Navy pers wearing black t-shirts in CADPAT

[Journeyman]

Let me try.

The CANFORGEN states that Navy identifiers are approved for wear with CACPAT, dependent on the Commander's authorization.

Approved ≠ Authorized.
Words, particularly in official correspondence, are important. They have specific meanings for a reason, and those meanings are understood by those for whom the correspondence is intended.

In this case, the message tells the Commander that he is authorized (if he so chooses), to allow his Naval people to wear the Navy identifiers (those approved by the CMS). That authorization is given to the appropriate level of the chain of command, who will decide based upon the local situation. That level is not Cpl LS Bloggins; it is the Commander; (that's why the CANFORGEN specifically spells out "as deemed by the Operational Commander")

While initiative is laudable, it is generally more applicable to "seeking out and accepting responsibility," rather than fashion issues. This responsibility may also apply to accepting that the jacking was warranted because LS Bloggins decided (wrongly) to show initiative. It happens, the fault is corrected, the world still turns.


Now, turning to the issue of you personally feeling picked on in this, and other, threads.
May I suggest you first have a quick read of Michael O'Leary's excellent post on Approaches to avoiding unwanted labels. No really; go have a look, I'll wait.

Now you see, there may be a couple of reasons why you feel this way:
a) perhaps you're phrasing your postings in a manner that draws negative responses, despite your best intentions. This may be because there is a perception of whining, or entitlement, or speaking outside your lane, or whatever - - it's the readers' perceptions that are affecting their responses to you. Proofread, and tidy up your posts, to ensure you're not giving people the wrong impression.

Conversely,
b) there may be a conspiracy and everyone is out to get you. 


------------------------------
I hesitate to mention c) because it's possible that you may be paranoid AND everyone is actually out to get you, in which case you're totally screwed.   ;D

 

[Northern Ranger]

Have you seen the guys wearing a black shirt yet? If you have then you would see that it is very noticable.
Kind of like when we wear our DEU's and make the whole parade look that much better.

  LOL, sharpest guys on the square are always the fish heads.

I also think you had it right to often pers like to cop out and say you should have known better.  The CoC had the right to change the dress bassed on the Operational focus of the unit.  Ignorance has never been an excuse to get out of trouble and its not one to use to jack someone up.

This coming from a guy that wears red shirts with his CadPat (only north of 60 of crse)

 

[reccecrewman]

Here's one for you..........  a few years ago when the cadpat was being issued as new kit,  I know of several tank crewman that got their new gucci bush hats and they were told to place them in their ruck for pers kit inspections and that was their sole function - pers kit inspections.  When they went to the field (The authorized place for wear of the bush cap) they were not to put them on their heads.... they were back in their rucksacks.  What was on their heads? A black beret w/ a Springbok capbadge.  Just as the canforgen states, it's up to Unit CO's to decide, and in some cases, Sub-Unit Commanders.  Some people are jist looking to get jacked up I suppose..........

 

[284_226]

You work in an army environment, big deal if someone calls you corporal. The same can be said for people who call BDRs CPLs, etc.. big deal over nothing.

I'll keep that in mind if I'm ever at CFSCE in Kingston, and I have a brain dump and call the BCWO "Chief".  Can I quote you?  ;D

 

[284_226]

In this case, the message tells the Commander that he is authorized (if he so chooses), to allow his Naval people to wear the Navy identifiers (those approved by the CMS). That authorization is given to the appropriate level of the chain of command, who will decide based upon the local situation. That level is not Cpl LS Bloggins; it is the Commander; (that's why the CANFORGEN specifically spells out "as deemed by the Operational Commander")

The CANFORGEN doesn't specifically spell out "as deemed by the Operational Commander".  It spells out that "the approval is dependent on the operational context of the unit", and THEN goes on to cite an example (hence the "ie." that follows that statement) of how an operational commander might restrict the wear of the t-shirt to only situations deemed non-tactical by the operational commander.

Semantics, yes.  Same as the semantics between "authorized" and "approved".  Not really worth tearing a strip off someone without checking to see if some new orders came down the tubes, especially if it's just a morning parade.  The CANFORGEN wasn't well worded, plain and simple.

 

[Neill McKay]

It's t-shirt colour - GET OVER IT and find something else to get all worked up about

For historical reasons most naval personnel really hate to dress in green.  It brings back memories of a time when the Minister was fooling around with something more important than UFOs.

 

[Michael OLeary]

For historical reasons most naval personnel really hate to dress in green.  It brings back memories of a time when the Minister was fooling around with something more important than UFOs.

I wonder, how old did you have to be at the time of Unification to still be so deeply affected by its uniform issues?  Does it also affect those who hadn't yet been conceived on 1 February 1968?

Or, to use the same comparison, perhaps there's nothing more important for some of these people to worry about now.

 

[Neill McKay]

The CANFORGEN doesn't specifically spell out "as deemed by the Operational Commander".  It spells out that "the approval is dependent on the operational context of the unit", and THEN goes on to cite an example (hence the "ie." that follows that statement)

Not disagreeing with the issue itself, but i.e. means "that is", not "for example".  (That would be e.g.)

 

[mudrecceman]

You work in an army environment, big deal if someone calls you corporal. The same can be said for people who call BDRs CPLs, etc.. big deal over nothing.

Remember that if someone calls you Leading Seamen if you are teaching a BMQ course then...right? 

 

[Neill McKay]

I wonder, how old did you have to be at the time of Unification to still be so deeply affected by its uniform issues?  Does it also affect those who hadn't yet been conceived on 1 February 1968?

It sure does.  Institutional memory runs deep.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Curious, and strangely explanatory of that lingering Royal Navy attitude I used to see around the Wardroom. So, were the effects of 30 March 1972 greater, or less, of an impact?  How about the emasculation of 12 December 1969?  Is it time for a serious psycho-analysis of the Navy's childhood?    >

 

[284_226]

Not disagreeing with the issue itself, but i.e. means "that is", not "for example".  (That would be e.g.)

You're absolutely correct, and I've officially learned something today.  It would also lend credence to my belief that the intent of the CANFORGEN was to permit the wearing of the t-shirt in non-tactical situations, with the operational commander having the latitude to decide precisely what is and what isn't a tactical situation.  One would be hard pressed to find a morning parade as a tactical situation - unless you're trying to march a bunch of sailors around a parade square in step, that is  ;D

 

[Nfld Sapper]

I think we have  :deadhorse:

 

[Journeyman]

The CANFORGEN doesn't specifically spell out "as deemed by the Operational Commander".  It spells out that "the approval is dependent on the operational context of the unit", and THEN goes on to cite an example (hence the "ie." that follows that statement) of how an operational commander might restrict the wear of the t-shirt to only situations deemed non-tactical by the operational commander.

Semantics, yes.  Same as the semantics between "authorized" and "approved".  Not really worth tearing a strip off someone without checking to see if some new orders came down the tubes, especially if it's just a morning parade.  The CANFORGEN wasn't well worded, plain and simple.

As pointed out already, i.e. (id est; "that is [to say]...") is not the same as e.g. (exempli gratia; "offered example") - - in the same manner already explained that "approved" and "authorized" have different meanings.

I guess that's all irrelevant however, since you dismiss it all as mere semantics anyway. Which pretty much proves the point that it really doesn't matter if you or anyone else on this thread agree with painswessex, it is the Commander's call; not yours, not mine, not painwessex's. To the Commander, and the appropriate chain of command, it's not mere semantics - - words are important. Grievances and other legal issues may be tied to such mere words. I assure you, the drafter of that CANFORGEN wasn't likely just having a hoot with her thesaurus (if she had, she would have realized that "approved" and "authorized" are not synonyms anyway).


Now - - as for getting jacked up...well, I feel your pain; I was jacked up myself once. No, really, it's true. So I can see why the pouting in the corner of the schoolyard continues.




I got over it; it's OK. 

 

[284_226]

As pointed out already, i.e. (id est; "that is [to say]...") is not the same as e.g. (exempli gratia; "offered example") - - in the same manner already explained that "approved" and "authorized" have different meanings.

As pointed out already, I got it.  I took Latin for four years, and if it taught me one thing, it's not to use Latin when dealing with people who speak English unless they've been taught Latin.  I must've skipped the day they taught id est and exempli gratia...

I guess that's all irrelevant however, since you dismiss it all as mere semantics anyway. Which pretty much proves the point that it really doesn't matter if you or anyone else on this thread agree with painswessex, it is the Commander's call; not yours, not mine, not painwessex's. To the Commander, and the appropriate chain of command, it's not mere semantics - - words are important. Grievances and other legal issues may be tied to such mere words. I assure you, the drafter of that CANFORGEN wasn't likely just having a hoot with her thesaurus (if she had, she would have realized that "approved" and "authorized" are not synonyms anyway).

They aren't?  The scriptures of the CF are littered with examples of where the words are interchanged haphazardly.  You don't need to look very far to find an example - check out paragraph 4 of the same CANFORGEN - it reads "Navy identifiers are only authorized for wear with the temperate woodland (TW) CADPAT/LWCC and shall not be worn with other CADPAT designs (i.e. arid)"

Do you not think that the more appropriate word there would have been approved, vice authorized?  The originator of the CANFORGEN is dithering to and fro with their authority, given your strict definitions - "I approve this, I don't authorize that..."

I would respectfully suggest that you do some research with regard to "approve" and "authorize" - you'll find the definitions share a great deal of commonality - and that some dictionaries do treat them as synonyms, especially where the law is concerned, and we know how picky those lawyers can be.

Now - - as for getting jacked up...well, I feel your pain; I was jacked up myself once. No, really, it's true. So I can see why the pouting in the corner of the schoolyard continues.

I got over it; it's OK. 

You yourself said:

Words, particularly in official correspondence, are important. They have specific meanings for a reason, and those meanings are understood by those for whom the correspondence is intended.

It's interesting that you'd say that, given that CANFORGEN = Canadian Forces General message.  That means it's for everyone to understand, otherwise it'd be called a CANFORSGTSANDABOVEGEN. 
They really need to write to the lowest common denominator when issuing directives such as this, so that one doesn't need a degree in English to determine the difference between "approved" and "authorized", if such a difference is critical to the meaning of the message.  It's like the job I'm in with desktop support - I've learned to save myself a whole lot of headaches by assuming that the user that I'm helping doesn't even have a clue how to turn the computer on.  If they know more than that, they'll be quick enough to correct me.

What I find amazing is that a simple issue such as the wearing of a t-shirt could generate so much controversy.  The dress regs (as modified by CANFORGENS) should be bulletproof before they're released to the masses.  It's not like the concept of uniforms, or the introduction of new uniforms is something we've never done before.

 

[Roy Harding]

...

What I find amazing is that a simple issue such as the wearing of a t-shirt could generate so much controversy.

...

Actually - in re-reading the thread, I don't believe it was the "wearing of a t-shirt" that caused such angst - it appears to be the "jacking up" of the wearer that has caused hurt feelings.

And yes - I can read Latin too (labouriously, but I can).

Roy

 

[eerickso]

Here is a solution that solves these types of uniform problems:

If you are in a purple trade, you should wear the uniform of the unit. It is funny to see army types who have 10 years sea time still thinking that they have some connection to the army. If you are so attached to your uniform, stay in army units or vice versa. If the career manager says you have to go, have a long bath after your posting is over!

The CF bands have figured this out, how come the rest of the military can't?

 

[Hot Lips]

Wow, I am glad I took the time to read that :
I haven't been around for awhile...it's nice to see (insert sarcasm here) we haven't given up the dogpiles on people that are trying to express their concerns and or feelings about an issue.
Not sure I would jack someone up for having a t-shirt on that I in theory could be wearing...instead I might give some guidance as to what the circumstances are surrounding the wearing of same at my/our unit.

Didn't the Armoured core wear the black t-shirts not that long ago?

HL

 

[armyvern]

They aren't?  The scriptures of the CF are littered with examples of where the words are interchanged haphazardly.  You don't need to look very far to find an example - check out paragraph 4 of the same CANFORGEN - it reads "Navy identifiers are only authorized for wear with the temperate woodland (TW) CADPAT/LWCC and shall not be worn with other CADPAT designs (i.e. arid)"

Do you not think that the more appropriate word there would have been approved, vice authorized?  The originator of the CANFORGEN is dithering to and fro with their authority, given your strict definitions - "I approve this, I don't authorize that..."

No. The message quite properly reads within it's whole context that:

The CMS has authorized the wear of the naval identifiers by naval pers only with TW cadpat and is not authorizing their wear with any other uniform. But that, despite them being authorized for wear by naval pers while in a TW uniform; they must still be approved for wear by naval pers serving in other enviornments by the particular CO of that unit, and at that COs discretion.

I would respectfully suggest that you do some research with regard to "approve" and "authorize" - you'll find the definitions share a great deal of commonality - and that some dictionaries do treat them as synonyms, especially where the law is concerned, and we know how picky those lawyers can be.

Actually, a hilarious suggestion!! Probably best ignored, but good for a laugh!!  

 

[284_226]

No. The message quite properly reads within it's whole context that:

The CMS has authorized the wear of the naval identifiers by naval pers only with TW cadpat and is not authorizing their wear with any other uniform. But that, despite them being authorized for wear by naval pers while in a TW uniform; they must still be approved for wear by naval pers serving in other enviornments by the particular CO of that unit, and at that COs discretion.

You may want to read it again.  In the message, the CMS is communicating approval and authorization in different paragraphs.  Which is he? An approval authority, or the grantor of authorization?  He does both actions in the CANFORGEN.

Actually, a hilarious suggestion!! Probably best ignored, but good for a laugh!! 

I'll take that to mean you didn't do it.  Geez, make me do all the work...

From http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=approve

Entry Word: approve
Function: verb
Text: to give official acceptance of something as satisfactory <as soon as the pond project was approved, the bulldozers were at the site>
Synonyms authorize, clear, OK (or okay), ratify, sanction, warrant