Blue Beret and SAR ribbon

[Storm Chaser]

That's not what the KB answer said.

Per CAPR 39-3, personnel may be credited with one sortie for each 4 hours.  If a member performs hazardous ground duties for 4.1 hours they will receive credit for 1 sortie.  If they perform duties for less than 4 hours, they receive 0 sorties credit.

Credit for the ribbon requires a minimum of 4 hours, if I read this correctly.

[EMT-83]

KB answer is bogus. That's not what the regulation says.

Why does the KB even exist?

[Spaceman3750]

The good news is, the wing king approves that award so it's his discretion not NHQ until the Nat CC publishes guidance or changes the reg.

[Storm Chaser]

KB answer is bogus. That's not what the regulation says.

Why does the KB even exist?

That's exactly what the regulation says; KB just confirmed it. The fact that we don't like the answer doesn't make it less valid.

Ground personnel performing hazardous duties such as ground rescue or ground search, may be credited with one sortie for each 4 hours of actual participation, but not to exceed three sorties in any 24-hour period. (emphasis mine)

It doesn't say "one sortie for anything up to 4 hours", but for "each 4 hours".

[Spaceman3750]

My life was greatly simplified by deciding to not wear ribbons... This is just proof. If I was asked to or got a wild hair, I'd only wear the 3 most important to me - my comm comm, achievement award, and find.

[Eclipse]

That's not what the KB answer said.

Per CAPR 39-3, personnel may be credited with one sortie for each 4 hours.  If a member performs hazardous ground duties for 4.1 hours they will receive credit for 1 sortie.  If they perform duties for less than 4 hours, they receive 0 sorties credit.

Credit for the ribbon requires a minimum of 4 hours, if I read this correctly.

Where is the word "minimum"?

[JeffDG]

That's not what the KB answer said.

Per CAPR 39-3, personnel may be credited with one sortie for each 4 hours.  If a member performs hazardous ground duties for 4.1 hours they will receive credit for 1 sortie.  If they perform duties for less than 4 hours, they receive 0 sorties credit.

Credit for the ribbon requires a minimum of 4 hours, if I read this correctly.

Where is the word "minimum"?

It's clearly implied by the bold sentence.

[Eclipse]

That sentence is >not< in 60-3, and we have no idea who's "interpretation" this is.

What was sent in the KB is literally >not< what 39-3 says, and person writing that KB answer is just making it
up from whole cloth.

There is no "minimum 8 hours" for base staff, either. It is one per 8.  How many missions ever run 8 hours?

[JeffDG]

That sentence is >not< in 60-3, and we have no idea who's "interpretation" this is.

Not disagreeing with you there, but he was interpretting the KB answer.  The way the KB answer is phrased (whether you agree with it or not, if you read the answer for what it is), a 4 hour minimum is pretty clear.

That said, if 60-3 says something about credit for each 4 hours, that's not an unreasonable interpretation.  The traditional way to override that is to use the phrasing "4 hours or any portion thereof"

[Eclipse]

Which just emphasizes why the KB should quote regs only and not render opinions.

This just makes things worse.

That said, if 60-3 says something about credit for each 4 hours, that's not an unreasonable interpretation.  The traditional way to override that is to use the phrasing "4 hours or any portion thereof"

Agree.

One per distinct sortie is fair, or one for a specific time is fair, but you can't say the A/C's are wheels up and down, but
the Ground guys have a set time.

[Storm Chaser]

That's not what the KB answer said.

Per CAPR 39-3, personnel may be credited with one sortie for each 4 hours.  If a member performs hazardous ground duties for 4.1 hours they will receive credit for 1 sortie.  If they perform duties for less than 4 hours, they receive 0 sorties credit.

Credit for the ribbon requires a minimum of 4 hours, if I read this correctly.

Where is the word "minimum"?

Seriously? The KB answer says "If they perform duties for less than 4 hours, they receive 0 sorties credit." That's their clarification of CAPR 39-3's wording of "may be credited with one sortie for each 4 hours..." How else would you understand that answer?

[Storm Chaser]

That sentence is >not< in 60-3, and we have no idea who's "interpretation" this is.

What was sent in the KB is literally >not< what 39-3 says, and person writing that KB answer is just making it
up from whole cloth.

There is no "minimum 8 hours" for base staff, either. It is one per 8.  How many missions ever run 8 hours?

Now you're the one making things up. CAPR 39-3 clearly states that base support or staff functions "may be credited with one sortie for each 8 hours..." It doesn't say per 8 hours; that's your interpretation.

[Eclipse]

Seriously? The KB answer says "If they perform duties for less than 4 hours, they receive 0 sorties credit." That's their clarification of CAPR 39-3's wording of "may be credited with one sortie for each 4 hours..." How else would you understand that answer?

"They" don't get to "clarify" anything unless it's found in a reg.

Anything else requires the word "Commander" or "BOG" on your business card.

This answer has the same weight as this discussion - that's the ongoing problem with the KB. people
out side their authority making interpretations or sometimes answering based on their double-secret
knowledge of what might happen.

[Eclipse]

That sentence is >not< in 60-3, and we have no idea who's "interpretation" this is.

What was sent in the KB is literally >not< what 39-3 says, and person writing that KB answer is just making it
up from whole cloth.

There is no "minimum 8 hours" for base staff, either. It is one per 8.  How many missions ever run 8 hours?

Now you're the one making things up. CAPR 39-3 clearly states that base support or staff functions "may be credited with one sortie for each 8 hours..." It doesn't say per 8 hours; that's your interpretation.

I think we're agreeing.

[Storm Chaser]

Seriously? The KB answer says "If they perform duties for less than 4 hours, they receive 0 sorties credit." That's their clarification of CAPR 39-3's wording of "may be credited with one sortie for each 4 hours..." How else would you understand that answer?

"They" don't get to "clarify" anything unless it's found in a reg.

Fair enough. That said, the people answering these questions are subject matter experts at NHQ and should have the answers or, at least, know where to find them.

Anything else requires the word "Commander" or "BOG" on your business card.

I partially disagree with you here. First, the BoG is not involved in writing most CAP regulations, so I don't know how much clarification they would be able to provide, short of contacting the appropriate NHQ staff member for the answers. Second, the only "commander" that can provide a definite answer to any CAP regulation is the National Commander. Commanders at any other level would only be able to offer their interpretation, which would only be applicable to or enforceable in their particular headquarters and subordinate units.

This answer has the same weight as this discussion - that's the ongoing problem with the KB. people out side their authority making interpretations or sometimes answering based on their double-secret knowledge of what might happen.

Again, fair enough. Then again, when you offer your own interpretation of a regulation, you're usually very adamant that yours is the right one, even if many others disagree. Now, I recognize that you have a lot of experience and knowledge, but if I'm going to adhere to someone's interpretation of a regulation, who should that person be? A wing staff member from another wing? Or a NHQ staff member? No disrespect, but the NHQ staff member's clarification on a reg is going to carry more weight than that of a wing staff officer or director.

[EMT-83]

[Snip] Now, I recognize that you have a lot of experience and knowledge, but if I'm going to adhere to someone's interpretation of a regulation, who should that person be? A wing staff member from another wing? Or a NHQ staff member? No disrespect, but the NHQ staff member's clarification on a reg is going to carry more weight than that of a wing staff officer or director.

It shouldn't. An NHQ staff member is not within your chain of command. Their opinion on a regulation really doesn't carry any weight at all.

For what it's worth, I've had NHQ staff members give me answers seemingly out of thin air, not supported by any regulation.

[Storm Chaser]

[Snip] Now, I recognize that you have a lot of experience and knowledge, but if I'm going to adhere to someone's interpretation of a regulation, who should that person be? A wing staff member from another wing? Or a NHQ staff member? No disrespect, but the NHQ staff member's clarification on a reg is going to carry more weight than that of a wing staff officer or director.

It shouldn't. An NHQ staff member is not within your chain of command. Their opinion on a regulation really doesn't carry any weight at all.

For what it's worth, I've had NHQ staff members give me answers seemingly out of thin air, not supported by any regulation.

If the OPR of a regulation can't provide clarification on the text of such regulation, then we're really in trouble. We've had several experienced members, from different levels in the organization and multiple ratings and qualifications, come up with different interpretations of the text regarding the criteria for earning this ribbon. Who's right then? Who should we listen to? Everyone is reading the same regulation. If we want to get technical, then only the National Commander would be able to give definite guidance on a CAP regulation. While wing commanders can provide guidance within their wings (there are 52!), such guidance would only apply to their particular wings. And how many wing commanders have such guidance in writing? So what then? We leave it up to wing staff to decide what qualifies and what doesn't? How is that better than getting guidance from NHQ? The bottom line is that we have a ribbon that no one here knows for sure what's required to earn it. So instead of seeking guidance from NHQ, we'll leave it up to the 52 wings to decide how they want to interpret this regulation. Yes... that's better.

[a2capt]

.. and there is nothing wrong with said individuals showing interest, perhaps even attending classroom type training on these ratings, with the explicit understanding that no evaluation is going to take place until such a time when the member is eligible for the rating.

That said, if they pass their evaluation on day one of eligibility, then so be it, short of mission participations, there's nothing precluding knowledge transfer prior to reaching the age.

[Eclipse]

I'm pretty much in agreement here.

I speak with authority because I have relevent experience and knowledge of the topic.  As far as I'm concerned,
when I render an opinion, it's fact until otherwise disputed in a verifiable way.  Someone else's opinion or interpretation
isn't going to sway mine unless I've made a contextual error, or missed something.  That posture is
"confidence" when yo agree with me, and "arrogance" when you don't. 

Now, with that said, opinions have zero weight outside a person's authority, which is why its so funny
when people get wrapped around the axle.  Unless you happen to be a subordinate of mine in a respect
relevent to the topic, my opinion may help inform you or guide you, but it doesn't bind you.

Take the discussion about slicing up the Recruiter ribbon.  The answer, as far as I am concerned, is "no".
That "no" is not, in my opinion, "gray", based on the totality of the situation, and in my opinion to think
otherwise is ribbon trolling.  Since the text is silent on this, that's the answer within my sphere.
(A sphere, which for the time being is essentially zero.)  You're free to accept that, use it to inform your
own opinion, or ignore it completely, but until someone with more brass then me, and who has the authority
to make the decision says otherwise, it's decided. 

That goes for pretty much anything not in a properly approved regulation, pamphlet, or similar document.

An SME not in the chain rendering an opinion or interpretation has zero authority to be making those assertions.
They may be the most informed person on the topic, have insight into coming changes, and will be the "go to guy"
when a relevent commander needs an opinion, but until it's written and approved, it's just one opinion.
The same goes for the esteemed board members and national staff who participate here, or when you are speaking with
them face to face.

A huge problem with relying on the KB and/or staff in these cases is that in areas that are "gray", it is likely
gray on purpose, either by omission or commission.  In other words, no one wants to make some people sad,
so they choose to look the other way and "hope for the best".   I can't tell you how many times I have
sent a message to the KB as well as discussed the same issue with National staffers, only to get
conflicting answers form both sides, which then just makes things worse.

If my Wing CC directs me to "Ask the NHQ OPR on this and do what they say.",  then those are my marching orders.
Otherwise, it stays gray.

CAP has a very specific process for publishing and changing regulations, and despite the fact that in recent years
they have chosen to largely ignore that process and instead govern via ICL, etc., I think we'd all agree that CAPTalk, the KB, random staff,
or "over coffee with the BOG" are not on that list for "ways to update things".  It's that exact ting that
allows fiefdoms and the GOB network to continue to flourish - granting someone else power they do't actually
have because yo choose to abdicate the decision.

Lord, JeffDG, and others and I go toe-to-toe on minutia and gray areas, but in the end, it's all just talk since
we aren't in each other's AOR.  If we were, in either direction, healthy disagreements are fine, but ultimately
the person in the room with the highest-level Commander "Power Up" on their business card gets to make the decision.

And those people are effectively the only people who can issue directives, opinions, and change regulations.

[Storm Chaser]

Wing staff officers are >not< in the chain of command either and have no authority to establish policy or clarify any regulation beyond providing an opinion, even if informed.

"They" don't get to "clarify" anything unless it's found in a reg.

Anything else requires the word "Commander" or "BOG" on your business card.