NESA caps

[CadetAlpha]

I am new to this forum and I am here to ask one question as I scoured CAPM39-1, the interim change letters, and countless other NCSA publications for answers. Is the NESA baseball cap, issued at the activity, authorized to be worn at the home squadron?

[Garibaldi]

I am new to this forum and I am here to ask one question as I scoured CAPM39-1, the interim change letters, and countless other NCSA publications for answers. Is the NESA baseball cap, issued at the activity, authorized to be worn at the home squadron?

Ask your unit CC. Through the chain of command, of course. Hats given or awarded by a NCSA are given special dispensation at times, such as the Blue Beret, but it really depends on your commander.

[TexasCadet]

I am new to this forum and I am here to ask one question as I scoured CAPM39-1, the interim change letters, and countless other NCSA publications for answers. Is the NESA baseball cap, issued at the activity, authorized to be worn at the home squadron?

From what I remember, a squadron commander may authorize a baseball cap to be worn at the squadron.

[CadetAlpha]

What I get from CAPM39-1 about the squadron commander authorizing a baseball cap is more of a unit baseball cap thing, not necessarily the NCSA issued headgear. Is there any national regulation of special activities headgear? Besides the Blue Beret of course. I couldn't find anything from national even addressing other NCSA headgear.

[a2capt]

Sure. Make the NESA ballcap the unit ballcap.

Now you've got another problem, and a quandary.

Everyone has to get one. That could be a pickle right there.

Second, why? Don't you want a -unit- item? Not something from somewhere else?

Or is this a way of making that NESA ballcap .. into a beret? ;-)

[CadetAlpha]

Sure. Make the NESA ballcap the unit ballcap.

Now you've got another problem, and a quandary.

Everyone has to get one. That could be a pickle right there.

Second, why? Don't you want a -unit- item? Not something from somewhere else?

Or is this a way of making that NESA ballcap .. into a beret? ;-)

No, I fully understand the difference between the unit baseball cap and the NCSA baseball cap, but I need to know if a NCSA baseball cap (such as the NESA one) is authorized for wear outside the activity in the same manner as the Blue Beret per the May 2012 Interim Change Letter- Changes to CAPM 39-1. From what I gather from the literature, it can't be.

[lordmonar]

What I get from CAPM39-1 about the squadron commander authorizing a baseball cap is more of a unit baseball cap thing, not necessarily the NCSA issued headgear. Is there any national regulation of special activities headgear? Besides the Blue Beret of course. I couldn't find anything from national even addressing other NCSA headgear.

Even if 39-1 specifically authorized NESA ball caps as part of the NCSA "awards"......it is still up to your squadron commander on what he wants or does not want his squadron to wear.

So.....ask your squadron commander.

[Storm Chaser]

No, the NESA baseball cap is an activity cap, not an award and it's not authorized for used at your home station. Even if your commander gave you authorization to wear it, he/she has no authority to do so.

[lordmonar]

No, the NESA baseball cap is an activity cap, not an award and it's not authorized for used at your home station. Even if your commander gave you authorization to wear it, he/she has no authority to do so.

To quibble.......chain of command.    If the commander authorized it.....even if he had not power to do so.....it is HIS chain of command that has to enforce the standard.......not some random Senior Member on CAPTALK.   

Putting on the theoretical hat for a moment.....that is why we have the chain of command.....to decide what to do no matter what the regulations say.

I am not saying that is it right......just saying that we need to be careful is instructing subordinates to be telling their leadership "hey you can't do that".     There is a time, place and way for subordinates to challenge their leaders.......but we don't have enough information to suggest that to this cadet.

Having said that.......please show me in 39-1 where it says anything about an activity cap and how is that different then the beret from NBB?   Just playing devils advocate here? 

Bottom line.......no matter what we say here......the unit commander is going to authorize what he wants....so the OP's question needs to be addressed to his commander.

[Storm Chaser]

MSgt Harris,

While you're certainly entitled to your opinions, they have no bearing when it comes to what's allowed or not by regulations. Unlike what you'd like us to believe about the chain of command, commanders have NO authority to circumvent regulations.

The blue beret is awarded by NBB and its use is permitted at the activity by CAPM 39-1, Table 1-3 and after the activity by the ICL dated 12 Mar 2013. In contrast, the NESA baseball cap is not awarded but given to all participants on day 1 of the activity and there are no references whatsoever in CAPM 39-1 or any ICL. Since the NESA baseball cap is not awarded for use outside of NESA and it's not an authorized unit cap, unit commanders cannot prescribe or authorize their use. CAPM 39-1 specifically states that "COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY. Any variation from this publication is not authorized. Items not listed in this publication are not authorized for wear."

While I never recommended that he go to his commander and say "hey you can't do that" (although there's no reason why he couldn't address it respectfully, if needed), "we need to be careful [about] instructing subordinates" to just ignore regulations because "the unit commander is going to authorize what he wants." It just wouldn't be appropriate for "some random Senior Member on CAPTALK [sic]" to encourage or promote that we break the rules if the commander says "it's ok". Wouldn't you agree?

[Eclipse]

So 39-1 is sacrosanct but the regs that say ICL's expire in 90 days aren't?

[lordmonar]

Speaking as a retired SNCO......I will say this about regulations and leaders.

We have commanders and senior leaders because we know that the regulations cannot cover every situation.

One of the jobs of senior leaders (in the USAF and CAP) is to know when and how to deviate (that is violate) regulations.

Having said that.....in this instance  39-1 is pretty vague on CAP ball caps.   It states some basic guideline on what they are supposed to look like.....but it places the authority for authorization clearly in the hands of the unit commander.

Now...it could be argued that the 39-1 INTENDED that authority only to extend to "Squadron Caps"...that is a ball cap with the squadron patch and/or number and only that.....but in fact it does not.

Either way....again for the sake of argument....let's say a Commander authorized his people to wear boonie hats or smokey bear hats, it is a chain of command issue......what you or I believe the regulations say is not germane to the issue.   His squadron commander does not answer to us or our interpretations of the regulations.   He falls under his group/wing/region/national commander in that order.

Ergo.....in this situations where the OP is asking what the regulations say......we can quote what the regs say AND tell him to ask his commander.

Quoting the "compliance with this publication is mandatory. Any  variations from his publication is not authorized...." line is all well and good.....until you realize that the guys who wrote that line.....are the same ones who violate it all the time.....at the NCSAs that we are discussing, among other situations.

My bottom line is that YES leaders do have the authority to circumvent regulations.....when and how to do that is one of the ARTS of leadership.   It is why we have commanders.   My advice to the OP was to ask his commander.  The commander makes the decision, asks for advise, or pushes the decision up the chain of command.   That is how you do it.

My interpretation of the regulations, nor your interpretation of regulations have no bearing on the situation as we are not in the chain of command.

For the record.....My interpretation of the regulation is like yours......NO NESA hats are not to be worn outside of the activity.  But if Commander Simpson from the M. Burns Composite Squadron wants to authorize them......it is up to his chain of command to correct it.  We as good leaders should through our own channels challenge this practice....but our channels don't go through the subordinates of that unit.

I'm not encouraging anyone to violate regulations......for the most part they are well written and have a good purpose for being written they way they are.   I am saying that there is a time, place and way to violate them.   Likewise there is a way for us to correct leaders who violate them.

[Storm Chaser]

So 39-1 is sacrosanct but the regs that say ICL's expire in 90 days aren't?

No, but you and I know that commanders can't just choose which regulations they're going to follow, which is the point of my post. Frankly, I'm surprised by your reply as you've said the same thing many times before.

[lordmonar]

That may be simplifying what I said
I have always said that there is a time and place to violate regs. I have never said that regs should be if noted just because you "feel like" violating them.

The point of my post is that as good leaders and good followers we have to be careful about how we speak about leaders who do violate them particularly when speaking to subordinates. Just saying " he can't do that" is undermining the chain of command and is just as bad as ignoring regulations.

We should follow the regulations.   They are there for a reason. We should require compliance from our subordinates and encourage our peers to do likewise.  We should challenge our seep riots to follow the regs (in private or through channels) when we see them violating them.  But we support their orders down the chain.

So when little cadet jimmy shows up at your event sporting a green tutu and he says my commander said we could.   Little jimmy is doing the right thing.   We fix the situation not by giving jimmy a hard time but by following up through channels.

End of rant

[Storm Chaser]

@ Lordmonar

As a current field grade officer and former NCO, I can tell you that commanders can't and don't just ignore regulations on a whim. AFIs allow for some rules to be overruled because of safety and/or in certain combat situations. But commanders can't just make arbitrary decisions on which regulations to follow or not. Because some Air Force unit commanders have done that in the past, now you see more and more involvement from group and wing commanders. A perfect example is the current PFT rules, which practically remove much of the unit commander's authority to make decisions regarding personnel who fail the test.

As far as CAPM 39-1, I won't disagree that there's much to be desired about this manual. And I'm not crazy about the "indefinite" ICL either. And if you were addressing a specific vagueness in the manual, then I would understand the need for clarification. Where you and I disagree is in who can make that clarification. When I have questions about a regulation, the first thing I do is check with group and/or wing, as they may have a supplement or other publication addressing that question. I've also used the CAP Knowledgebase many times to seek clarifications. Most of these answers are provided by NHQ personnel, familiar with the issues. You suggest (or at least imply) that unit commanders have "unrestricted" authority to make decisions about everything in their units, regardless of regulations and/or higher headquarters directives. I, simply, don't buy it.

[lordmonar]

Never ever ever said on a whim. I said there was a time place and way to violate them

[Storm Chaser]

@ Lordmonar

It seems to me that you're using the term "chain of command" incorrectly on many of your posts. Chain of command refers to the line of authority and echelons of command, in which orders are passed within a unit and between different units. In other words, the chain of command in CAP flows from flight (if applicable), squadron, group (if applicable), wing, region, etc. Within a cadet organizational chart, the chain of command flows (echelons and structures may vary) from the element leader, flight commander, cadet commander, deputy commander for cadets, unit commander, etc. What you continue to refer to as "chain of command" is actually command authority.

[Storm Chaser]

Never ever ever said on a whim. I said there was a time place and way to violate them

Actually, you did not say that on your first post, which started this discussion. On each post, you continue to suggest that CAP unit commanders have additional authority to "violate" regulations that they just don't have. This is not an argument about safety or cadet protection or nothing similar. This is about a baseball cap. How does that fall under those "time"/"place" situations on which you claim it's acceptable for a unit commander to "violate" regulations?

[Eclipse]

So 39-1 is sacrosanct but the regs that say ICL's expire in 90 days aren't?

No, but you and I know that commanders can't just choose which regulations they're going to follow, which is the point of my post. Frankly, I'm surprised by your reply as you've said the same thing many times before.

I have, and I agree with the main point, but the example set by this situation is what causes the attitude that
regs are "negotiable".

It's difficult to justify behavior based on a document which, in itself, is no longer valid for the same reasons as
the initial argument.

With all the above said, the squadron CC is the arbiter in this case, and really who cares outside that unit as long as other activities
aren't being impacted? (And they can set their own UOD).

Never ever ever said on a whim. I said there was a time place and way to violate them

Not really, and certainly not in the context of a CAP uniform conversation.

[SarDragon]

Going back to the OP, why is it necessary to wear a different cap than the rest of the squadron? Because you're kool? Because you're better than the others in your unit? I think that's the reason they aren't allowed in the first. Put your fancy cap on your dresser as a reminder of your good time there, and move on.

[lordmonar]

I've learned not to ask why or to get into that are you kool conversation. Let his leadership Handel it. 

[Spaceman3750]

I wear mine where the "CAP Ballcap" is authorized to be worn. So in my BBDUs and polo. Nobody really makes any issue about it.

[lordmonar]

Never ever ever said on a whim. I said there was a time place and way to violate them

Actually, you did not say that on your first post, which started this discussion. On each post, you continue to suggest that CAP unit commanders have additional authority to "violate" regulations that they just don't have. This is not an argument about safety or cadet protection or nothing similar. This is about a baseball cap. How does that fall under those "time"/"place" situations on which you claim it's acceptable for a unit commander to "violate" regulations?

Everyone in CAP has "authority" to violate regulations.   That is they can decide to follow them or not.   Whether they "get away" with it is based on the situation, the violation, the reason they violated it, how they violated it, what sort of mitigations they put in place, what sort of actions they took to try to follow the reg before the violation.

My point is....and always has been.......if I were to violate a regulation, it is up to my chain of command to deal with it.....not you, no anyone else out there in CAP land....only my chain of command.   

I never said it is always acceptable for anyone to violate a regulations.....I said that there is a time, place and way to violate them.  Now we can spend the next 10 years spinning theoretical scenarios all day long....but that will get us nowhere beyond just having fun with thought experiments.

Suffice to say.......In my 22 years on AD and in my 11 years in CAP...there have been many times where I have violated regulations with malice aforethought.....and I know that I will have to violate them again before I am done.

When I do violate them....I don't care what you thing about it.....I care what my chain of command thinks about it.

[Larry Mangum]

The answer to his question is rather an easy one. Per the Alabama Wing Commander, NO hat with the  exception of the blue beret, worn or provided by a national activity can be worn within the wing, per his memo, dated 20 May 2013. However, he has since then decided that WESS staff can wear NESA hats to distinguish them from the students.

[Luis R. Ramos]

So, what does WESS stands for?

Wing Emergency Services School?

Flyer

[Storm Chaser]

Everyone in CAP has "authority" to violate regulations.   That is they can decide to follow them or not.   Whether they "get away" with it is based on the situation, the violation, the reason they violated it, how they violated it, what sort of mitigations they put in place, what sort of actions they took to try to follow the reg before the violation.

You're confusing authority with ability. Someone with your years of experience should know the difference.

The answer to his question is rather an easy one. Per the Alabama Wing Commander, NO hat with the  exception of the blue beret, worn or provided by a national activity can be worn within the wing, per his memo, dated 20 May 2013. However, he has since then decided that WESS staff can wear NESA hats to distinguish them from the students.

Thanks for this clarification.

Case closed...unless Lordmonar believes unit commanders have the"authority" to disobey their wing commanders and "violate" their directives.

So, what does WESS stands for?

Wing Emergency Services School?

Yes.

[lordmonar]

If the situation calls for it.

I stand by my original statement......there is a time, place and way to violate regulations.

If I do violate them....then the leaders in MY chain of command will/should take the appropriate actions to correct or discipline me for that violation.

If my subordinate violate regulations on my orders....then I bear the responsibility for that violation not my subordinates.

None of this changes my statements to the OP.......if in doubt ask your commander.   

As for not knowing the difference between authority and ability.....like you said....with my experience I have lived in this zone many times.  Both in making the decision to "No...we are going to ignore this reg....let's move on" and being on the receiving end of such and order.  Me: "Sir we can't do XYZ due to AFI ABC"  Commander: "Noted, Proceed".

We choose our leaders for their ability to do what leaders are supposed to do.....get the mission done.  We often (in CAP and the USAF) enter areas where regulations conflict, are not clearly written or hamper the mission.   We expect our leaders to make wise decisions to accomplish the mission.   Sometimes that is to ignored the published regulations.

Now we are just talking about a silly hat.     IN ALWG there is published guidance on what hat to wear......this cadet could not find anything in 39-1 so I suggested he contact his commander, who one would hope, knew about ALWG's policy letter.

If a squadron commander in ALWG allowed his people to wear NESA hats....then it is up to the ALWG CC to correct this commander.

Like I said before......we expect everyone to follow the regulations.....but we also charge our leaders to get the mission done.   Sometimes.....they can't do both.  We expect them to use good judgment, seek assistance, use mitigation efforts, etcetera, to accomplish assigned missions.

That is all that I am saying.   I'm not saying that commanders are free to do what they want, I am not saying that you just ignore regulations.  I am saying that we expect our leaders to be leaders and accomplish their assigned missions.

[Storm Chaser]

Maybe it's not what you're saying, but the way you're saying it.

[Eclipse]

My point is....and always has been.......if I were to violate a regulation, it is up to my chain of command to deal with it.....not you, no anyone else out there in CAP land....only my chain of command.   

Seriously, you say that all the time like it's relevent in an academic conversation about regulations on a public forum where no one has authority over anyone else.

There's one universal truth, which stands above all man-made writ and regulations, and just below the laws of physics.

Specifically,   "Anyone, can do anything...once."

However, being able to "get away with something" because either no one knows, or no one cares is not the same as possessing some
sort of Great Knowledge or experiential force power to know when it is OK to violate CAP regulations.

It's never OK, unless you're talking about a situation that involves saving life or property, at which point an IG or even a judge may make the final decision.

If it's in the context of a uniform discussion, or administrative process, it's never OK.

Ne.

Ver.

And the point where you realize that your decision or behavior, either via commission or omission, violates a regulation,
is the point where that behavior should be adjusted to conform, not continue under the auspices if "I know better."
"I don't care what you think.", or "You're not in my chain", or "I know better." doesn't change that.

When CAP as both an organization, and individuals, comes back around to understanding that, we'll all be better off.

[Luis R. Ramos]

In another thread, readers were making the connection of "now there is a push on sergeants, the organization will be better since the sergeants are the experts," "can teach D&C better than others as they are experts in that topic..." On and on.

Here we are having a discussion difference of opinion between a Master Sergeant and other members. I hope this does not carry into real life when we get that many more members sporting stripes.

Flyer

[lordmonar]

Flyer....I made the same arguments when I was sporting Major Oak Leaves.....so yes and no this is relevant to the implementation of the CAP NCO corps.

Eclipse.....I have been talking is generalities about authority, and when and how to violate regulations.

YES......in a basic uniform situation......I can only see a few situations in CAP where we should violate regulations.....and most of them have to do with either safety (i.e. wearing an appropriate civilian jacket with the uniform) or if it is a case of direct mission failure....(i.e. allowing your only available mission pilot to fly in civilian cloths instead of delaying the mission 2 hours for him to get his flight suit).

But....these are prime examples of what I am talking about.  There are times and ways to violate regulations.
And when they do come....the only people who matter are the ones in chain of command.....not the commander from another squadron, not the commander from another wing, not the commander from another region.

So as I said before.....to tie back into the OP's question.......he should ask his commander for clarification/authorization on any unclear regulations.

[Eclipse]

or if it is a case of direct mission failure....(i.e. allowing your only available mission pilot to fly in civilian cloths instead of delaying the mission 2 hours for him to get his flight suit).

Not within the scope of a unit CC, nor even an IC.

Not something I would do without at least a Wing CC's approval, if not national - "we're all friends until someone loses an eye..."

[lordmonar]

or if it is a case of direct mission failure....(i.e. allowing your only available mission pilot to fly in civilian cloths instead of delaying the mission 2 hours for him to get his flight suit).

Not within the scope of a unit CC, nor even an IC.

Not something I would do without at least a Wing CC's approval, if not national - "we're all friends until someone loses an eye..."

That's acceptable for me....like I said...there is a time and way to violate a regulation....sometimes the way to do it is...."we got to get this up to the IC or Wing or National"...sometimes it's "let's just do it".....it all depends on the situation.

[Eclipse]

When does CAP ever operate in a "no time for back up, shoulder roll in the window..." mode?

Never.

It's part of the equation, and "making like Nike" is what usually gets people in trouble.

[lordmonar]

When does CAP ever operate in a "no time for back up, shoulder roll in the window..." mode?

Never.

It's part of the equation, and "making like Nike" is what usually gets people in trouble.

I guess that works for you.  I hope you communicate that with your subordinates.
As I said sometime you take the risk yourself...sometimes you up channel it....sometimes you just say, "nope we're going home".  It all depends on the situation.

[CadetAlpha]

Going back to the OP, why is it necessary to wear a different cap than the rest of the squadron? Because you're kool? Because you're better than the others in your unit? I think that's the reason they aren't allowed in the first. Put your fancy cap on your dresser as a reminder of your good time there, and move on.

I have never attended NESA. I do not own the hat. I am not partial to the hat. I certainly do not think of myself as being "kool" or better than any other cadet either.

The answer to his question is rather an easy one. Per the Alabama Wing Commander, NO hat with the  exception of the blue beret, worn or provided by a national activity can be worn within the wing, per his memo, dated 20 May 2013. However, he has since then decided that WESS staff can wear NESA hats to distinguish them from the students.

Lt Col Mangum, I am fully aware of ALWG Policy Number 13-01 and all it entails, I just didn't know if there was any form of address from National about it, sir.

Bottom line everyone, I'm not trying to be insubordinate to my commander, I'm not trying to look cool, I am simply trying to find what I asked about: if National authorizes, in any publication, the wear of NCSA headgear (excluding the Blue Beret) for wear at the squadron level.

[SarDragon]

Simply put - they do not.

[CadetAlpha]

Simply put - they do not.

Thank you sir.