing that new IC badge, cause it's gay looking & they should have known better when they made it.

On the other hand, I've been extremely active with cadet programs & hold a master rating in that field. It's much more appropriate for me to be wearing a master CP badge on my BDUs than a master GT badge, particularly when at events like encampment where ES quals are meaningless but many of those other skill-sets are very much in demand.

POINT 2: I also strongly agree that the badge policy on BDUs (and future ABUs) should mirror the less-bling AF policy. That being limited to 2 over the branch (CAP) tape. I also favor embroidered version of the CC badge for over the name.

Point 3: I already stated my case for why CAP badges are currently designed and appvd by AF in the basic shield style & specifically w/o an operational wreath. If you think we should dismiss that whole concept & redesign our badges with wreaths just cause it looks cool, well you're entitled to that opinion, but it is not really part of a conversation on having or not having embroidered badges for BDUs.

[RiverAux]

Anyone want to bet how many seniors would recognize what any of the badges we have now mean, much less any being proposed?  A good percentage don't really care about the PD program at all, and even those that do are not going to take the time to learn what any of those badges mean other than the ones they've earned. 

[lordmonar]

Anyone want to bet how many seniors would recognize what any of the badges we have now mean, much less any being proposed?  A good percentage don't really care about the PD program at all, and even those that do are not going to take the time to learn what any of those badges mean other than the ones they've earned. 

Badges are about personal pride......I wear mined because I am proud of what I do....if someone does not know what badge it is...they can always ask.

[DNall]

Anyone want to bet how many seniors would recognize what any of the badges we have now mean, much less any being proposed?  A good percentage don't really care about the PD program at all, and even those that do are not going to take the time to learn what any of those badges mean other than the ones they've earned. 

You keep saying that, but it's really not the case, at least not the way you're painting it. Most people are only in the org for a year or two. In that timeframe they aren't and should not be concerned with a whole lot of PD. They need initial entry training, which is delivered at the local level, and they need the min essential trng for the task they joined for, which is pretty much ES or cadet programs, again local level. They don't really need to worry about an outside course for 2-4 years. Which is where it hits in the current PD process. I would venture to say that the majority of people that stay longer than three years do complete at least some of the PD requirements to progress.

That said, specialty tracks are NOT professional development. SLS/CLC/etc are PD. Tech/Sr/Master ratings are also a requirement for promotion, but they are not professional development, they are continuing and advanced education in specialized jobs we need people doing so we can function. Incentivizing that further learning is why the metal badges were developed. It's completely fair to carry those onto utility uniforms as well - a no brainer in fact.

[SarDragon]

That said, specialty tracks are NOT professional development. SLS/CLC/etc are PD. Tech/Sr/Master ratings are also a requirement for promotion, but they are not professional development, they are continuing and advanced education in specialized jobs we need people doing so we can function. Incentivizing that further learning is why the metal badges were developed. It's completely fair to carry those onto utility uniforms as well - a no brainer in fact.

HUH? 

Why then do the CAPP 200-series say Senior Member Training Program at the top? From CAP Regulation 50-17, 1 March 2003, Summary Of Changes - Senior Member Professional Development Program replaces Senior Member Training Program. And, why is completion of the three levels of training so prominent in CAPR 50-17 if the specialty tracks are not part of the PD Program?

[DNall]

It is somewhat confused isn't it? This is why in the military there is Professional military education (PME) on the one hand, and career field training on the other. PME is promotion requirement for everyone. Career field training is not so much, at least on the officer side.

So yes, specialty tracks are technically training directed at senior members; and, accomplishing levels in one of them is required to promote; BUT don't confuse the fact that it is a promotion requirement with it being professional development. PD is ONE of several requirements for promotion, it is not THE entire program. I know in recent years it has been used interchangeably, including in regulations, and that just makes it more confusing.

My point is the specialty tracks are job training, not quote unquote professional development - meaning they aren't designed to make you a better officer/more effective leader/manager/etc, they are designed to progress technical training in a specific job field.

None of this having anything to do with it being a good idea to have embroidered specialty badges or not, but a lot to do with dismissing cynical remarks that don't contribute to the conversation one way or another (river  ) 

[RiverAux]

CAP has one professional development program and it encompasses both specialty track training and general "leadership" development type courses as well as other matters.  There is no separation of the two and trying to apply military definitions to this aspect of CAP doesn't make any sense.  CAP has defined all of it as Professional Development so that is what we should use here.   

[DNall]

This is kind of semantics isn't it? When you're saying people don't do PD, you're talking about level I-V & the courses in particular, not specialty tracks. Spec tracks are mostly OJT/doing time in a staff duty with a few extra requirements, and really in & of themselves have nothing to do with promotions. People do participate in the spec tracks, usually several of them.

As far as people knowing what they mean... I don't know what half the AF specialty badges mean, and I promise you people in other services don't understand almost any of them. Some of that is useful, but it's honestly bonus. The point is much more what Patrick said, to incentivize training, and develop pride/esprit-de-corps. All of which is furthered with embroidered versions on utilities, at no real cost to the org. In fact, it can be implemented (as has been stated in this thread) in a way that reduces the amount of crap on our uniforms & brings us more in line with the AF rules. That's one of those rare best of all worlds things. Where's the down side?

[Larry Mangum]

At a large mission base, as an IC, I have made sure that admin, at sign-in, ensures that all mission base staff members are assigned a position bade that is pinned to their uniform in a prominent position.  That way there is no doubt who's the IC is or the Air Boss are any other key person.  In some case we have gone as far as badging aircrew and ground team members so we could easily control access to operational areas.  While I like the occupational badges, when I am try to decide who to slot into a position, I ususally do not look at the uniforms to see what badges they are wearing, instead I am looking at 101 cards and talking to people with the appropriate ES ratings to determine if they are a good fit for the mission.

[DNall]

^ This really doesn't have ANYTHING to do with ES. How does my GBD or IC or MO badge do any good on my BDUs at encampment? My Master CP or admin, pers, etc badges might be meaningful though.

If you want to talk ES though, they're meaningful there too. I'd kind of like to know if I have an MSA that's got a senior rating in admin/pers and no one has FASC on a 101. If I don't have an IO, and equally don't have spare time, but I do have a guy with a senior PA badge that might be able to help write releases for me to approve/brief. I'm not saying you slam those folks in a job they aren't qual'd for cause they're wearing a badge. It's just extra information that can help you decide who to talk to about specific needs. If it helps a few people a few times in all the thousands of missions we do, what's that cost us?

That said, I just finished saying...

I don't know what half the AF specialty badges mean, and I promise you people in other services don't understand almost any of them. Some of that is useful, but it's honestly bonus. The point is much more what Patrick said, to incentivize training, and develop pride/esprit-de-corps. All of which is furthered with embroidered versions on utilities, at no real cost to the org. In fact, it can be implemented (as has been stated in this thread) in a way that reduces the amount of crap on our uniforms & brings us more in line with the AF rules. That's one of those rare best of all worlds things. Where's the down side?

[RiverAux]

People do participate in the spec tracks, usually several of them.

Not as many as you might think.  In my wing about 45% of senior members have not achieved the technician rating in any specialty track (That is not a wild guess at the numbers either, I looked it up).  This jibes pretty well with lack of progress in the senior member levels (almost 40% of our members in the rank of Capt/Maj/Lt Col haven't completed Level 2). 

[DNall]

I could use the simple answer here & say, "See, this supports the thesis that we need to further incentivize participation in that all-important training."

In reality though, those numbers are just completely worthless. What the hell does 45% of members mean? Is the guy that put in his paperwork & disappeared after a couple months when he found out it was hard work get counted in there? You know he does, and that skews the hell out of those numbers to the point of making them meaningless.

Most people don't stay in the program very long, and that's just talking dues paying. If you look at actual showing up members, you get a completely different picture. Those people are either sitting in a chair every week bored out of their mind & won't be around long, or they're doing a job, which is more like 90%. The fact that their time/work isn't getting documented is a reflection of piss poor personnel and program management.

I can tell you right now my record is all jacked up. It doesn't reflect things I've actually done & been awarded when I got signed documentation to prove it - and I frankly don't care cause it doesn't matter. You take the guy that's been in six months & barely knows what a tech rating is, he sure as hell doesn't understand how to force his chain and the system to give him the rating. That in turn jacks up level completion, as does a lack of PD courses, and overall bad PD/personnel mgmt. All of which further makes those number completely worthless to reality on the ground.

I sympathize with the situation. We don't have full time people to fix all this stuff for us like we have in the guard/reserve. We're supposed to have a staff member focused on it, but I can just about promise you it's among the most unfilled slots on the chart.

My point is that people who are active in the program and who do stay beyond a year or two (ie figure the system out & make it work) are participating in the spec tracks - or rather are doing a staff job for which you are supposed to get a spec rating.

However, NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with sufficient reasons that we should or should not have embroidered versions of the current spec track badges.

[RiverAux]

In reality though, those numbers are just completely worthless. What the hell does 45% of members mean? Is the guy that put in his paperwork & disappeared after a couple months when he found out it was hard work get counted in there? You know he does, and that skews the hell out of those numbers to the point of making them meaningless.

Well, if you want to play the active/inactive game....The numbers seem to hold up pretty well.  In my home squadron, which is one of the most active in the wing, almost a third of "active" members who have been around 3+ years haven't yet gotten their technician rating.  And only 1/3 of those who lack a tech rating (and have been in more than 3 years) are "inactive" (2/3 who lack a rating are "active"). 

Why does it matter to this thread?  Based on on my data almost half of CAP members would not qualify for any of these badges at all.  Assume only 1 cloth specialty badge would be worn at a time, the market for any single badge would be very, very small.  If we assume that half of senior members have BDU/BBDUs (which is being generous), then that leaves us with 6,000 potential customers (based on my estimate above).  If we assume that 15% will get Cadet programs and 15% ES (rough estimate on my part of the true percentage) with the others being divided equally, you'll see that we're talking production runs that are only in the hundreds for most badges, even if every BDU wearer buys a couple.

Bottom line is that its just not going to be cheap and won't effect enough members to be worthwhile.  I say the same things about the metal badges by the way.

[DNall]

Again, that's very poor program mgmt. That's your jacked up chain of command screwing members by not putting them in for what they've earned. About 90% of tech ratings require filling a staff position for six months & almost nothing else. Obviously, there are a couple exceptions, but that's pretty close to it. If they don't actually have a job then your unit is all kind of jacked up. Every unit I've ever been to is insanely undermanned. You get a job thrust on you pretty much while you're filling out the application. There is almost no circumstance when a member doesn't qualify for at least one tech rating easily within the first year of service. Your unit doing the paperwork is a whole other matter. Part of the reasons we have ribbons/badges for every little thing is not just as an incentive for the member to go do them, but as an incentive for the member to force the system to document service at the time performed so it's there down the road when they need it for promotions and such.

As far as production runs. You're talking about embroidered versions of existing (and already authorized on AF-style uniforms) badges. It'd cost a buck to members retail. What's the market for real military badges in white on ultramarine background... but you can still get those. Embroidery is just a design in a computer, stick some cloth under it that we already have laying around cause we make all your other badges on it, and push enter. If they can make metal badges for each specialty then they can very certainly make embroidered versions.

If you just want to play devils advocate all day we can do that, but I'm really waiting for legitimate reasons why this is a bad policy? So many things we see around here are all complicated & big changes to the program or serious costs. This is simple, makes perfect sense, very easy to implement, minuscule and completely optional cost to members, gives more bling possibilities to that crowd, while cleaning up & aligning the wear policy for the other crowd... and as far as I can tell there is no down side on it anywhere.

[RiverAux]

That's your jacked up chain of command screwing members by not putting them in for what they've earned.

Actually no, they definetely have not earned a tech rating despite being very active in other CAP activities.  But, I suppose facts aren't enough for you, so I'll let it go. 

[Hawk200]

I was on the fence of "Maybe it's worth looking into.." until River pointed out the low number of people that would actually be eligible.

Also, I can imagine a number of people just wearing something that they haven't earned yet. I've seen that in numerous wings as it is, so I know it's a common issue.

If, badges were to made, I'd suggest that they be distinctly different from ES style badges. ES qualification is different than specialty track levels, and therefore they should be easily identifiable as something other than ES quals. You can wear different badges on different uniforms, it's not like you're stuck wearing the same couple on every uniform you own. Wear the ES stuff on a uniform that you can to missions, but the specialty track stuff on your "home station" utilities.

It still amazes me that people want so many things to be "just like the Air Force", but will cry foul when someone even mentions an Air Force guideline. The common answer is "We are not the Air Force!". What do our members want? An Auxiliary that works hand in hand with it's mother service, or an organization that runs "cafeteria" style picking and choosing what they want to follow and ignoring the rest? Every member needs to make that decision, and then stick to it.

I don't think CAP uniforms should be an almost copy of the Air Force's. I wore the Air Force uniform daily for ten years, and I really have no desire to look "just like an Air Force officer". There are a few uniform items I think that really need to be cleaned up because I consider those items as excessive and gaudy, or just not aligned in a manner befitting an Air Force uniform, but it doesn't need to be "almost there". A few of our badges show us as a unique organization, no reason to copy everything from Mother Blue.

[DNall]

That's your jacked up chain of command screwing members by not putting them in for what they've earned.

Actually no, they definetely have not earned a tech rating despite being very active in other CAP activities.  But, I suppose facts aren't enough for you, so I'll let it go. 

The standards for each tech rating are different, but for most there really is no "earn" to it. It's literally doing a staff position satisfactorily for six months & having very basic general knowledge of the related regs - like which regs they are. A couple (CP, AE, comm, ES, Ops/air ops, & safety) are a little more complex or may require a very simple test, but they are the exception

It's hard to justify a "doesn't deserve." It's kind of like "doesn't deserve to be promoted," even though they've satisfied all the duty performance/PD & TIG requirements & remained active the whole time. You can only take subjective so far before it's arbitrary & you're hurting members in the long term & probably going to lose most of them when they're frustrated because of it.

If your members are meeting that standard and not being processed for ratings, that's an administrative failure by your chain. If they are not meeting that standard (or whatever interpretation of the standard they are choosing to enforce), then that's a serious leadership failure on the part of your chain for not implementing & holding to standard your member development program. It takes insanely little time/effort to do that. I'm sympathetic, but there's really no excuse.

[DNall]

I was on the fence of "Maybe it's worth looking into.." until River pointed out the low number of people that would actually be eligible.

Also, I can imagine a number of people just wearing something that they haven't earned yet. I've seen that in numerous wings as it is, so I know it's a common issue.

I'm not real confident about the numbers he's extrapolating, but whatever. We wear metal badges right now for the same number of people with those ratings, and they cost significantly more to make. That cost was justified and those things don't cost $12 a piece or anything, they are very reasonable. For an embroidered piece of cloth, the cost is somewhere between 60 cents & 2 bucks, regardless of if you make one or 5000.

As far as hasn't earned, that's a different issue that applies equally to wings or GT badges or mil badges or anything else. It doesn't have anything to do with this question, and I don't see how it'd be different or more frequent than anything else we're wearing.

If, badges were to made, I'd suggest that they be distinctly different from ES style badges. ES qualification is different than specialty track levels, and therefore they should be easily identifiable as something other than ES quals. You can wear different badges on different uniforms, it's not like you're stuck wearing the same couple on every uniform you own. Wear the ES stuff on a uniform that you can to missions, but the specialty track stuff on your "home station" utilities.

I agree they should be distinctly different, and they already are. The metal ones are on plain shields w/o an operational wreath. The GT, IC, EMT, etc badges have wreaths. That's plenty distinctive, and follows the AF heraldry/symbolism standards exactly, which is why they were approved that way by the AF for wear on the AF-style uniforms some 10 years ago or whatever it was.

It still amazes me that people want so many things to be "just like the Air Force", but will cry foul when someone even mentions an Air Force guideline. The common answer is "We are not the Air Force!". What do our members want? An Auxiliary that works hand in hand with it's mother service, or an organization that runs "cafeteria" style picking and choosing what they want to follow and ignoring the rest? Every member needs to make that decision, and then stick to it.

I don't think CAP uniforms should be an almost copy of the Air Force's. I wore the Air Force uniform daily for ten years, and I really have no desire to look "just like an Air Force officer". There are a few uniform items I think that really need to be cleaned up because I consider those items as excessive and gaudy, or just not aligned in a manner befitting an Air Force uniform, but it doesn't need to be "almost there". A few of our badges show us as a unique organization, no reason to copy everything from Mother Blue.

I agree with you there. The clean up guady & alignment is a big thing to me. It's like looking at a picture that's diagonal on the wall & it looks stupid as hell. If the guy that lives there tells you he wants it that way, it goes from the picture looks stupid as hell, to this guy is stupid as hell. That just doesn't belong in or on an AF uniform or anything else I want related to me.

What I'm saying in this case is real simple:
1) The existing metal specialty badges (shield type) are already approved by the AF for both their designs and wear on the AF-style uniform.
2) Embroider white on ultramarine versions of those for BDU/BBDU. That gets rid of a couple optional pocket patches, still limited to the same two slots over the branch tape.
3) I'm really not happy with the design of the CP, AE, and DDR badges. I think they should be standardized with the rest. The IC badge also needs the airborne style wings changed to the GT style wreath, or both updated to an AF-style wreath would be even better. None of that is happening any time soon though. It's too costly to change metal badges.

[RiverAux]

I would suggest holding off on something like this until we switch over (assuming we do) to ABUs in the relatively near future.  From a design point of view we don't know if we will stick with white on ultramarine badges and look like goofs, or not. 

[lordmonar]

It still amazes me that people want so many things to be "just like the Air Force", but will cry foul when someone even mentions an Air Force guideline. The common answer is "We are not the Air Force!". What do our members want? An Auxiliary that works hand in hand with it's mother service, or an organization that runs "cafeteria" style picking and choosing what they want to follow and ignoring the rest? Every member needs to make that decision, and then stick to it.

Well to be honest...most of us who say we should follow USAF guidelines....are different set of people who moan that "we are not the USAF".

I don't think CAP uniforms should be an almost copy of the Air Force's. I wore the Air Force uniform daily for ten years, and I really have no desire to look "just like an Air Force officer". There are a few uniform items I think that really need to be cleaned up because I consider those items as excessive and gaudy, or just not aligned in a manner befitting an Air Force uniform, but it doesn't need to be "almost there". A few of our badges show us as a unique organization, no reason to copy everything from Mother Blue.

Again...no one is really saying we need to copy the USAF uniform.....but we are saying that we should have "specialty track" badges for our BDUs.

[DNall]

^ CAP is a very diverse in the kinds of thinking we squeeze under this big tent, to my displeasure at times, but it makes us stronger in some ways too.

I'm on board with the crowd that says it should be THE AF uniform, with a chapter in the AFI stating the specific differences. Or, maybe just a ref in the AFI to the CAPR, which really only needs to be a supplement to the AFI covering our distinctive items.

Let me be clear. I do agree that we are and should in some ways be distinctive. I think those distinctions should be specific & should be highlighted by being the things that are different on the uniform. The things we hold in common should be the same to the letter.

For instance, we do different stuff our badges should be a bit different but still show the similarity. If possible, you should see a CAP badge and understand it's in the same family tree as the AF w/o it being attached to the uniform. However, the policy on how/where/how many/etc we wear should be in line w/ the AF. Same deal w/ patches. We're going to have org specific stuff, but it should be designed & worn according to the standards the AF uses.

OH.. and yeah, I can wait for ABUs on the change. In almost all changes I propose or endorse I usually go with waiting for ABUs on the implement for money & ease of transition. That's easily done there. The items are already approved for wear by AF though, it's not a matter of we have to go back thru the process with every little thing. When we go to ABUs, if we want to change background colors (PLEASE God let that happen) that's no issue as far as getting it embroidered in dif color/cloth. It's not like they go off & make 10k of these things. They run a couple dozen on one big sheet of cloth & cut it up, then run some more whenever they need. It takes a few minutes & costs pennies.