Anyone know how this got started? I saw one of my cadets the other night at our meeting with a white-on-red "Ranger" tab above his Civil Air Patrol tape. I asked him where in 39-1 that is authorized, or where in a Wing supplement it is authorized. He told me it was a National supplement. I asked him to show it to me. Still waiting on his findings.
I just got done picking through 39-1 myself and I already know the answer. The only official device is the HMRS patch for wear on the BDU pocket. So why does this tab and its brothers and sisters continue to wander around CAP?
Brad,
Because NHQ won't stomp on PAWG or finally write a 39-1 that allows it.
There is no supplement - the only justification is 2 sentences from a 2006 NEC meeting that was never clarified or follow-up on as directed in the minutes from that meeting.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 14, 2012, 06:29:29 PMBecause NHQ won't stomp on PAWG or finally write a 39-1 that allows it.
:clap: :clap: (because we don't have a thumbs up smiley)
I honestly don't care either way. This is a prime example of the worst thing to do.
from CAP KNowledge Base:
Published 09/21/2006 07:10 AM | Updated 12/14/2011 06:28 AM | Answer ID: 1851
Q: Can a cadet that participated in Blue Beret (airshow) wear the beret at squadron meetings? Cadets came back from the national board and said there was a new policy.
A: Partially true. After discussion of several options, the August 2006 National Board approved the following: "All members that attend the Blue Beret and national Hawk Mountain training can wear any awarded items that go on the uniform or the head gear with their BDUs, blue or green." The board did not approve wear of these items with service uniforms.
See August 2006 National Board Minutes
AGENDA ITEM 19 Action
SUBJECT: New Business
4. ITEM: Wear of Blue Beret and Hawk Mountain Uniforms & Devices
COL FAGAN/MO MOVED AND COL LEVITCH/FL SECONDED that the National Board vote to allow wear of the Blue Beret and Hawk Mountain head gear by cadets and senior members on both the BDUs and dress uniform.
COL NELSON/CA MOVED TO AMEND AND COL OPLAND/DE SECONDED the amendment to allow wear of both activity head gear only on BDUs.
MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED
COL DAVIES/NATCAP MOVED TO AMEND AND COL FAGAN/MO SECONDED the amendment to allow wear of head gear at the discretion of wing commanders.
MOTION DID NOT PASS
MAJ GEN PINEDA RESTATED THE AMENDED MOTION: The members can wear the head gear that they get at Hawk Mountain and Blue Beret with their blue BDUs and green BDUs only.
COL LEVITCH/FL MOVED TO AMEND AND COL APPLEBAUM/PA SECONDED the amendment to allow the wear of any awarded items that go on the uniform or the head from Hawk Mountain and Blue Beret with BDUs only.
MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED
COL OPLAND/DE MOVED TO AMEND to allow wear of any distinctive head gear awarded at any national special cadet activities.
MOTION TO AMEND DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
ANOTHER RESTATEMENT OF THE AMENDED MOTION: All members that attend the Blue Beret and national Hawk Mountain training can wear any awarded items that go on the uniform or the head gear with their BDUs, blue or green.
AMENDED MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: National Headquarters implementation of policy, notification to the field and change to appropriate CAP regulations.
Seems while they Implemented the policy(knowledgebase) and notified the field(appropriate acivity-aka Hawk), they never updated the appropriate regs(CAPM39-1).
Neither the "policy", nor the "field" have been notified in any way.
The KB is not "policy" - it is simply quoting the meeting minutes. "HMRS" is not the "field".
Notifying the "field" would be an ICL with clarification. Updating the policy would be an ICL or a regulation change.
All we have is a decision at a meeting (by a body which does have the authority to make this decision), and not an official mention ever
since (5-1/2 years ago).
Even the KB answer is wishy-washy in it's description. It doesn't give a finite answer on what is authorized.
That's because there is no "finite answer" - the publication to the field, which never happened, should have contained the specifics, and without that,
it is amusing that people point to that one sentence as some sort of authorization or description.
Taken literally, one could assert that white laces, parade belts, grade insignia on ball caps, scarves, etc., are all "awarded" by HMRS and therefore authorized for wear.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 21, 2012, 04:16:10 PM
That's because there is no "finite answer" - the publication to the field, which never happened, should have contained the specifics, and without that,
it is amusing that people point to that one sentence as some sort of authorization or description.
Taken literally, one could assert that white laces, parade belts, grade insignia on ball caps, scarves, etc., are all "awarded" by HMRS and therefore authorized for wear.
Yes....thanks for pointing that out.
It is a shame there was no follow up after the 2006 decision by the National Board. The Air Force must approve the uniform items for wear on the Air Force style uniform; which includes the GBDU. To date, there has been no answer from the Air Force (that I'm aware of). So, except for the Blue Utility Uniform, ranger tabs are not allowed for wear. However, no one really cares except for CT posters.... ::)
Quote from: FW on January 21, 2012, 05:12:13 PM
It is a shame there was no follow up after the 2006 decision by the National Board. The Air Force must approve the uniform items for wear on the Air Force style uniform; which includes the GBDU. To date, there has been no answer from the Air Force (that I'm aware of). So, except for the Blue Utility Uniform, ranger tabs are not allowed for wear. However, no one really cares except for CT posters.... ::)
Has there been no answer from the Air Force because CAP never submitted the request in the first place? ???
Quote from: PHall on January 21, 2012, 05:47:10 PM
Quote from: FW on January 21, 2012, 05:12:13 PM
It is a shame there was no follow up after the 2006 decision by the National Board. The Air Force must approve the uniform items for wear on the Air Force style uniform; which includes the GBDU. To date, there has been no answer from the Air Force (that I'm aware of). So, except for the Blue Utility Uniform, ranger tabs are not allowed for wear. However, no one really cares except for CT posters.... ::)
Has there been no answer from the Air Force because CAP never submitted the request in the first place? ???
You know that is kind of a cop out. CAP-USAF sits right there in the same room with the NB and they most certainly get a copy of the minutes. Not to mention....it is not like CAP-USAF does not know what is going on.
One of my biggest greifs with CAP-USAF and uniforms.....is their continued silence. I wish they would just offically come out with their position and maybe weigh in on the subject.
An ask the commander type of question!
Quote from: Littleguy on January 21, 2012, 10:32:24 PM
An ask the commander type of question!
Watch, you'll get a KB answer back.
Quote from: HGjunkie on January 21, 2012, 10:33:47 PM
Quote from: Littleguy on January 21, 2012, 10:32:24 PM
An ask the commander type of question!
Watch, you'll get a KB answer back.
Then I will ask the president? I wouldn't know what to do, because that'd send me in a huge rage because that means that no one would know what is supposed to be happening!
Because of -past precedence- That's huge in the federal government and the military! The Hawkies have been wearing those Ranger tapes since the 1950s. For nigh upon 50 years, it's been authorized in Pennsylvania Wing and folks just assumed it was authorized for wear. Especially when Hawk Mountain touts how many CAP National Commanders have attended Hawk Mountain. Both Pineda and Courter were fans of Hawk Mountain. Besides, it's not like they're actually wearing the US Army Ranger tab like a dust-up they had back in the 1980s with the old Iowa Wing Winter Rangers.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 21, 2012, 05:56:01 PM
One of my biggest greifs with CAP-USAF and uniforms.....is their continued silence. I wish they would just offically come out with their position and maybe weigh in on the subject.
Not really fair.
The authority for CAP uniforms is with the CSAF, not CC, CAP-USAF.
As a practial matter, I suspect Gen Schwartz doesn't spend a lot of his time personally worrying about the issue, but the decisions are made much higher up the food chain than the O6 commander of CAP-USAF, currently Col Gloyd.
And Col Gloyd is a solid supporter of CAP. I'm confident that he shares his opinions and recommendations with his boss, but he is the lowest level commander in our chain.
I do agree that it would certainly help out uniform situation if there was a particular commander or staff officer at some level with ultimate resonsibility with whom we could "negotiate'" so to speak. Someone to whom we could address questions like "If we submit X, would you approve?" and get some sort of feedback. We do not yet have that ability. We simply submit our requests through CAP-USAF for their decision somewhere up the chain.
Quote from: Ned on January 22, 2012, 01:00:12 AM
I do agree that it would certainly help out uniform situation if there was a particular commander or staff officer at some level with ultimate resonsibility with whom we could "negotiate'" so to speak. Someone to whom we could address questions like "If we submit X, would you approve?" and get some sort of feedback. We do not yet have that ability.
It certainly would help.
It's no help to contact NHQ with a question and have them quote some vague answer from the KB which could have a very wide interpretation.
It can't hurt? Why NOT request it?
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on January 22, 2012, 01:17:50 AM
It can't hurt? Why NOT request it?
Because, for the past twenty years, there has been a mindset at NHQ of "request nothing of the AF because it will tick them off."
I know, but WHY?
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on January 22, 2012, 01:47:31 AM
I know, but WHY?
I suppose they're still so stung by what happened with the berry boards that they walk on eggshells whenever the issue of uniforms is concerned.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on January 22, 2012, 02:49:19 AM
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on January 22, 2012, 01:47:31 AM
I know, but WHY?
Search "Berry Boards".
Which, after
20 years, is a water-weak excuse. I would doubt that the bad-actors who precipitated that are even involved with CAP any more.
So a national commander promotes himself, we get berry boards, and then everyone in leadership is afraid for 20ish years? ::) ???
If we are requesting stuff, won't the USAF be happy we aren't going and just using what ever it is?
Besides, I bet you no one in power now remembers, knew, or cared about Harwell's second star.
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on January 22, 2012, 04:48:53 AM
So a national commander promotes himself, we get berry boards, and then everyone in leadership is afraid for 20ish years? ::) ???
20 years and counting. The CAP has gone grey faster than my hair.
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on January 22, 2012, 04:48:53 AM
If we are requesting stuff, won't the USAF be happy we aren't going and just using what ever it is?
I think if we request something it would get lost somewhere between CAP-USAF and the CSAF, but if we were to just "use" something you can bet they'd come down like the blade on Marie Antoinette's neck. To be fair, it
is their uniform, and they have final say on how it's to be used, though they don't seem to have a problem with several SDF air units wearing it virtually unaltered and outside the H/W prescriptions for CAP.
What boggles me is how the mindset extends to so-called "corporate" uniforms, even ones that would have 0% USAF content.
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on January 22, 2012, 04:48:53 AM
Besides, I bet you no one in power now remembers, knew, or cared about Harwell's second star.
They may not
personally know about it, but there are probably records on what happened with that, and whenever a uniform change issue comes up, someone at NHQ cites that and goes into Mr Bill "OH NOOOOOO!" mode.
Quote from: CyBorg on January 22, 2012, 01:19:21 AM
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on January 22, 2012, 01:17:50 AM
It can't hurt? Why NOT request it?
Because, for the past twenty years, there has been a mindset at NHQ of "request nothing of the AF because it will tick them off."
Really? This is getting old.
Quote from: EMT-83 on January 22, 2012, 02:02:19 PM
Really? This is getting old.
It is, but it's a cultural mindset that's in place, and shifting something like that is like moving Mount Everest.
Quote from: CyBorg on January 22, 2012, 01:51:26 PM
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on January 22, 2012, 04:48:53 AM
Besides, I bet you no one in power now remembers, knew, or cared about Harwell's second star.
They may not personally know about it, but there are probably records on what happened with that, and whenever a uniform change issue comes up, someone at NHQ cites that and goes into Mr Bill "OH NOOOOOO!" mode.
Yes, there are records on what happened back then. It wa basicly a feud between the SECAF and CSAF. The SECAF approved the promotion. The CSAF did not. The CSAF controlled the uniform and....
The main reason we do not have metal grade insignia on our service coats is due to a picture of a certain CAWG member who was allowed to wear it with an extra 100 lbs and brown cowboy boots. The CSAF at the time (Gen Foglesong) was quite explicit in his defense of wearing more distinctive grade insignia. And, as we all know from the many many posts on CapTalk, the proper wear of our uniform is not taken seriously (by many) in CAP. Until that changes, the Air Force is not going to "deal" with us.
Quote from: CyBorg on January 22, 2012, 02:06:42 PM
Quote from: EMT-83 on January 22, 2012, 02:02:19 PM
Really? This is getting old.
It is, but it's a cultural mindset that's in place, and shifting something like that is like moving Mount Everest.
As Ned would say, "Strong personal opinion noted."
Quote from: FW on January 22, 2012, 02:12:13 PM
Yes, there are records on what happened back then. It wa basicly a feud between the SECAF and CSAF. The SECAF approved the promotion. The CSAF did not. The CSAF controlled the uniform and....
The main reason we do not have metal grade insignia on our service coats is due to a picture of a certain CAWG member who was allowed to wear it with an extra 100 lbs and brown cowboy boots. The CSAF at the time (Gen Foglesong) was quite explicit in his defense of wearing more distinctive grade insignia. And, as we all know from the many many posts on CapTalk, the proper wear of our uniform is not taken seriously (by many) in CAP. Until that changes, the Air Force is not going to "deal" with us.
And who suffers because of this feud twenty-odd years ago?
Cowboy boots look just as goofy with berry boards or grey insignia as they do with metal grade.
Colonel, most of what I notice about the uniform not being taken "seriously" has to do with (lately at least) what kind of clothing is worn with BDU's. What on earth do we have to do to
be "taken seriously?" I think 20-odd years of being smoked for the actions of a few is quite enough.
So let me get this straight: Do I sew my "Ranger tab" above or below the American flag on my Campaign hat? I am so confused.....
Major Lord
Quote from: Major Lord on January 22, 2012, 02:54:29 PM
So let me get this straight: Do I sew my "Ranger tab" above or below the American flag on my Campaign hat? I am so confused.....
Major Lord
Really? REALLY?! The American flag goes on the right side of the campaign hat so that everyone knows that we're American. The Ranger tab goes above your metal grade (only subdued or Sta-Brite allowed). Then on the right your wing patch. On the back you need to sew your name tape just like your BDU cap. It's ranger rolled right? Because you're a ranger!
On ES missions the campaign hat is allowed but only if the reflective hat band is worn in lieu of the patent leather one, and a battery powered led flashing beacon is worn on top of the campaing hat (ie: http://www.emergencycity.com/Whelen_Super_Strobe_D_Series_Beacon_p/whs360d.htm (http://www.emergencycity.com/Whelen_Super_Strobe_D_Series_Beacon_p/whs360d.htm)). Also a clip on flashlight is allowed on the bill.
It's all in a supplement that was signed in the backroom of a Vietnamese butcher shop by a CAP General in full mess dress who had just recently promoted himself. The Vietnamese knew this and coaxed our leader into a no holds bared game of high stakes go fish with the berry boards and and campaign hat on the table. The Vietnamese were in a San Fransisco composite squadron and wanted to be done with the berry boards but needed the campaign hat. For safety.
The supplement is kept in a secret tomb guarded by the ghost of a WWII CAP member who sank a German submarine. You have to pass through a maze of obstacles aimed to stop the non-deserving CAP member. Only the deserving CAP member will pass.
Oh, Lord! Do NOT give CAP safety any ideas!!!
"The new corporate uniform will encompass red-white-and-blue bowling shoes, USAF blue bell-bottom trousers with matching gray leather belt and a white corporate ruffle tuxedo shirt with grey epaulets. The new head gear will be a marron fez with long gray tassel and sta-bright Bedazzling. The marron color emulates the maroon epaulettes from the 1990s."
OOPS! Meant -marroon-, not marron. Or maybe it's moron?
Maybe I AM CAP SAFETY! :o
Quote from: niferous on January 22, 2012, 04:25:24 PM
Maybe I AM CAP SAFETY! :o
If you are, then DOOM on you... >:D
It's bad on the AF side too. Stuff the troops want get shot down, stuff we don't want gets approved. And then there is the things that you scratch your head and go wth. It's never ending bs and is political as heck. Uniforms seem to be one of the biggest thorns I see in the organization.
Quote from: cpyahoo on January 22, 2012, 04:20:46 PM
OOPS! Meant -marroon-, not marron. Or maybe it's moron?
That is brown in french, describing the color of something that sums up our problems >:D
I'm still curious why the AF still has authority over a BDU uniform that they aren't wearing anymore... According to the web, the BDU's were phased out Nov. 1, 2011...
Because we're their Auxiliary ... and because it was an AF uniform not that long ago. 51 days or so. The ink isn't even dry yet.
Quote from: a2capt on January 22, 2012, 07:01:35 PM
Because we're their Auxiliary ...
Only part of the time. :(
Quote from: CyBorg on January 23, 2012, 01:46:35 AM
Quote from: a2capt on January 22, 2012, 07:01:35 PM
Because we're their Auxiliary ...
Only part of the time. :(
100% of the time...kind of...
There is always an AF mission going on someplace in the US of A, so.... Aux on
>:D
Quote from: GoneAway on January 22, 2012, 06:08:11 PM
I'm still curious why the AF still has authority over a BDU uniform that they aren't wearing anymore... According to the web, the BDU's were phased out Nov. 1, 2011...
A) Because the AFI's that define our relationship say the USAF controls our uniforms.
2) Word from NB members is that NHQ has yet to submit a formal request to retire, replace, or augment the woodland BDU's.
C) There are still US military and uniformed services wearing woodland camo patterned BDU's (Navy and USPHSCC).
4) Because the AFI's that define our relationship say the USAF controls our uniforms.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 23, 2012, 01:58:14 AM
Quote from: GoneAway on January 22, 2012, 06:08:11 PM
I'm still curious why the AF still has authority over a BDU uniform that they aren't wearing anymore... According to the web, the BDU's were phased out Nov. 1, 2011...
A) Because the AFI's that define our relationship say the USAF controls our uniforms.
2) Word from NB members is that NHQ has yet to submit a formal request to retire, replace, or augment the woodland BDU's.
C) There are still US military and uniformed services wearing woodland camo patterned BDU's (Navy and USPS).
4) Because the AFI's that define our relationship say the USAF controls our uniforms.
The United States Postal Service wears BDU's? That is incredible! I think they can use them, after all those dogs are viscious!
I kid, I kid
Usually, we'll wear the "old uniform" 5 years or so after the USAF phases them out. That's because they are still plentiful in DRMO. Once the system is empty (or nearly empty), then the Air Force is pretty much "forced" to allow us to transition to the current uniform. Most of the distributors have exhausted their stocks and stopped making the uniforms. Rate things are going, we'll be in the ABUs sooner than later. All 4 branched of the military are seriously considering changing over to the Multi-cams. Maybe CAP should make a pre-emptive move and go to the Multi-cams??? LOL
Quote from: Littleguy on January 23, 2012, 02:07:21 AM
The United States Postal Service wears BDU's? That is incredible! I think they can use them, after all those dogs are viscious! I kid, I kid
Corrected...
Quote from: cpyahoo on January 23, 2012, 02:09:00 AM
All 4 branched of the military are seriously considering changing over to the Multi-cams. Maybe CAP should make a pre-emptive move and go to the Multi-cams??? LOL
As some have said cite please? There has been not even a rumor of these through out the channels that I get my intel from on this. Multi-Cam is more expensive than the other materials. And per CMSAF last year ABUs were going to be around for awhile, with the introduction of a lighter version for all in the future. And the only USPS folks I ever saw wearing BDUs were the mil folks doing it as a special duty.
Quote from: cpyahoo on January 23, 2012, 02:09:00 AM
Usually, we'll wear the "old uniform" 5 years or so after the USAF phases them out. That's because they are still plentiful in DRMO. Once the system is empty (or nearly empty), then the Air Force is pretty much "forced" to allow us to transition to the current uniform. Most of the distributors have exhausted their stocks and stopped making the uniforms. Rate things are going, we'll be in the ABUs sooner than later. All 4 branched of the military are seriously considering changing over to the Multi-cams. Maybe CAP should make a pre-emptive move and go to the Multi-cams??? LOL
Not true. Some of our past uniform changes took place at the same time the Air Force was making the change.
Our change from the tan 1505's to the blue shirt (1550's) service uniform happened at the same time the Air Force did it and the switch from green fatigues to the BDU happened at the same time the Air Force was making the switch too.
The change from the BDU to the ABU is the first time, in my memory, that we haven't made the switch at about the same time the Air Force did.
There all sorts of news reports last year about DOD, GAO, and congressional study of a combined field uniform.
Oh... kinda like when all the US Armed Forces went to woodland BDUs because "it was cheaper"?
Studies do not a decision make. IMO I think the powers to be should get the hot items taken care of first before wasting the time and money on uniform studies.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 23, 2012, 02:21:15 AM
Quote from: Littleguy on January 23, 2012, 02:07:21 AM
The United States Postal Service wears BDU's? That is incredible! I think they can use them, after all those dogs are viscious! I kid, I kid
Corrected...
I knew what you meant, and have done it that way before MANY times. I just like joking.
Quote from: Littleguy on January 23, 2012, 02:50:19 AM
I knew what you meant, and have done it that way before MANY times. I just like joking.
To live by the sword is to die by the sword!
Quote from: cpyahoo on January 23, 2012, 02:09:00 AM
All 4 branched of the military are seriously considering changing over to the Multi-cams.
There are five branches of the military. 8)
Quote from: cpyahoo on January 23, 2012, 02:09:00 AM
Maybe CAP should make a pre-emptive move and go to the Multi-cams??? LOL
It would be better to ask the AF to make the BDU a CAP-distinctive uniform.
Quote from: CyBorg on January 22, 2012, 02:20:42 PM
Colonel, most of what I notice about the uniform not being taken "seriously" has to do with (lately at least) what kind of clothing is worn with BDU's. What on earth do we have to do to be "taken seriously?" I think 20-odd years of being smoked for the actions of a few is quite enough.
Maybe when we stop appointing members to high positions who are not proud to wear the uniform correctly, can we get a more positive "response" from the Air Force. I really don't have a better answer. Culture change starts at the top. As with anything else, members only follow what happens from above.
BTW; I never wore a ranger tab on my BDUs.... ;)
Quote from: FW on January 23, 2012, 05:08:07 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on January 22, 2012, 02:20:42 PM
Colonel, most of what I notice about the uniform not being taken "seriously" has to do with (lately at least) what kind of clothing is worn with BDU's. What on earth do we have to do to be "taken seriously?" I think 20-odd years of being smoked for the actions of a few is quite enough.
Maybe when we stop appointing members to high positions who are not proud to wear the uniform correctly, can we get a more positive "response" from the Air Force. I really don't have a better answer. Culture change starts at the top. As with anything else, members only follow what happens from above.
BTW; I never wore a ranger tab on my BDUs.... ;)
And see where that got you??? >:D
Quote from: FW on January 23, 2012, 05:08:07 PM
Maybe when we stop appointing members to high positions who are not proud to wear the uniform correctly, can we get a more positive "response" from the Air Force. I really don't have a better answer. Culture change starts at the top. As with anything else, members only follow what happens from above.
Are we getting smoked on that because of the past National Commander whose one good achievement for CAP was the design of a truly attractive and well-liked CAP uniform, which was besmirched by the way he "introduced" it? Is that going to be another 20-year (and counting) punishment the way the withdrawal of metal grade and blue epaulettes was?
Truly, though, how can we be expected to make the changes in culture you talk about when we don't know what the AF expects of us viz. wear of the AF uniform? We speculate about such things
ad nauseam on CT, but has anyone actually
asked, in a respectful manner, what those terms and conditions are/would be?
My questions to the AF would be:
1. What could we have done better with the CSU?
2. Can we get a modification to the H/W standards to take body fat % into account, as the AF, ANG and AFRES do?
3. Why are State Defence Forces allowed to wear your uniform virtually unaltered, when we have to go out of the way to be "distinctive?"
4. Why does the only acceptable colour for CAP seem to be grey?
5. What would we have to do to merit the return of the privilege of wearing blue epaulettes (with "CAP" embroidery) and metal grade (with CAP cutouts)?
I don't imagine that anyone higher up the food chain than me is willing to ask those questions.
I would submit them myself if it didn't almost guarantee a 2B somewhere along the line.
Heres my take on ABU'S
1. Too expensive
2. BLue BDU'S ARE CHEAPER (this miht be the only option after wood land).
My take on Ranger Tabs:
1. Good for you if you earned it(not an easy school)
2. Looks awful on the uniform(wear the HMRS patch)
3. Dont like the term Ranger(I think forest or US ARMY)
Just my two cents!
Yeah,
Too bad they don't have an "Ask the CAP-USAF Commander" function...
Quote from: Al Sayre on January 23, 2012, 06:48:39 PM
Yeah,
Too bad they don't have an "Ask the CAP-USAF Commander" function...
Remember, the CAP-USAF commander's opinion is not very helpful one way or another.
I really think you guys are "over-thinking" this whole subject.
There is really nothing to suggest that anyone in the current USAF structure is holding a grudge, remembers incident X or incident Y, or even really cares much one way or another at this point. As others have pointed out, there is no one in the AF that was even around when we changed from blue to maroon to grey on our shoulder marks. And certainly no one that remembers when we had metal grade directly on the shirt/jacket.
It is unrealistic and more than a little narcisisstic to think that as senior AF staffers transfer or retire that they buttonhole their replacement to pass along legends and lore in an effort to sabotage any reasonable requests made by CAP.
What happens is what happens in any large organization - when we are ready to make a request, we prepare a packet with our requests and justifications (a significant undertaking). Then each level of AF hierarchy makes their honest and good-faith recommendations until it reaches the final decsion-maker who makes the call in the name of the CSAF.
After the National Uniform Committee makes its recommendations to the NB next summer in Baltimore, the NB will decide what, if any, requests to make concering our uniforms. The NB has the authority to request (or not) ABUs, changes to service dress insignia, and/or changes to our corporate uniform set-up, etc.
Staff will then create the packet for approval, and it will then go forward through USAF channels.
And then things will either change a little, a lot, or not at all.
But nothing is going to happen unless and until the NB decides to request one or more changes to our uniforms. And that cannot happen until next fall at the earliest. Given how decisions are made in CAP and the USAF, my guess is that there will be no significant changes for a least a year, and maybe longer.
But we can and will continue to debate it endlessly here. Because for most CAPTalkers - judging by the numbers of threads and posts - what we wear is far more important than what we do.
Quote from: CyBorg on January 23, 2012, 06:14:29 PM
Quote from: FW on January 23, 2012, 05:08:07 PM
Maybe when we stop appointing members to high positions who are not proud to wear the uniform correctly, can we get a more positive "response" from the Air Force. I really don't have a better answer. Culture change starts at the top. As with anything else, members only follow what happens from above.
Are we getting smoked on that because of the past National Commander whose one good achievement for CAP was the design of a truly attractive and well-liked CAP uniform, which was besmirched by the way he "introduced" it? Is that going to be another 20-year (and counting) punishment the way the withdrawal of metal grade and blue epaulettes was?
Truly, though, how can we be expected to make the changes in culture you talk about when we don't know what the AF expects of us viz. wear of the AF uniform? We speculate about such things ad nauseam on CT, but has anyone actually asked, in a respectful manner, what those terms and conditions are/would be?
I don't imagine that anyone higher up the food chain than me is willing to ask those questions.
I would submit them myself if it didn't almost guarantee a 2B somewhere along the line.
Our uniform "issues" with the Air Force predate the removed past National Commander. This has to do with members across the country who refuse to wear the Air Force uniform correctly. It has to do with AF inspection teams constantly complaining of CAP's unwillingness to enforce the proper wear of the uniform. It has nothing to do with the CSU and, I'm pretty sure, the wear of ranger tabs on the BDU.
Now, why the Air Force has not commented on the 2006 request by the CAP is unkown to me. ::)
Quote from: RogueLeader on January 23, 2012, 05:12:23 PM
BTW; I never wore a ranger tab on my BDUs.... ;)
And see where that got you??? >:D
Yep... ;D
Quote from: FW on January 23, 2012, 07:26:56 PM
Our uniform "issues" with the Air Force predate the removed past National Commander. This has to do with members across the country who refuse to wear the Air Force uniform correctly. It has to do with AF inspection teams constantly complaining of CAP's unwillingness to enforce the proper wear of the uniform.
How endemic is this? I have not noticed it in my unit, and since we meet on an ANG installation I'm sure we'd be corrected sharpish for any impropriety.
Quote from: CyBorg on January 24, 2012, 09:40:34 PM
Quote from: FW on January 23, 2012, 07:26:56 PM
Our uniform "issues" with the Air Force predate the removed past National Commander. This has to do with members across the country who refuse to wear the Air Force uniform correctly. It has to do with AF inspection teams constantly complaining of CAP's unwillingness to enforce the proper wear of the uniform.
How endemic is this? I have not noticed it in my unit, and since we meet on an ANG installation I'm sure we'd be corrected sharpish for any impropriety.
Go observe a SAREVAL sometime. Don't wear a uniform or anything to give you away as an "observer".
You'll see plenty of uniform violations. ::)
^ Yes, and in some cases it'll be the evaluators who are violating their regs. Not to mention that it's pretty hard to get a flightsuit wrong,
which is what a lot of USAF people wear 24x7 regardless of their actual duty.
Until "Blues Mondays" started a couple years ago, a lot of reservists didn't even own blues that fit, and fewer still owned a service coat.
On more than one occasion I have provided guidance to someone in the USAF on configuring their uniform because it had been so long
since they wore it they had no idea where things went.
CAP has reaped what it has sown in regards to uniforms. This last weekend I saw a Unit Commander wearing a plastic cadet nameplate on his service coat. Yes, a unit commander. It was pointed out immediately, but how long had that been going on with no one making an issue of it?
The root cause is that lack of the requirement of uniformity in our dress ("Just wear whatever you have..."), coupled with a lack of consistent basic training,
and out of date, self-conflicting regulations. That's not an excuse, but it is the reason.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 25, 2012, 04:01:33 AM
^ Yes, and in some cases it'll be the evaluators who are violating their regs. Not to mention that it's pretty hard to get a flightsuit wrong,
which is what a lot of USAF people wear 24x7 regardless of their actual duty.
CAP has reaped what it has sown in regards to uniforms. This last weekend I saw a Unit Commander wearing a plastic cadet nameplate on his service coat. Yes, a unit commander. It was pointed out immediately, but how long had that been going on with no making an issue of it?
The root cause is that lack of the requirement of uniformity in our dress ("Just wear whatever you have..."), coupled with a lack of consistent basic training,
and out of date, self-conflicting regulations. That's not an excuse, but it is the reason.
And a lack of regulatory enforcement...
Rules are fine, but must be enforced to make any difference. When you have a SM who for YEARS has worn the uniform wrong, they are not going to change without outside force. That outside force has to come from up the chain of command. If up the chain of command you have people in positions of authority who do not wear THEIR uniform correct then............
Agreed.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 25, 2012, 04:01:33 AMUntil "Blues Mondays" started a couple years ago, a lot of reservists didn't even own blues that fit, and fewer still owned a service coat.
On more than one occasion I have provided guidance to someone in the USAF on configuring their uniform because it had been so long
since they wore it they had no idea where things went.
We normally wore blues (Service Dress) maybe about once a year when I was in the Reserve. And there were a number of years where I didn't wear blues at all.
Being a flying unit we pretty much wore flight suits all of the time. The maintenance guys pretty much wore their BDU's all of the time too.
Blues were something you wore for a Airman/NCO/Senior NCO of the Quarter Board and stuff like that.
People knew I was in CAP and I was considered to be a "uniform expert" because of that. :o
What Eclipse said is true.
I've lost count of the number of times I saw AF personnel (usually, not exclusively, in BDU's) at an eval with uniform violations (mostly H/W) that would have got a CAP member thrown under the bus (or undercart).
I've always been very reluctant to say anything to them...after all, they're the Air Force, and I don't want any appearance of a CAP officer trying to give orders to an AF NCO.
It is hard to screw up a flightsuit, that is true, but I've seen it done. At one training mission I attended, one of my classmates was a former Marine AV-8 Harrier pilot (I would assume so, anyway). He had this on his right arm:
(http://www.navalaviation.com/assets/product_images/PAAAAAHHGEHLIOPN.jpg)
I thought "should I say something?" but then thought "no, if he learned to fly Harriers in the Marines he's done a lot more than I ever will."
I thought the AF taped and therefore doesn't have a H/W standard like we do?
We do tape but that is more along the lines of assessing your physical fitness level than anything. Give me a little bit and I will see if I can find something on height/weight.
Quote from: abdsp51 on January 25, 2012, 03:04:04 PM
We do tape but that is more along the lines of assessing your physical fitness level than anything. Give me a little bit and I will see if I can find something on height/weight.
I'll save you the effort, there is nothing about height/weight anymore.
You do have the waist measurement which is part of the PFT. If your waist measurement exceeds 38 inches it's an automatic fail for the entire PFT.
Even if you passed all of the other areas... (1-1/2 mile run, push ups, sit ups)
The 38 inch measurement is for males, I don't know what the female measurement is. Didn't need to know it since I am a male. ;)
Quote from: PHall on January 26, 2012, 02:12:46 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on January 25, 2012, 03:04:04 PM
We do tape but that is more along the lines of assessing your physical fitness level than anything. Give me a little bit and I will see if I can find something on height/weight.
I'll save you the effort, there is nothing about height/weight anymore.
You do have the waist measurement which is part of the PFT. If your waist measurement exceeds 38 inches it's an automatic fail for the entire PFT.
Even if you passed all of the other areas... (1-1/2 mile run, push ups, sit ups)
The 38 inch measurement is for males, I don't know what the female measurement is. Didn't need to know it since I am a male. ;)
Change that again...got told over the drill rweekend that its back to the previous version....overall passing score; irregardless of subsection scoring.
regarding flight suits: as a previous flyer there are (especially in the reserve components) some people pushing maxiumum density but, flight suits are one of those things that have to be spot on; either you look realy good in one or you dont, there is no middle ground.
mk
Just got through reviewing the change memo that came out and there was nothingin there about back to overall score. There are height and weight requirements for entry though.
*looking around* I thought this thread was about the Hawk Mountain Ranger tape?
Quote from: cpyahoo on January 30, 2012, 03:11:15 AM
*looking around* I thought this thread was about the Hawk Mountain Ranger tape?
You thought wrong... >:D
Re: USAF Height/Weight Standards for Uniform Wear
The PFT is certainly a far stricter force thinner than Height/Weight standards are. Over the last quarter my base alone shed 40 people for failure to pass the PFT. You can bet quite a few of them were well within 'height/weight' standards.
Phil Hall: look at page one and see that the original question concerned a "white on red" Ranger tab. As far as I know, from 34 years of Army service, the Ranger tab never consisted of those colors. I think that the tab originally was yellow on black and most of them are subdued black on whatever color of field uniform is being worn at the time.
Therefore, this thread does seem to be about the Hawk Mt Ranger Tab, although it has gotten off track to the point of nobody remembering what caused it in the first place.
WHO dares to take a uniform thread off track????????
Quote from: bosshawk on January 31, 2012, 02:24:01 AM
Phil Hall: look at page one and see that the original question concerned a "white on red" Ranger tab. As far as I know, from 34 years of Army service, the Ranger tab never consisted of those colors. I think that the tab originally was yellow on black and most of them are subdued black on whatever color of field uniform is being worn at the time.
Therefore, this thread does seem to be about the Hawk Mt Ranger Tab, although it has gotten off track to the point of nobody remembering what caused it in the first place.
I think the first page or two actually talked about the Hawk Mtn "Ranger" patches. Then the thread drifted like they always do and turned into "just another uniform thread". Like they always do...
Quote from: PHall on January 31, 2012, 03:52:16 AM
Quote from: bosshawk on January 31, 2012, 02:24:01 AM
Phil Hall: look at page one and see that the original question concerned a "white on red" Ranger tab. As far as I know, from 34 years of Army service, the Ranger tab never consisted of those colors. I think that the tab originally was yellow on black and most of them are subdued black on whatever color of field uniform is being worn at the time.
Therefore, this thread does seem to be about the Hawk Mt Ranger Tab, although it has gotten off track to the point of nobody remembering what caused it in the first place.
I think the first page or two actually talked about the Hawk Mtn "Ranger" patches. Then the thread drifted like they always do and turned into "just another uniform thread". Like they always do...
If the uniform reg isn't updated to reflect the changes made at a National Board meeting, I sure wish someone would come up with a policy letter or the like that shows all these special uniform things if only to catalog everything and show what, if anything is allowed on the uniform after a person leaves the activity.
In the case of NBB, I never realized there were so many different beret flashes and patches. In the case of Hawk Mountain, I'm of that era when there was actually a set of wings issued to graduates.
I realize a lot of that stuff isn't awarded anymore, and I can't fault the individual for wanting to wear it, but it only causes problems when that person returns to the unit and it is only bling with no real ES-related value..
Quote from: flyboy1 on January 31, 2012, 08:13:31 AM
I realize a lot of that stuff isn't awarded anymore, and I can't fault the individual for wanting to wear it, but it only causes problems when that person returns to the unit and it is only bling with no real ES-related value..
Does it
have to be ES-related to have value to CAP?
I have a Master rating in Administration, which has very little to do with ES. Is that of little value, or of less value than my Observer wings?
I think one problem in the organisation is that too many people are "all ES, all the time," orientated.
Icve noticed that alot. I can teach skills that would be crucial to ES but I do not want to be heavily ingolved with ES.
Iam proud of my ranger tap, I earned it. Hooah!
Quote from: CyBorg on January 31, 2012, 05:41:19 PMI think one problem in the organisation is that too many people are "all ES, all the time," orientated.
We have too many people who choose one "thing" to the ignorance of anything else, and sometimes wear that ignorance as if it
were something to be proud of. Our three missions have interdependence - none of them stand alone - and it would be difficult
to accomplish any one of them fully, as an organization, without the other two.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 30, 2012, 09:11:07 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on January 31, 2012, 05:41:19 PMI think one problem in the organisation is that too many people are "all ES, all the time," orientated.
We have too many people who choose one "thing" to the ignorance of anything else, and sometimes wear that ignorance as if it
were something to be proud of. Our three missions have interdependence - none of them stand alone - and it would be difficult
to accomplish any one of them fully, as an organization, without the other two.
I wonder in what world you live that you think that is really true.
Almost no one in CAP does the external AE program that I am aware of.
Also there are many many many senior squadrons that do a very good job with out seeing a single cadet.
And there are many cadet programs that do not do ES at all.
Now I know that you are saying we all aught to do all three missions....and that is a good thing.....but to say that ES id dependant on the CP or AE program is just assinine.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 30, 2012, 09:30:45 PMbut to say that ES id dependant on the CP or AE program is just
Let me say that I have argued for years that AE as an independent "mission" is a red herring (assuming I'm using that term properly), because the majority of the
goals of the AE side of the house are actually accomplished, whether by accident or by design, through the CP and ES.
My response was more aimed at those who believe ES is extraneous to the rest of CAP, not vice-versa, but they are all interdependent.
Without ES there are no airplanes, so any part of the CP or AE which requires airplanes is essentially gone. The USAF is not going to fund
the largest private fleet of aircraft in the world to provide O-Rides to cadets.
Without airplanes there would be far fewer pilots and others related to aircraft who would be interested in participating.
Without the CP, ES would lose 1/3 of its resources overnight, while further, the CP provides the discipline and focus absent in the
average 12 year old which allows them to participate in the first place. Without the CP, ES would essentially have to ramp-up
a similar program just to be able to herd the cats.
Any unit not involved with ES or AE is not accomplishing the mission, period.
Any senior squadron that never comes in contact with cadets is not accomplishing the mission, period.
Compartmentalized success is irrelevant to the point - they are treating CAP like a menu, which is not how its supposed to work,
and is part and parcel of the problem.
Everyone is dependent on the administration of the organization, as well as all the things which are necessary to train and qualify people.
We have far too many people who seem to look down on the finance, admin, and personnel people just because they don't wear an operational
badge, or don't work with cadets.
Etc., etc.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 30, 2012, 10:03:33 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 30, 2012, 09:30:45 PMbut to say that ES id dependant on the CP or AE program is just
Let me say that I have argued for years that AE as an independent "mission" is a red herring (assuming I'm using that term properly), because the majority of the goals of the AE side of the house are actually accomplished, whether by accident or by design, through the CP and ES.
My response was more aimed at those who believe ES is extraneous to the rest of CAP, not vice-versa, but they are all interdependent.
Without ES there are no airplanes, so any part of the CP or AE which requires airplanes is essentially gone. The USAF is not going to fund
the largest private fleet of aircraft in the world to provide O-Rides to cadets.
O-rides is not even a required part of our CP. I don't know of any cadet who has ever completed all 10 of their o-rides. The CP would continue just find without planes.
QuoteWithout airplanes there would be far fewer pilots and others related to aircraft who would be interested in participating.
Well....duhhh.
QuoteWithout the CP, ES would lose 1/3 of its resources overnight, while further, the CP provides the discipline and focus absent in the
average 12 year old which allows them to participate in the first place. Without the CP, ES would essentially have to ramp-up
a similar program just to be able to herd the cats.
I don't know about that. I know in my neck of the woods cadets make up only a very small part of ES.
QuoteAny unit not involved with ES or AE is not accomplishing the mission, period.
So you assert......But you are wrong.....Overseas squadrons are forbidden to do ES..........so there you go.
QuoteAny senior squadron that never comes in contact with cadets is not accomplishing the mission, period.
Again so you assert....but the facts say differently.
QuoteCompartmentalized success is irrelevant to the point - they are treating CAP like a menu, which is not how its supposed to work,
and is part and parcel of the problem.
Again....so you assert....if that is not how is is supposed to work....why does NHQ, region, wing, group not do something about all those cadet squadrons with no ES program or all those Senior squadrons with no contact with cadets?
QuoteEveryone is dependent on the administration of the organization, as well as all the things which are necessary to train and qualify people.
We have far too many people who seem to look down on the finance, admin, and personnel people just because they don't wear an operational
badge, or don't work with cadets.
Everyone in the USAF is there so that we can win air superioirty.....fly, flight and win! But you know in all my 22 years in the USAF I never dropped a single bomb! CAP has three missions....ES, CP, AE (in no particular order)....but each squadron is free to choose where they are going to focus.....and that is right.......some squadrons are not manned, trained or equiped to do all three missions. So they should pick one and focus on that.
In a perfect world we would all have 200 member squadrons with 2 airplanes each, three vans, full GT gear and full mission base equipment. We whould have dynamic and effective public speakers who can go out into the community and do the full exteran AE thing, we would have dedicated and engaged ES managers who have made full contact with the local ES agencies and got full buy in and full cooperations.
but let's face it....most squadrons have 30 members half of them are cadets under the age of 16. We can't even get these guys to wear the uniform right!
Saying that they are failures because they are only focusing on one of the three missions is not helping your position.
Etc., etc.
[/quote]
Quote from: JThemann on May 01, 2012, 11:05:21 PM
Quote from: RangerLazaro on April 30, 2012, 08:40:53 PM
I am proud of my ranger tab, I earned it. Hooah!
What?
Ranger school is what? 12 weeks? 70% Wash out rate? I'd be proud too.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 01, 2012, 11:16:15 PM
Quote from: JThemann on May 01, 2012, 11:05:21 PM
Quote from: RangerLazaro on April 30, 2012, 08:40:53 PM
I am proud of my ranger tab, I earned it. Hooah!
What?
Ranger school is what? 12 weeks? 70% Wash out rate? I'd be proud too.
I'm not sure that's the type of Ranger that was intended....
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 01, 2012, 11:16:15 PM
Quote from: JThemann on May 01, 2012, 11:05:21 PM
Quote from: RangerLazaro on April 30, 2012, 08:40:53 PM
I am proud of my ranger tab, I earned it. Hooah!
What?
Ranger school is what? 12 weeks? 70% Wash out rate? I'd be proud too.
I don't think the wash out rate is quite that high.....it is an army school after all..... ;D
His profile indicates that he is 14 so that pretty much rules out being a Ranger.
Quote from: 754837 on May 02, 2012, 12:49:29 AM
His profile indicates that he is 14 so that pretty much rules out being a Ranger.
It rules out him being an U.S. Army Ranger.....but there are many other types of rangers.
True - but it rules out the real ones. He is not a game ranger, a park ranger or a forest ranger!
Quote from: 754837 on May 02, 2012, 01:13:19 AM
True - but it rules out the real ones. He is not a game ranger, a park ranger or a forest ranger!
None of those are real rangers? Are they cheap knockoffs made in china?
Sure they are real but there are not 14 year old park, game or forest rangers.
Quote from: 754837 on May 02, 2012, 01:17:15 AM
There are not 14 year old park, game or forest rangers.
No....there are CAP rangers though.
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on May 02, 2012, 01:15:57 AM
Quote from: 754837 on May 02, 2012, 01:13:19 AM
True - but it rules out the real ones. He is not a game ranger, a park ranger or a forest ranger!
None of those are real rangers? Are they cheap knockoffs made in china?
I like how you throw out that "REAL" in there. I am sure that park rangers, Texas Rangers, and CAP Rangers may take offense.
I only challenge CAP rangers. The others are legit.
From what I have learned from CAPTALK is the Hawk Mountain people pretty much do what they want outside of regulations - that is very anti-ranger.
A ranger is
1a : the keeper of a British royal park or forest
b : forest ranger
2: one that ranges
3a : one of a body of organized armed men who range over a region especially to enforce the law b : a soldier specially trained in close-range fighting and in raiding tactics
Quote from: 754837 on May 02, 2012, 01:25:10 AM
I only challenge CAP rangers. The others are legit.
From what I have learned from CAPTALK is the Hawk Mountain people pretty much do what they want outside of regulations - that is very anti-ranger.
A ranger is
1a : the keeper of a British royal park or forest
b : forest ranger
2: one that ranges
3a : one of a body of organized armed men who range over a region especially to enforce the law b : a soldier specially trained in close-range fighting and in raiding tactics
There is a lot more to an Army Ranger than that, I was not a Ranger, but I was trained and proficient in close quarters combat and raiding tactics. An Army Ranger is an elite disciplined soldier who is proficient in every aspect of his battalion as a whole, he is expected to be able to fill any role and fit any shoe that is thrust upon him. He is expected to have a courage like no other.
Now I was Light Infantry, I was highly trained and proficient in every task, I was expected to be able to fill any shoe in the battalion, but I was not a Ranger. I was highly motivated, and we were expected to be elite. We were the 506, we were expected to be the best, we were held to a higher standard because of our image that was displayed to the public, we are one of the best known and most recognized brigades in the military, we could not waive in dire circumstances. So is a Ranger really better or held to a higher standard than some Infantry units? NO, they are the same as every one else fighting and dying for our country. I know plenty of Rangers who admit and tell others that they are not better than the Infantry, they have just had the opportunity to show the Army that they are good at what they do.
If you have had the chance to prove that you are good at what you do, then wear your Ranger flash, it's not a tab, tabs have an arch, and wear it with pride, you have earned it. But don't be an exploitive deleted, because it makes you and exploited deleted, and no one pays attention to an exploitive deleted, you become deleted.
Number 1: I love how the post was from JANUARY and it just picked back up...
Number 2: I have met 1 (one) decent HMRS cadet who didn't have ranger on the brain
Number 3: What the heck is an exploitive? it sounds dangerous...
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on May 02, 2012, 01:45:33 AMBut don't be an exploitive deleted, because it makes you and exploited deleted, and no one pays attention to an exploitive deleted, you become deleted.
>:D
Quote from: commando1 on May 02, 2012, 03:27:36 AM
Number 1: I love how the post was from JANUARY and it just picked back up...
Number 2: I have met 1 (one) decent HMRS cadet who didn't have ranger on the brain
Number 3: What the heck is an exploitive? it sounds dangerous...Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on May 02, 2012, 01:45:33 AMBut don't be an exploitive deleted, because it makes you and exploited deleted, and no one pays attention to an exploitive deleted, you become deleted.
>:D
In this case it refers to a cuss word that I wasn't going to say on CAPT so I wrote down deleted.
Oh, then you must have meant "expletive". >:D
Quote from: SarDragon on May 02, 2012, 08:24:06 AM
Oh, then you must have meant "expletive". >:D
Yes, I can't get my iPhone to accept exploitive.... See?
Is it worse to be explosive or exploitive?
Maybe we should ask is it better to be explosive or exploitive? >:D
Nice... I hate my iPhone, the worst part is it doesn't know my name and says it's wrong every time, but if I don't capitalize the p in iPhone, it sure as heck will.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on May 02, 2012, 01:06:24 PM
Nice... I hate my iPhone, the worst part is it doesn't know my name and says it's wrong every time, but if I don't capitalize the p in iPhone, it sure as heck will.
It should learn it eventually, mine learned mine pretty quickly.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on May 02, 2012, 01:07:48 PM
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on May 02, 2012, 01:06:24 PM
Nice... I hate my iPhone, the worst part is it doesn't know my name and says it's wrong every time, but if I don't capitalize the p in iPhone, it sure as heck will.
It should learn it eventually, mine learned mine pretty quickly.
I sure hope so, I am tired of Killion turning into foil lion.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on May 02, 2012, 12:09:22 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on May 02, 2012, 08:24:06 AM
Oh, then you must have meant "expletive". >:D
Yes, I can't get my iPhone to accept exploitive.... See?
Let me guess - your fruit fone won't let you turn off autocorrect. Samsung to the rescue!
Quote from: SarDragon on May 02, 2012, 05:32:58 PM
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on May 02, 2012, 12:09:22 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on May 02, 2012, 08:24:06 AM
Oh, then you must have meant "expletive". >:D
Yes, I can't get my iPhone to accept exploitive.... See?
Let me guess - your fruit fone won't let you turn off autocorrect. Samsung to the rescue!
Yes... As soon as my time comes up I'm trading this junk in.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on May 02, 2012, 05:54:07 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on May 02, 2012, 05:32:58 PM
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on May 02, 2012, 12:09:22 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on May 02, 2012, 08:24:06 AM
Oh, then you must have meant "expletive". >:D
Yes, I can't get my iPhone to accept exploitive.... See?
Let me guess - your fruit fone won't let you turn off autocorrect. Samsung to the rescue!
Yes... As soon as my time comes up I'm trading this junk in.
You can turn it off under General -> Keyboard.
I know this has drifted pretty far off topic, but here's a reference from those who may not have seen it yet. Its an interim change letter to 39-1 from the national commander, dated March 12, 2012, and it specifically addresses the issue at hand.
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/2012_03_12_Uniform_Manual_EDA9CCE9FE03A.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/2012_03_12_Uniform_Manual_EDA9CCE9FE03A.pdf)
Quote from: 754837 on May 02, 2012, 01:25:10 AM
I only challenge CAP rangers. The others are legit........
Just wondering: what do you challenge them on? Like a boy scout thing: "...ah I see you have a knife, let me see you tote-m-chit card...."
or the validity of a CAP recognized program and the titles that go with the achievements it awards.... including the wearing of a patch for the uniform that the National commander (and the National Board for that matter) authorized?
mk
Quote from: Jamie Hurley on May 02, 2012, 06:11:13 PM
I know this has drifted pretty far off topic, but here's a reference from those who may not have seen it yet. Its an interim change letter to 39-1 from the national commander, dated March 12, 2012, and it specifically addresses the issue at hand.
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/2012_03_12_Uniform_Manual_EDA9CCE9FE03A.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/2012_03_12_Uniform_Manual_EDA9CCE9FE03A.pdf)
Most of what General Carr says here is just a culling of things that have been in effect for some time.
Quote from: sarmed1 on May 03, 2012, 01:57:54 PM
Quote from: 754837 on May 02, 2012, 01:25:10 AM
I only challenge CAP rangers. The others are legit........
Just wondering: what do you challenge them on? Like a boy scout thing: "...ah I see you have a knife, let me see you tote-m-chit card...."
or the validity of a CAP recognized program and the titles that go with the achievements it awards.... including the wearing of a patch for the uniform that the National commander (and the National Board for that matter) authorized?
mk
The reason that people come down so hard on self-designated "rangers" is due to to the elitism that such titles tend to produce. Individuals from COS have no such designation, nor do graduates from NESA, and so forth. The concept that the training at Hawk somehow warrants a title that distinguishes Hawk graduates from other members is a little insulting to the many other activities out there, some of which are arguably more in-line with the mission of the cadet program than Hawk is.
I really don't care one way or the other if Hawk guys want to call themselves rangers on the mountain, the same way I didn't really care that people at NBB called themselves "berets" (weird) when I went in 2004. But that title doesn't mean much outside of the activity, outside of letting me know what activities this individual has attended, and most people don't see why many Hawk grads insist on trying to differentiate themselves from everyone else in CAP by taking on a title due to their attendence in just one NSCA of a great many available.
So?
Again, what's the problem with elitism (in moderation)?
If the title doesn't mean anything....then just ignore it. By attacking those who embrase the title...you are only reinforcing the fact that the title does mean something.
Yeah, I'm not going to get into this debate again. Someone asked a question, and I answered why people react the way they do to the "ranger" title.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 03, 2012, 02:26:39 PM
So?
Again, what's the problem with elitism (in moderation)?
The qualifier you added is the issue. Elitism "in moderation" is not a problem, however, most HMRS rangers I've had the misfortune to meet fail to understand what "in moderation" means.
I have seen HMRS rangers wearing two and three tabs before they were authorized, and even afterward when only ONE tab is authorized. No moderation there.
IACE, COS, and CLA are probably our top 3 most "elite" activities that we hold. There's real selection processes, requirements, etc that have to be met to attend.
However, I haven't ever met someone who's gone on any of those three activities coming back demanding new uniform accessories, showing off how hard-kewl they are now, or calling themselves something different.
"Yeah man, I'm a Civic Leader 1st Class."
The beret things is odd to me as well. Why do we name the activity after the headgear, and why do the graduates call themselves "berets?"
"Yep, I'm a service cap."
Maybe people have heartburn about it because the less than elite folks are calling themselves elite and making the rest of us look like toolbags.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on May 03, 2012, 02:43:04 PM
...elite folks are calling themselves elite...
If you have to tell people that you are elite, then you are doing it wrong.
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on May 03, 2012, 02:50:42 PM
If you have to tell people that you are elite, then you are doing it wrong.
Nice one!
Kind of like the old question...how do you know if you're in a roomful of fighter pilots?
A: They'll tell you.
Quote from: arajca on May 03, 2012, 02:34:59 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 03, 2012, 02:26:39 PM
So?
Again, what's the problem with elitism (in moderation)?
The qualifier you added is the issue. Elitism "in moderation" is not a problem, however, most HMRS rangers I've had the misfortune to meet fail to understand what "in moderation" means.
I have seen HMRS rangers wearing two and three tabs before they were authorized, and even afterward when only ONE tab is authorized. No moderation there.
So.....it is a "teaching moment" for moderation.....but the source issue is not the title of "ranger". That's all I am saying. I have had problems with people comming back from NESA, NBB, HGA and even encampment. You just have to set the standard for your squadron and move on. Attacking the entire "ranger" community for the what is probably one or two bad apples only creates and reinforces the us vs them attitude.
Quote from: Nathan on May 03, 2012, 02:19:28 PM
Quote from: sarmed1 on May 03, 2012, 01:57:54 PM
Quote from: 754837 on May 02, 2012, 01:25:10 AM
I only challenge CAP rangers. The others are legit........
Just wondering: what do you challenge them on? Like a boy scout thing: "...ah I see you have a knife, let me see you tote-m-chit card...."
or the validity of a CAP recognized program and the titles that go with the achievements it awards.... including the wearing of a patch for the uniform that the National commander (and the National Board for that matter) authorized?
mk
The reason that people come down so hard on self-designated "rangers" is due to to the elitism that such titles tend to produce. ....
I too am not interested in re-hashing the age old debate on the program or its elitests traps etc etc etc; in the big picture of things its an accomplishment that particpants are proud of, compared to some others out there (in or out of CAP) nothing too too special.
My point was exactly what is it that the poster "challenges them on" especially over the "other" self identified "ranger types". I could stop by the BX or your mail order web site of choice and deck myself out pretty good as an US Army ranger.....watch a few movies, read a few books and pass my self off to the average CAP person as a "Ranger" but because I am a self proclaimed Army "Ranger" I dont get challenged? I would honestly be more inclined to believe the average cadet that they are a "Ranger" over anyone else claiming a "ranger" status of some kind..... its at least believable.
But maybe I am missing the point on his type of "challenge"
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on May 03, 2012, 02:50:42 PM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on May 03, 2012, 02:43:04 PM
...elite folks are calling themselves elite...
If you have to tell people that you are elite, then you are doing it wrong.
So...what rank do you were on your uniforms? Is that not telling the world that you are "elite"?
We all have out little ways of telling the world that we are better then the rest.
Now don't get me wrong.....I don't really like the Ranger Bling....I think we already have ways of showing those accomplishments, we don't need more......but that's not my point.
My point is that we are dividing oursleves into the haves and have nots. We attack the haves as being posers, wannabees, loosers, etc......and that IMHO not the way to go about it. We need to attack them by standing up to the STANDARDS and enforceing them, educating the violators why it is important to maintain the published standards and not letting "them" get away with it.
We start at the unit level and at the NHQ level.
NHQ needs to fix 39-1 and it needs to police its own ranks and down to the Wing Commander level.
At our level we simply enforce the standards.
Our squadron commanders need to presure their peers to enforce the standards.
Our wing commanders need to back that up across the board and pressure their peers to maintain the standards.
Elitism is NOT a bad word........if use properly it can enhance our mission effectiveness. When ever it gets in the way....that's when we need to stomp on it and correct it. But attacking the "name" is just silly.
Quote from: arajca on May 03, 2012, 02:34:59 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 03, 2012, 02:26:39 PM
So?
Again, what's the problem with elitism (in moderation)?
...
I have seen HMRS rangers wearing two and three tabs before they were authorized,.....
Just out of curiosity, what was the 3rd tab.... there were only 2 "authorized" types of tabs Ranger and Medic (unless you are counting the "STAFF" rocker worn as part of the school patch) There was a set of "wings" that were at one time worn by members who completed the school back when it was at Westover AFB (and maybe awarded for a few years after the move to the current location) but they went away shortly after the switch to BDU's and either way there arent than many of the folks from that era left in the program
mk
Quote from: lordmonar on May 03, 2012, 03:32:54 PM
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on May 03, 2012, 02:50:42 PM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on May 03, 2012, 02:43:04 PM
...elite folks are calling themselves elite...
If you have to tell people that you are elite, then you are doing it wrong.
So...what rank do you wear on your uniforms? Is that not telling the world that you are "elite"?
You missed my point.
My comment was directed at people who feel the need to toot their own horn.
Quote from: sarmed1 on May 03, 2012, 04:34:46 PM
Quote from: arajca on May 03, 2012, 02:34:59 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 03, 2012, 02:26:39 PM
So?
Again, what's the problem with elitism (in moderation)?
...
I have seen HMRS rangers wearing two and three tabs before they were authorized,.....
Just out of curiosity, what was the 3rd tab.... there were only 2 "authorized" types of tabs Ranger and Medic (unless you are counting the "STAFF" rocker worn as part of the school patch) There was a set of "wings" that were at one time worn by members who completed the school back when it was at Westover AFB (and maybe awarded for a few years after the move to the current location) but they went away shortly after the switch to BDU's and either way there arent than many of the folks from that era left in the program
mk
IIRC, Medic, Adv Ranger, Ranger.
Quote from: arajca on May 03, 2012, 05:50:31 PM
Quote from: sarmed1 on May 03, 2012, 04:34:46 PM
Quote from: arajca on May 03, 2012, 02:34:59 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 03, 2012, 02:26:39 PM
So?
Again, what's the problem with elitism (in moderation)?
...
I have seen HMRS rangers wearing two and three tabs before they were authorized,.....
Just out of curiosity, what was the 3rd tab.... there were only 2 "authorized" types of tabs Ranger and Medic (unless you are counting the "STAFF" rocker worn as part of the school patch) There was a set of "wings" that were at one time worn by members who completed the school back when it was at Westover AFB (and maybe awarded for a few years after the move to the current location) but they went away shortly after the switch to BDU's and either way there arent than many of the folks from that era left in the program
mk
IIRC, Medic, Adv Ranger, Ranger.
Ranger 3rd, Ranger 2nd, Ranger 1st, Adv Ranger, Expert Ranger, Medic, Senior Medic, Advanced Medic, Instructor, and staff rocker according to their HAWK BX order form.
You replace the Ranger 3rd Class with 2nd when earned, replace 2nd with 1st etc. You don't wear them all at once. That is like waring your captain's bars and major oak leafs together.
Quote from: keystone102 on May 03, 2012, 06:26:20 PM
You replace the Ranger 3rd Class with 2nd when earned, replace 2nd with 1st etc. You don't wear them all at once. That is like waring your captain's bars and major oak leafs together.
Yes I know.....I thought the question was what type of ranger tabs were available.
Quote from: keystone102 on May 03, 2012, 06:26:20 PM
You replace the Ranger 3rd Class with 2nd when earned, replace 2nd with 1st etc. You don't wear them all at once. That is like waring your captain's bars and major oak leafs together.
more like GTM badge and GTL badge since you qualified for both......
.....was one sewn somewhere stupid.... like front of his patrol cap army style?......
mk
Since I don't have the patience to wade through all the typical non-related responses, this may be a duplicate post. Here is the answer for the original question....after 6 years of waiting.
12 March 2012
MEMORANDUM FOR ALL CAP UNIT COMMANDERS
FROM: CC
SUBJECT: INTERIM CHANGE LETTER - Changes to CAPM 39-1, CAP Uniform Manual
...k. Hawk Mountain Ranger tabs. One Ranger tab earned at the Hawk Mountain activity
may be worn centered immediately above the Civil Air Patrol tape on the BDU uniform.
Want to wear a ranger tab? Join the Army and go to Ranger School. Otherwise, drop the idea.
Huh. Looks like everyone is still beating this dead horse. CAP can't get funding or members, yet we're arguing about over a patch.
Good job, everyone!
Quote from: cpyahoo on October 19, 2012, 02:25:04 PM
Huh. Looks like everyone is still beating this dead horse. CAP can't get funding or members, yet we're arguing about over a patch.
Who said we can't get funding and members? Last I checked there's no issue with funding (which isn't being shared by the entire Federal Government),
and, as usual, membership is pretty much status quo.
Have you considered that the inability to define a simple, consistent uniform, and all the background noise that causes, may actually be a factor
in the issue you assert?
Wow. More angst and debate over hats and patches. [sarc]
How about something productive like...
Why doesn't the USAF provide us more funding to equip or people to do THEIR missions? Or...
Why wasn't CAP standing in line with everyone else holding their hand out for FEMA funding after 9/11?
We do we waste our [Filter Subversion] time [Filter Subversion] about hats and patches???
Quote from: cpyahoo on November 01, 2012, 07:18:37 PM
Wow. More angst and debate over hats and patches. [sarc]
How about something productive like...
Why doesn't the USAF provide us more funding to equip or people to do THEIR missions? Or...
Why wasn't CAP standing in line with everyone else holding their hand out for FEMA funding after 9/11?
We do we waste our [Filter Subversion] time [Filter Subversion] about hats and patches???
Because this board would become a lonely, empty place, devoid of any useful entertainment?
Quote from: cpyahoo on November 01, 2012, 07:18:37 PM
Wow. More angst and debate over hats and patches. [sarc]
How about something productive like...
Why doesn't the USAF provide us more funding to equip or people to do THEIR missions? Or...
Why wasn't CAP standing in line with everyone else holding their hand out for FEMA funding after 9/11?
We do we waste our d***ed time b****ing about hats and patches???
If you've come to stand on your soap box and shun everyone for discussion about uniforms and their accessories (regardless of how asinine it really is) in a "Uniforms and Awards" part of a discussion board, especially in a thread that died 3 months ago, you're going to find your comments will fall on rather deaf ears.
Back to your regularly scheduled trolling.
LOL. Really. The only one posting in it is the yahoo troll.