Guidelines for creating patches

[NJcadet]

In what circumstances can a specific patch be made for the BDU uniform? I know squadrons can create their own, but can lower-level groups make them such as color guards or ground teams?

If so, what must that group do to get it authorized?

[lordmonar]

The Regs are silent on lower echelon/special unit patches.......all patches must be approved at the wing level.

[MisterCD]

Approval at wing level is currently the only main requirement. The Office of CAP Heraldry will start up next week and will be developing guidance and information for CAP units in regards to insignia. Temporary guidance will be issued until a CAP Heraldry Guide can be published.

[Eclipse]

This requires a wing supplement to authorize wear.

It would then be worn the same as other optional patches such as NCSAs.

[Eclipse]

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/CAP_Vector__JanuaryMarch_2014_029373D619EB6.pdf

Office of Heraldry: At the November CSAG meeting the members approved development of a CAP
regulation for heraldry to be introduced in 2014, together with a pamphlet with information on insignia
development. Both documents are currently being revised and finalized.

[Huey Driver]

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/CAP_Vector__JanuaryMarch_2014_029373D619EB6.pdf

Office of Heraldry: At the November CSAG meeting the members approved development of a CAP
regulation for heraldry to be introduced in 2014, together with a pamphlet with information on insignia
development. Both documents are currently being revised and finalized.

Ah, excellent. A few units from my wing have been struggling to design patches, and to get them approved. Hopefully this will improve the process for us, and make the whole concept of changing a squadron patch less of a far-fetched idea.

[NIN]

The Institute for Heraldry under the Department of the Army handles heraldry for the entire DoD and US government.

Why reinvent the wheel? Those folks are the subject matter experts. We would do well to run all of our heraldry items through them, to be assured of their accuracy and legitimacy.

[MisterCD]

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/CAP_Vector__JanuaryMarch_2014_029373D619EB6.pdf

Office of Heraldry: At the November CSAG meeting the members approved development of a CAP
regulation for heraldry to be introduced in 2014, together with a pamphlet with information on insignia
development. Both documents are currently being revised and finalized.

The gentleman writing the regulations has worked with the Army Institute of Heraldry and the policies largely adhere to current USAF regulations regarding heraldry. Once instituted, there will be a grace/grandfathering period for current insignia. We are just trying to simplify the actual documents so one covers what commanders need to know and the other is intended to provide information about designs, etc.

[Eclipse]

A reasonable expectation would be that existing insignia could be used in perpetuity with a "no re-order" directive and
and a mandate that the insignia(s) be corrected for shape, inappropriate art, etc., immediately.  The correction of the
insignia itself costs nothing to do.

Websites, letterhead, signage, etc., should be used until not serviceable or used up, etc., but no money can be spent going
forward on anything that doesn't comply.

It should also be in effect for all echelons. Despite its use being rescinded in Dec 2012, not only has NHQ created a number
of new insignia which contain the Hap Arnold wings, they continue to publish documents and presentations that contain
the prohibited insignia and have not removed it from older docs, and in many cases are using a version of that logo
that never was compliant to begin with.

[Private Investigator]

In what circumstances can a specific patch be made for the BDU uniform? I know squadrons can create their own, but can lower-level groups make them such as color guards or ground teams?

If so, what must that group do to get it authorized?

I think the OP was thinking more along the lines of a morale patch http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=18230.0

i.e., "Ground Team 1 .. Mayberry Rescue Dogs" or "SQ 99 Wing Color Guard of the Year". 

[Private Investigator]

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/CAP_Vector__JanuaryMarch_2014_029373D619EB6.pdf

Office of Heraldry: At the November CSAG meeting the members approved development of a CAP
regulation for heraldry to be introduced in 2014, together with a pamphlet with information on insignia
development. Both documents are currently being revised and finalized.

Ah, excellent. A few units from my wing have been struggling to design patches, and to get them approved. Hopefully this will improve the process for us, and make the whole concept of changing a squadron patch less of a far-fetched idea.

Why do they need a Squadron patch? They do not have one or they just want to reinvent the wheel?   

[Eclipse]

Personally I think a unit insignia should be required for everything with a charter.

[Storm Chaser]

@ Eclipse

Just a unit insignia or also a unit patch? Because on a previous discussion you argued against wearing multiple patches. If we were to reduce the number of patches worn on the BDU, I think many (maybe most) members would prefer to wear patches they've earned rather than a unit patch.

While I have nothing against unit patches, I would rather see the wing patch become mandatory for all again and remove the reversed U.S. Flag from the uniform.

[Eclipse]

All units should have an insignia, what they do with it from there is up to the commander,
there are lots of places to use a unit insignia besides a patch.

My points on the uniform were in regards to wearing >all< of the possible patches, not anyone
specifically.  Just because you >can< wear something doesn't mean you should, and the
choices one makes in regards to the insignia will speak volumes about what you think is
important, especially if you limit what you wear.

Personally, I'd just as soon as lose the wing patches alltogether and mandate a unit insignia in
that spot.  Most members rarely, if ever, leave their wing, and when they do, it isn't very often.
Seeing 100 people at every SAREx with the same wing patch is pretty much useless.

We don't do that "@" thing here...

[a2capt]

The Institute for Heraldry under the Department of the Army handles heraldry for the entire DoD and US government.

Why reinvent the wheel? Those folks are the subject matter experts. We would do well to run all of our heraldry items through them, to be assured of their accuracy and legitimacy.

Simple. "Not Invented Here".

Create an office, create a title, sell it to the body that approves.

[Panache]

Personally, I'd just as soon as lose the wing patches alltogether and mandate a unit insignia in
that spot.  Most members rarely, if ever, leave their wing, and when they do, it isn't very often.
Seeing 100 people at every SAREx with the same wing patch is pretty much useless.

Nah.  If we don't look like walking billboards, somebody may mistake Lt. Random CAP Member as a member of the RealAirForce™ in a Quickie-Mart parking lot, and as everybody knows, that's one of the signs of the Apocalypse.

[Eclipse]

I concede the point...

[Patterson]

If I'm not mistaken, The Institute if Heraldry approved any and all CAP patches submitted to them at one point.  Before that organization existed, the Army's Quartermaster General actually created and/or approved all CAP patches into the early 1950's.  I also saw the CAP Corporate logos, seal and patches copywrite documents about a year ago...the owner was listed as "Quartermaster, US Army".  I will do my best to dig these items up as I'm sure someone will counter these claims.

[Pulsar]

heraldry guide:
http://www.incountry.us/cappatches/creation.html

[a2capt]

Okay, so if stuff was generally approved by an entity prior to this "new one" being made, and this "new one" comes along and says "hey you have to change all this".. 

More members time wasted. No, it's not "free" just to place a new order, someone still has to re-work it, play the approval process game again, etc., and for what?

So a bunch of patches are 'standard', when we've done pretty well for 70 years now. All because someone wants to be Chief at something.

Whatever.