CAPM 39-1 REVISIONS GAME

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

YES
I've been running a junior rifle program that gives out those awards since 1999. The wording was wrong then

Your rifle program can give out all the badges it wants, CAP members just can't wear them.

I was providing a time reference for how long the reg has been out of synch. I think the NRA program has changed 3 times in that time frame

[peter rabbit]

The biggest problem is the lack of information passed from Headquarters to the membership. There is less space in "The Volunteer" compared to "CAP News" for information to the membership. And "The Volunteer" is the only avenue for members to see what is news in CAP. Many members are unaware that an ICL has been issued, or actions by the NEC or NB if the minutes are not posted. The lack of information leads to rumors or misinformation to the membership.

I agree communication to the membership could be improved. With email (assuming members update eServices), FaceBook, etc there are many ways the information pathway to members could be improved. An RSS feed from select pages on capmembers.com (like http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/forms_publications__regulations/meeting_minutes.cfm) would be helpful, as would more prompt posting of the minutes.

In the meantime, the eServices home page has an RSS news feed option. I get a notice anytime an ICL or other announcement is posted there.

As for uniforms and 39-1, I agree with the approach to:

1. simplify and standardize 39-1 as much as possible - one core value is Excellence, so whatever we wear let's look as professional and unified as possible - and make it so members can find the info they need
2. keep future changes to as few as possible to reduce wasted expense to members
3. recognize our multiple roles in the community and work together, regardless of personal opinions about paramilitary, golf shirts, or whatever

[Hawk200]

YES
I've been running a junior rifle program that gives out those awards since 1999. The wording was wrong then

Your rifle program can give out all the badges it wants, CAP members just can't wear them.

I was providing a time reference for how long the reg has been out of synch. I think the NRA program has changed 3 times in that time frame

I've only ever seen the badge actually mentioned in 39-1 one time. I can find references to it online, but  not the actual badge. None of the other ones I've seen cadets wear are even remotely close.

If all NRA badges were to be allowed, that's fine, but it needs to be written in. If only certain badges are permitted, they need to be written in and specific, with an official illustration of the badge provided by the NRA included in the manual.

The badge mentioned in the manual is a competition badge. All the ones I keep seeing cadets wear amount to little more than bling for going to the range one day. Not that there is anything wrong with going to the range, I do it every year for the Army, but my Army marksmanship badges are not authorized on my CAP uniform (and I don't think they should be either). There are legitimate Civilian Marksmanship Program badges authorized on both the Air Force and CAP uniforms, and that's appropriate. The comp badges take some time to be earned, and that should be recognized.

[Eclipse]

Now I expect that you will try to turn this around and avoid telling us what facts are in your possession to justify your statements.  Most likely you will try to put the ball in my court and ask me to justify the NEC's actions to your satisfaction.

But that's kinda the point.  You are the one making the statements, not me.  And it is not my job to justify the decisions of the NEC to you or anyone else.  As an officer and a commander, it is your job to support and explain the actions of the chain of command to others and your subordinates if you can.  And if you can't, to seek clarification from the chain.

Pretty much.

Out of nowhere, with no warning and it not being open for comment, the CSU was retired, and initially with a pretty unreasonable timeline at that.

No one has ever provided a single piece of information beyond speculation, conjecture, or insinuation as to why this occurred.  The
presumption is that "The Air Force" (you know the single-voiced entity used as an excuse for everything from aircraft placement to
where cadets stand during a unit meeting), had an issue with it and directed that it be retired, yet despite the fact that anytime anyone sneezes it vetted news here and elsewhere, no one has yet been able to pinpoint the moment when the CSU became uniforma nongrata.

No one.

Ever.

But it is never an officer's job or privilege to go on-line and publicly impute improper actions or motives to his/her superiors.  It's that whole respect and loyalty thing.

I never said anyone did anything untoward, inappropriate, or against regulation.  I am not impugning anyone's character.  People make unpopular decisions all the time, in fact, I am someone who is strongly in favor of the concept of "decisions", because once something
is "decided", those affected can then choose to make their own "decisions" in that regard.

But just because something is "decided", doesn't make the decision "acceptable" to those affected, nor does disagreeing with the acceptability of the decision mean you are impugning anyone's character.

It means you don't agree.

So yes, it is back on you.  The only thing those of us in the field know is that out of a blue sky we lost an important uniform option
that fufilled an important role for many members.

You insinuate you know otherwise.

Who eles'e court could it be in ?

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

For example the CAP cutouts replaced by the US cutouts on service dress. It's mentioned Big Blue did it as a sop for losing the blue shoulder sleeves. Ignmoring the fact that it was almost a 10 year difference between the two.

Closer to five years.

I joined in '93, and my squadron still had brand-new blue epaulettes in original packaging in inventory, though they were wearing the maroon epaulettes (and hating them).

The blue epaulettes went out around 1990-91.

This is a link to a directive from NHQ dated 7/90 about the short-lived maroon circlets (which I never actually saw, except in photos), which preceded the maroon epaulettes:

http://www.incountry.us/cappatches/RANK-OFC/history/circlets.pdf

The grey epaulettes/nameplate and US cutouts came in around the same time, sometime in 1995.  I remember getting the grey ones as soon as they were available and consigning the maroon ones to the circular file.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

As for uniforms and 39-1, I agree with the approach to:

1. simplify and standardize 39-1 as much as possible - one core value is Excellence, so whatever we wear let's look as professional and unified as possible - and make it so members can find the info they need
2. keep future changes to as few as possible to reduce wasted expense to members
3. recognize our multiple roles in the community and work together, regardless of personal opinions about paramilitary, golf shirts, or whatever

:clap:

[Ned]

Out of nowhere, with no warning and it not being open for comment, the CSU was retired, and initially with a pretty unreasonable timeline at that.

From your perspective, true enough.  But of course, the volunteer leaders with the actual responsibility for the decision had adequate notice and opportunity for comment, or they would not have approved it.  But I can only agree that there was no opportunity for comment from the field.  (They didn't ask me, either.)

No one has ever provided a single piece of information beyond speculation, conjecture, or insinuation as to why this occurred. 

For a guy with your posting frequency it may be hard to remember the infamous "corporate Uniform Gone!" thread, which was one of the longest and most viewed in CAPTalk history.  You must have posted two dozen times in that thread alone.  If you go back and look, you will see the links for both the official PowerPoint briefing as well as an email from an NEC emember actually telling us why he voted as he did.


As I said in that thread, I'm sorry if you think the NEC did not provide you with enough information for you to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they performed their duty honorably and with the best interest of CAP at heart.

But as a commander and CAP officer, you still have a duty to support the decisions made by the volunteer leadership.

But it is never an officer's job or privilege to go on-line and publicly impute improper actions or motives to his/her superiors.  It's that whole respect and loyalty thing.

I never said anyone did anything untoward, inappropriate, or against regulation.  I am not impugning anyone's character.  People make unpopular decisions all the time, in fact, I am someone who is strongly in favor of the concept of "decisions", because once something
is "decided", those affected can then choose to make their own "decisions" in that regard.

But just because something is "decided", doesn't make the decision "acceptable" to those affected, nor does disagreeing with the acceptability of the decision mean you are impugning anyone's character.

It means you don't agree.

And I thought I was the lawyer here.   

Bob, if you are telling me that it would be perfectly OK with you if one of  your squadron commanders stood in front of the formation and said "Well, the Group Commander has decided X, but I think that is unacceptable"?

Really?

You wouldn't take that as being a little bit disrespectful or insubordinate?

Really?

Especially if the squadron commander told you that when he said "unacceptable," that really meant that he just disagreed with one of your decsions?

[Eclipse]

Last I checked this was not a formation or a formal means of communication in any form, nor am I suggesting disobedience or posting with any connection to my current appointments. 

Nothing in that very contentious thread provided any information of anything but conjecture and speculation.  The only thing presented to the field was the talking points of the presentation, not the reason it was created in the first place.  No directives from the USAF were presented, no quotes or comments from anyone involved, nothing.

One of the primary assertions in the presentation was that the CSU was never approved by the USAF, when we all know
that not only was it approved, but they also commented on it and required changes. 

How am I suggesting disobedience?  Am I indicating people should continue to wear the CSU after the sundown?
No?  There isn't much else that would be disobedience or disrespectful about this discussion.

Perhaps it is my use of the word "unacceptable".  I rescind that word since it is irrelevant to the discussion.

Fact:  The CSU was retired with no alternative.

Fact:  The circumstances involved in its abrupt retirement were never made public, so rampant speculation
from conspiracy theory to discrimination against those who can't wear USAF combos is allowed to continue.

NHQ doesn't owe me anything, nor need it be interested in my opinion, but let's not fall back on the paramilitary
arguments here and pretend that CAP is not more of a consensus of the governed than a paramilitary organization.

Why are you trying to make this into a core values situation and ignoring the real question posed.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I find myself in agreement with Eclipse on many things regarding this subject.

I know all about the "need to know" basis on classified information...BTDT...but this issue is not comparable to giving out the codes for the "nuclear football" or the details of a CD/CN mission.

Two things are very unclear to me, and probably always will be.

Just what IS the reason for this out-of-the-blue (pun intended) decision?  Some have said it wasn't the Air Force's decision, others have said it was.  Others say it was to get rid of all vestiges of the last NatCC.  Others say CAP NHQ doesn't want a repeat of the maroon epaulettes.  All this is rumour and hearsay, concepts which Ned, as a lawyer, is no doubt quite familiar with.

Why, even with General Courter's directed modifications, is the uniform still being deep-sixed?  If the uniform is going to be ixnayed, why not leave it as is?

This is one of those situations when you try to ask those in and upward of your chain of command (I have) the response is usually a variant of "I don't know" or "Don't ask."

[Ron1319]

I would like to definitely know whether or not we are supposed to crease BDU sleeves.  My cadets say yes and I say that since it's not specified in the uniform manual it is not allowed.

[davidsinn]

I would like to definitely know whether or not we are supposed to crease BDU sleeves.  My cadets say yes and I say that since it's not specified in the uniform manual it is not allowed.

You're the deputy commander. Unless they can point to a cite that says you must do it then you can tell them not to and that's that.

[Ron1319]

I don't make the rules.  Generally, I agree with you since I'm fairly sure I'm right.  It should be made clear in a revised CAPM 39-1.  Is there a solid counterargument that says that I'm wrong?

[davidsinn]

I don't make the rules.  Generally, I agree with you since I'm fairly sure I'm right.  It should be made clear in a revised CAPM 39-1.  Is there a solid counterargument that says that I'm wrong?

No. The BDU is a field uniform and is not supposed to look pretty.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

CAPR 39-1
Table 2-5. Clothing/Accessory Standards
I
T
E
M
To present the proper
military image Will be:
1 Clothing Neat, clean, pressed, proper fit, in good condition, zipped, snapped or
buttoned.

(Emphasis mine) What does pressing do to a uniform? It puts creases in it. Granted, you don't need to starch the uniform until it stands up on its own, or even starched at all. But it does need to be pressed, when pressing the uniform, it will get a crease.

Think about this, what will present the best professional image of CAP?

[FW]

Now I expect that you will try to turn this around and avoid telling us what facts are in your possession to justify your statements.  Most likely you will try to put the ball in my court and ask me to justify the NEC's actions to your satisfaction.

But that's kinda the point.  You are the one making the statements, not me.  And it is not my job to justify the decisions of the NEC to you or anyone else.  As an officer and a commander, it is your job to support and explain the actions of the chain of command to others and your subordinates if you can.  And if you can't, to seek clarification from the chain.

Pretty much.

Out of nowhere, with no warning and it not being open for comment, the CSU was retired, and initially with a pretty unreasonable timeline at that.

No one has ever provided a single piece of information beyond speculation, conjecture, or insinuation as to why this occurred.  The
presumption is that "The Air Force" (you know the single-voiced entity used as an excuse for everything from aircraft placement to
where cadets stand during a unit meeting), had an issue with it and directed that it be retired, yet despite the fact that anytime anyone sneezes it vetted news here and elsewhere, no one has yet been able to pinpoint the moment when the CSU became uniforma nongrata.

No one.

Ever.

But it is never an officer's job or privilege to go on-line and publicly impute improper actions or motives to his/her superiors.  It's that whole respect and loyalty thing.

I never said anyone did anything untoward, inappropriate, or against regulation.  I am not impugning anyone's character.  People make unpopular decisions all the time, in fact, I am someone who is strongly in favor of the concept of "decisions", because once something
is "decided", those affected can then choose to make their own "decisions" in that regard.

But just because something is "decided", doesn't make the decision "acceptable" to those affected, nor does disagreeing with the acceptability of the decision mean you are impugning anyone's character.

It means you don't agree.

So yes, it is back on you.  The only thing those of us in the field know is that out of a blue sky we lost an important uniform option
that fufilled an important role for many members.

You insinuate you know otherwise.

Who eles'e court could it be in ?

I'll tell you a little secret, Eclipse.  The CSU was developed without the knowledge of the NB.  It was brought to its attention when a certain SER/CC started modeling it around the NB meeting where it was moved to accept as a CAP distinctive uniform during new business.  The NB, being a bit intimidated by the commander (some were threatened, some liked the grade insignia) voted it in.  The Air Force CoS wrote a letter to the BoG asking why the uniform was accepted and instructed them to reevaluate the "CSU" making appropriate changes (I have a copy of the letter and, the response).  This was done. The CoS also reminded the BoG of the Air Force's need for approval of all CAP uniforms; including the distinctive uniforms. 
Move a couple of years forward and, at an NEC meeting, during new business, the motion was made to retire the uniform... This was not originally published on the agenda and, unless the NEC members had previous knowledge from another source, they were not previously informed.  Even though the NEC does not handle uniform items, they voted to end the wear of the "CSU". 

Obviously, a huge cry thru out the land was heard.  The NB modified the NEC's decision, an ICL was sent out and, the CSU will continue till the end of the year. 

My point; the uniform went out as it came in.  Such is the way we sometimes do things.....

[davidsinn]

CAPR 39-1
Table 2-5. Clothing/Accessory Standards
I
T
E
M
To present the proper
military image Will be:
1 Clothing Neat, clean, pressed, proper fit, in good condition, zipped, snapped or
buttoned.

(Emphasis mine) What does pressing do to a uniform? It puts creases in it. Granted, you don't need to starch the uniform until it stands up on its own, or even starched at all. But it does need to be pressed, when pressing the uniform, it will get a crease.

Think about this, what will present the best professional image of CAP?

When I iron my BDUs I do not crease the sleeves because bent patches look stupid. It's pretty easy to do. You just roll the sleeve a little and re-iron.

[Ron1319]

Think about this, what will present the best professional image of CAP?

Having clear guidelines so that we can all be uniform and not have to waste our time arguing about little details. 

[manfredvonrichthofen]

The 39-1 says pressed, not ironed. Pressing and ironing are two different things, pressing is with creases and ironing is simply knocking the wrinkles out.

I am just kidding about that. If you don't want your cadets to have creases, then tell them no creases. I wear creases because it presents a professional military image. When I iron my sleeves, and I iron them every week, I start below the wing patch and crease all the way down, and then I flatten the patch back out with the iron so there is no crease and it is nice and flat. It was the way that we did it WIWAC and it is the way the USAF recruiter told me it was still done by them, and it is the way it was d in the Army, and is still done in the 101st ABN. Because of my upbringing and my military service, that is the way I will do it until we switch to the ABU, if they tell us not to iron the ABU.

[davidsinn]

The 39-1 says pressed, not ironed. Pressing and ironing are two different things, pressing is with creases and ironing is simply knocking the wrinkles out.

From Dictionary.com

to flatten or make smooth, especially by ironing: to press clothes; to press flowers in the leaves of a book.

Creases aren't smooth.  I personally do not like the look of creased sleeves which is why I don't. If I come across someone that does crease their uniform I won't say anything because it is a gray area but in my little corner of CAP their won't be creases.

[RiverAux]

I would like to definitely know whether or not we are supposed to crease BDU sleeves.  My cadets say yes and I say that since it's not specified in the uniform manual it is not allowed.

Table 2.2 in 39-1 says in regards to the BDU shirt - "Military creases are prohibited".