IMHO, it seems to me that its real purpose is discourage brand new 18 year olds from becoming SMs and "Supervising" their 17 1/2 Year old buddies.

It encourages them to remain in the Cadet System, and allows them time to mature.


As far as commissions go, it is VERY common to see 19 year old 2LTs.  Just look at any of the Military Junior Colleges with "Early Commissioning Programs"  Marion, Kemper, etc...

Seems to be having all CAP Offiers start at 21 is a method to insure a distinct difference between CAP Officers and CADETS.  Since there are no Cadets over 21 a clear line is drawn...the only possible exception is for flight officers.

That's a good a reason as any.

Quote from: Hawk200 on September 18, 2007, 03:44:33 PM

Quote from: Recruiter on September 18, 2007, 03:34:27 PM
Hawk, I would assume that it would be in the 35-5, but it only says that for an officer to get the grades, they must be 21. I agree that there should be an explaination as to why. Of course, it doesn't effect me, but it would be nice to know so that members can explain to other members why it is the way it is.

Unfortunately, regs rarely explain their justifications. We just follow the reg.

As for the explanation, I too would be interested in hearing it, but I'm a little skeptical when it comes to some of the Air Force's stories. We've heard that we won't be authorized a boonie hat because it's a "combat" item (most people in a combat theater wear a Kevlar) to we can't have subdued nametapes because of Geneva convention stipulations (which considering that I've seen Army JROTC cadets wearing subdued tapes, I really don't buy that one either).

But you never know, the Air Force may surprise us and give us a legitimate reason. I think that if CAP and the Air Force were a little more honest with each other, we might actually be able to work together a little better.

Yeah, and if they were a little more honest with each other, maybe would could get rid of the ultramarine blue nametapes, and get something that doesn't make people think we are full of it. Wishful thinking.

Quote from: Recruiter on September 18, 2007, 05:37:06 PM
Yeah, and if they were a little more honest with each other, maybe would could get rid of the ultramarine blue nametapes, and get something that doesn't make people think we are full of it. Wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking indeed. I have noticed one thing about wishful thinking and dreams. In those little worlds, I get to have something my own way. 

Quote from: Major Carrales on September 18, 2007, 04:04:25 PM
Seems to be having all CAP Officers start at 21 is a method to insure a distinct difference between CAP Officers and CADETS.  Since there are no Cadets over 21 a clear line is drawn...the only possible exception is for flight officers.

That's a good a reason as any.

Well end the Cadet program at 18, and there is that same line....right?  So that basis is unfortunately mute.

Quote from: mikeylikey on September 19, 2007, 10:34:08 PM

Quote from: Major Carrales on September 18, 2007, 04:04:25 PM
Seems to be having all CAP Officers start at 21 is a method to insure a distinct difference between CAP Officers and CADETS.  Since there are no Cadets over 21 a clear line is drawn...the only possible exception is for flight officers.

That's a good a reason as any.

Well end the Cadet program at 18, and there is that same line....right?  So that basis is unfortunately mute.

I agree. the program should end at 18.  But that is another issue.   18 woudl amke Flight officers a moot point.

^ Agree!  We need (as a country) decide when a person is considered an Adult.  Totally different topic, sorry Captalkers.......

Why do you even need a reason? Is it that important? And yes, soldiers do wear boonie caps overseas. What do you think? They walk around with kevlars on all day? no, Only when they leave the wire

Quote from: flyguy06 on September 20, 2007, 05:58:24 AM
Why do you even need a reason? Is it that important?

Of course there needs to be a reason.  Otherwise you wind up with everyone doing something just because that's the way it's always done.  That attitude leaves no allowance for improvement.

I would bet there are many cases of a reg being originally written because the Air Force (or even Army Air Corps) did it that way when the reg was written.  Done through the years, the regulation remains in effect because "it's always been done that way."  Meanwhile, conditions have changed and the Air Force updates their regulations.  Now, the original reason for the CAP reg, because the AF does it that way, no longer applies.

It's a time consuming process, but the regs do need to be examined occasionally to ensure they still apply or that the reason for their existence is still valid.

Quote from: davedove on September 20, 2007, 11:51:55 AM
It's a time consuming process, but the regs do need to be examined from occasionally to ensure they still apply or that the reason for their existence is still valid.

I surely hope that your shoes were tied while typing that because on wednesday's between the hours of 7-9 in your state it is illegal to type with your shoes untied if your three legged horse is stabled within 75 feet of the road.

Quote from: jimmydeanno on September 20, 2007, 11:55:51 AM

Quote from: davedove on September 20, 2007, 11:51:55 AM
It's a time consuming process, but the regs do need to be examined from occasionally to ensure they still apply or that the reason for their existence is still valid.

I surely hope that your shoes were tied while typing that because on wednesday's between the hours of 7-9 in your state it is illegal to type with your shoes untied if your three legged horse is stabled within 75 feet of the road.

It's a good thing it's Thursday then.  Otherwise I would have to go move my horse.

Quote from: flyguy06 on September 20, 2007, 05:58:24 AM
Why do you even need a reason? Is it that important? And yes, soldiers do wear boonie caps overseas. What do you think? They walk around with kevlars on all day? no, Only when they leave the wire

We weren't talking about soldiers we were talking about airman. No I don't think they wear Kevlars all day, but if they don't have a Kevlar on, they should be wearing a PC not a boonie.  According to the CENTAF supplements, the boonie isn't authorized. They may do it, but they're wrong.

A combat zone is when a lot regs tend to be more important. You begin ignoring the most basic regs, how long is it before you ignore ones that are there to keep life and limb intact?

Quote from: Hawk200 on September 20, 2007, 02:28:06 PM

Quote from: flyguy06 on September 20, 2007, 05:58:24 AM
Why do you even need a reason? Is it that important? And yes, soldiers do wear boonie caps overseas. What do you think? They walk around with kevlars on all day? no, Only when they leave the wire

We weren't talking about soldiers we were talking about airman. No I don't think they wear Kevlars all day, but if they don't have a Kevlar on, they should be wearing a PC not a boonie.  According to the CENTAF supplements, the boonie isn't authorized. They may do it, but they're wrong.

A combat zone is when a lot regs tend to be more important. You begin ignoring the most basic regs, how long is it before you ignore ones that are there to keep life and limb intact?

<sarcasm>
Yep.  Absolutely. All those SF/CAG type guys running around in their unauthorized boots, boonie caps, and black watch caps are a serious threat to the good order, morale, and discipline of the entire THEATER and should be immediately been subjected to Field Grade Article 15 proceedings.

I hate it when common sense gets in the way of the strict enforcement of regulations.
</sarcasm>

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on September 20, 2007, 03:06:10 PM
<sarcasm>
Yep.  Absolutely. All those SF/CAG type guys running around in their unauthorized boots, boonie caps, and black watch caps are a serious threat to the good order, morale, and discipline of the entire THEATER and should be immediately been subjected to Field Grade Article 15 proceedings.

I hate it when common sense gets in the way of the strict enforcement of regulations.
</sarcasm>

Too bad the sarcasm doesn't include a reality factor. I'm well aware of special ops types that have uniform exemptions for legitmate reasons. I've dealt with a few of them over the past 18 years. But it is quite clear that those types have those exemptions in writing somewhere. It would be monumentally stupid for our special operators to be in standard military clothing and gear. But despite those exemptions, they still have rules they need to follow. Their rules are just different.

What I'm addressing is the normal types on the post that don't go "outside the wire" or aren't doing the secret squirrel stuff. They don't need custom LBE in MultiCam, and they don't need to be running around in hunting boots, or wearing boonies, and they should have appropriate insignia. They don't have the exemptions those guys have. Therefore, if they are ignoring uniform regs, there is legitimate concern that there will be other regs they will ignore. That's the point I was making.

In the future, you might want to read somebody's previous posts before you assume complete ignorance. Your three days on the board does not put you in the know as far as any other poster is concerned. Try to make use of that common sense in the future.

Quote from: Hawk200 on September 21, 2007, 12:14:20 AM
In the future, you might want to read somebody's previous posts before you assume complete ignorance. Your three days on the board does not put you in the know as far as any other poster is concerned. Try to make use of that common sense in the future.

Ahh now I understand, this noobie needs to learn his place.  In fact I made no assumption about your experience.  I've had this conversation before w/ E9's with 25+ years experience.

No, what I disagree with is the attitude that regulations are holy writ.  Two points I will highlight, and I will leave it alone.

Firstly,  regulations are both hindsight and predictive.  They are based on past experience, and are written generally by staff officers who are trying to PREDICT the future needs and environment the force will face.

Secondly, some things need to be thrown out the window in Theater for a number of reasons:
1.  Something is stupid and will get people killed.
2.  Something is silly, and has no bearing on the mission.
3.  Something is just piss poor for morale.

SO... you are saying that these troops, stuck in theater, trying to do their best to get along, need to get some kiwi on their boots, put their K-Pots on, and get their bunks ready for inspection?

Give me a break.  The sign of a unit that is mission ready is clean rifles, regardless of the state of their uniforms, etc...

Conversely, perhaps you are offended by those "POGUES" sitting in the rear trying to look like they are high speed, low drag?  Who cares?  Do they get their jobs done?  Is their morale better for feeling like they are "getting away with something?" 

You used a logical fallacy of a straw man argument to support a fallacious argument.  You stated the following:

Quote
A combat zone is when a lot regs tend to be more important. You begin ignoring the most basic regs, how long is it before you ignore ones that are there to keep life and limb intact?

Somehow you elliptically equate "boonie cap wearing" with violating a reg that would get someone killed, as if there is a slippery slope between boonie caps and the end of the universe.  (Yes, that IS hyperbole)

Discipline is NOT synonymous with the blind adherence to regulations.  And leadership is sure as hell not quoting obscure regulations to gain some sort of moral high ground.

Now regulations DO have uses, and they are a tool.  Believe me, I  cite chapter and verse when I see some wanna be thug with his pants hanging off his butt, wearing a do-rag throwing gang-signs.

SO I hurt your feelings?  I didn't genuflect properly to your "Salty & Seasoned" Status?  Because I'm new here, I should keep my mouth shut?  Excuse me, but no.

There are many people here, and they have a right to hear opposing views, and I have a duty to speak up and make an on the spot correction when needed.

And the next time you make a disparaging remark to gain the morale high ground, I will follow up with the admins, regardless if they are your buddies or not.  Making a comment about my time is not only unwarranted, it is out of line.

Now I thought about sending this to you as a PM, but since you thought to chastise me in public, I thought I would return the favor.

On of the more thought provoking things I learned in AFROTC... right after "the gun is made by the lowest bidder"...  "Regulations are there to ASSIST  the Commanding Officer"... "the ADG/IG may then procede to enter the Generals' Office a Field Grade Officer and leave a Company Grade Officer"

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on September 21, 2007, 05:08:21 AMAhh now I understand, this noobie needs to learn his place.  In fact I made no assumption about your experience.  I've had this conversation before w/ E9's with 25+ years experience.

Nope. The point was that the noobie doesn't know me, and didn't have anyplace jumping on his soapbox about my statements. But you apparently choose to be offended.

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on September 21, 2007, 05:08:21 AMNo, what I disagree with is the attitude that regulations are holy writ.

Still wrong. There are regs that are exempted because they interfere with the mission. I have no problem with legitimate exemptions. I do have problems with people that decide to ignore regs when they don't feel like it. I would surmise from your response that you approve of that behaviour.

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on September 21, 2007, 05:08:21 AMFirstly,  regulations are both hindsight and predictive.  They are based on past experience, and are written generally by staff officers who are trying to PREDICT the future needs and environment the force will face.

Secondly, some things need to be thrown out the window in Theater for a number of reasons:
1.  Something is stupid and will get people killed.

Agreed.

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on September 21, 2007, 05:08:21 AM2.  Something is silly, and has no bearing on the mission.

Who makes that decision? And how do you go about it? If you just choose to ignore it, that's wrong. Bring it up to the chain. Tell them "This is stupid and will get people hurt". You don't say "I'm not going to follow that today". Most of the time, it will be acknowledged. Do it the right way, not your own way.

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on September 21, 2007, 05:08:21 AM3.  Something is just piss poor for morale.

War is poor on morale. Blaming regs is irresponsible.

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on September 21, 2007, 05:08:21 AMSO... you are saying that these troops, stuck in theater, trying to do their best to get along, need to get some kiwi on their boots, put their K-Pots on, and get their bunks ready for inspection?

Nope, not at all. Already explained this in my first response.

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on September 21, 2007, 05:08:21 AMConversely, perhaps you are offended by those "POGUES" sitting in the rear trying to look like they are high speed, low drag?  Who cares?  Do they get their jobs done?  Is their morale better for feeling like they are "getting away with something?"

So you advocate completely ignoring all the rules, just so someone feels better about "getting away with something"? Sounds like anarchy. 

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on September 21, 2007, 05:08:21 AMYou used a logical fallacy of a straw man argument to support a fallacious argument.  You stated the following:

Quote
A combat zone is when a lot regs tend to be more important. You begin ignoring the most basic regs, how long is it before you ignore ones that are there to keep life and limb intact?

Somehow you elliptically equate "boonie cap wearing" with violating a reg that would get someone killed, as if there is a slippery slope between boonie caps and the end of the universe.  (Yes, that IS hyperbole)

The statement was that if people ignored what they consider "minor" regs, how long til they ignore "major" regs? I believe you misunderstood that my statement applied to people that don't have exemptions from certain regs.

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on September 21, 2007, 05:08:21 AMDiscipline is NOT synonymous with the blind adherence to regulations.

Agreed.

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on September 21, 2007, 05:08:21 AMAnd leadership is sure as hell not quoting obscure regulations to gain some sort of moral high ground.

Some do. But you follow what the chain tells you to. They make the decisions as to what you follow and what you don't. There's a reason for regs that we lower chain personnel might not be privy to.

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on September 21, 2007, 05:08:21 AMNow regulations DO have uses, and they are a tool.  Believe me, I  cite chapter and verse when I see some wanna be thug with his pants hanging off his butt, wearing a do-rag throwing gang-signs.

Agreed. And correcting people as necessary is proper leadership.

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on September 21, 2007, 05:08:21 AMSO I hurt your feelings?  I didn't genuflect properly to your "Salty & Seasoned" Status?  Because I'm new here, I should keep my mouth shut?  Excuse me, but no.

There are many people here, and they have a right to hear opposing views, and I have a duty to speak up and make an on the spot correction when needed.

It's fine to make corrections. But you made an ignorant assumption. I'm fully aware of "special circumstances". I didn't advocate that uniform regs are the Holy Grail of winning a war. You made the the assumption that I did. Which if you had read any of my post history, you would have known better. You made a judgement without knowing that.

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on September 21, 2007, 05:08:21 AMAnd the next time you make a disparaging remark to gain the morale high ground, I will follow up with the admins, regardless if they are your buddies or not.  Making a comment about my time is not only unwarranted, it is out of line.

Now I thought about sending this to you as a PM, but since you thought to chastise me in public, I thought I would return the favor.

Call it what you want, you've made your decision as to how you see it. Keep in mind your first response. You fired the first shot. I am guilty of continuing it. I'll admit that. Didn't intend to "take the moral high ground". But you don't have it either.

I'll let it go, and I apologize for escalating it. But I will not wholly accept blame.

Either way, this argument isn't relevant to the thread. It's best that we discontinue the debate.

Quote from: Hawk200 on September 19, 2007, 05:42:29 AM

Quote from: Recruiter on September 18, 2007, 05:37:06 PM
Yeah, and if they were a little more honest with each other, maybe would could get rid of the ultramarine blue nametapes, and get something that doesn't make people think we are full of it. Wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking indeed. I have noticed one thing about wishful thinking and dreams. In those little worlds, I get to have something my own way. 

Didn't CAP have the old Army style nametapes? I can't think of the word off hand, but for some reason, I keep picturing in my mind the old green nametapes with the black lettering.

Quote from: ♠☆Recruiter☆♠ on September 21, 2007, 03:32:52 PM

Quote from: Hawk200 on September 19, 2007, 05:42:29 AM

Quote from: Recruiter on September 18, 2007, 05:37:06 PM
Yeah, and if they were a little more honest with each other, maybe would could get rid of the ultramarine blue nametapes, and get something that doesn't make people think we are full of it. Wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking indeed. I have noticed one thing about wishful thinking and dreams. In those little worlds, I get to have something my own way. 

Didn't CAP have the old Army style nametapes? I can't think of the word off hand, but for some reason, I keep picturing in my mind the old green nametapes with the black lettering.

I don't think we ever did. I think that we've only ever had either white on green, or white on blue. As far as nametapes goes, we've been associated with the Air Force since 1948, which is well before most services even used nametapes on utility uniforms.

Of course, I've seen some people "unofficially" use subdued tapes. Not right, but it has been done.

There's no reason to have subdued nametapes.
Not now.
Not ten years ago.
Not ten years from now.
They can pry my white on ultramarine blue from my cold, dead fingers.

On the topic of FO.

Right now, I'm a nineteen year old Cadet Second Lieutenant. I live at home, and I commute to Stony Brook University every day. My squadron meets tuesday nights, and I very rarely have time to attend a meeting.

So this means that once or twice a month, I show up with Cadet insignia on, and don't really do much except plan some ES training classes. Thats patiently unfair to the Cadets of the staff.

So, in three weeks, I'm transfering to the SM grade, and in a few weeks or months I'll be wearing FO stripes.