How distinctive is "distinctive" to the Air Force?

[skymaster]

From repeated readings of the AF regulations in relation to "distinctiveness" of uniforms for organisations that are authorised to wear variations of the AF uniform, I was wondering how "distinctive" the USAF needs for uniform items to be to be allowed for wear by persons in organisations other than the acive duty AF. It comes to mind that, several years ago, when CAP requested permission to return to the wear of metal grade insignia on the shoulder straps of the service coat, with CAP cutouts on the lapels instead of U.S. (in the manner that we had from the 1950s through the late 1980s) as an AF Auxiliary, we apparently were told that to do so was not distinctive enough, keeping us stuck in grey epaulets on all service dress uniform combos. (Except for the short period were authorised the double-breasted blue Corporate Service Uniform). Well,in Georgia the GA DOD recently had a change-of-command of Adjutant Generals. The outgoing AG always wore the regular U.S. Army uniform fully conforming to the AR 670-series regulations. As it is traditional for the state Adjutant General to alternate between a green-suited Army National Guard officer, and a blue-suited Air National Guard officer, it was suprising that the uniform for the incoming AG, General Butterworth, was a bit "different" to say the least. For a dress uniform (as shown in the photo below)



he wears a blue service coat much like an AF officer except that to be "distinctive" enough from the AF, he wears "GA" cutouts in place of the U.S., and he wears different, State of Georgia buttons in place of the "Hap Arnold" buttons. For a utility uniform, instead of the Airman Battle Uniform, he actually wears the Army Combat Uniform, with black-on-ACU digital nameplates, a GEORGIA branch tape, and the Georgia State Defense Force patch on his shoulder, and subdued metal Air Force pilot wings on his chest.
     Before being appointed to the Adjutant General post by Governor Deal, he was a state legislator, and before that he was a Delta Airlines pilot, and an Air National Guard B-1B pilot in the grade of Captain. Upon selection as Adjutant General, the National Guard Bureau promoted him to the regular grade of Major. The Governor of Georgia chose to commission him as a 3-star Lieutenant General in the organised militia of the State of Georgia. As his predecessor was only a 2-star Major General in the Georgia Army National Guard, he voluntarily chooses to only wear 2 stars (even though technically he is actually a 3-star General). His assistant AG for the Army National Guard is actually a retired Army Colonel who the state commissioned as a Brigadier General in the state's organised militia effective upon his appointment by the Governor to the post, and wears a similarly distinctive Army uniform with different buttons and golden "GA" cutouts in place of the "U.S.", and also wears the Georgia State Defense Force uniform as a utility uniform.
     I do not begrudge any person in the service of their nation (or even their state) wearing a uniform as similar to their parent service as possible, but it leads one to wonder if the Air Force has somewhat relaxed the level of distinctiveness required to tell those in active Air Force service from other blue-suited organisations also authorised to wear a variant of the Air Force uniform. General Butterworth's uniform is apparently distinctive enough with different cutouts and similar (but not Hap Arnold-style) buttons to meet the AF's standards of distinctiveness for a dress uniform (much like the old 1980s and before CAP uniform). While the State of Georgia has had a historical habit of having a minimal level of distinction in uniforms from our active duty counterparts (as seen below in the distinctive pilot wings authorised for pilots in the Air Division of the Georgia State Defense Corps in 1940 which became the Air Patrol formed as a branch of the GSDC in 1941, prior to the Air Patrol becoming the Georgia Wing CAP in December of that same year), apparently these were all distinctive enough to pass muster with our parent service.



I am just wondering if perhaps, just maybe, if we could just let the Air Force see that yes, your predecessors did consider these examples distinctive enough to tell the difference between the active AF and other organisations, and wonder if they would at least consider the possibilty of allowing a similar level of distinctiveness.

[Eclipse]

The USAF is probably peripherally aware and not interested in the least.

[Ned]

I think the short answer is that the "distinctiveness" requirement you speak of is found in AFI 10-2701 that governs CAP, and not in any AFI or other instructions that govern the uniforms of the State Defense Forces authorized by the US Consitution and various federal and state laws.

Kind of an "apples and oranges" thing.  I admit it seems logical to suppose that the SDF and CAP uniforms should be governed by the same rules, but they are not.  Mostly because the staff officers who wrote the CAP-related AFI were not thinking about SDF uniforms when they wrote and staffed it.

As I have mentioned in several other threads, there is no reason that CAP could not request a return to metal grade and CAP cutouts.  But we would need to prepare a formal request for us to do so, and as part of that packet we would need to explain why the change is needed.

And I just don't think "We think it looks better" or "we want to go back to the way we looked 25 years ago" is going to be perceived as sufficient justification to change the AFI and our regulations.

[Eclipse]

As I have mentioned in several other threads, there is no reason that CAP could not request a return to metal grade and CAP cutouts. 

This should never, ever, even be whispered within range of the USAF, ever again.

We have far more pressing uniform issues then metal grade.  That ship has passed and should be left out to sea.

[MSG Mac]

The reason he wears GA, rather than US cutouts is that he's probably not "Federally Recognized" as a Major General. But holds that grade in the Georgia National Guard as the adjutant General. I just checked the internet. One hurdle Butterworth will face will be that of rank. He left the Georgia Air National Guard as a captain. Deal has jumped him six spots — to lieutenant general, a three-star grade. Butterworth says that, in Georgia, he'll wear the uniform of a major general — with two stars. blogs.ajc.com/.../09/...of-general-turmoil-for-georgias-national-guard

[JoeTomasone]

I have always heard (and read, IIRC) that the test of "distinctive" is that the uniform can be determined to be a CAP uniform at a distance and in low light - presumably so that AD folks can tell that customs & courtesies are not required.     Hence the grey epaulettes, blue nametapes/insignia, no grade insignia on the flight cap, etc.   Basically, the grade insignia is different enough to tell us apart from AD.   

[Luis R. Ramos]

Sky-

As posted by MSG the reason that he wears "GA" ad not "US" is that he was appointed to that grade by the state Governor and is not "Federally recognized."

I ran a quick check for the National Guards of Puerto Rico, New York, and Connecticut Adjutant Generals. All wear "US" cutouts. In the case of PR, is Colonel Juan Medina. For Indiana, the Assistant Adj Gen, Air is Brigadier General Jeffrey Hauser. In the case of Connecticut, is Major General Thaddeus Martin.

So it appears that Air Force and other regulations do not require distinctions among Air Force, National Guards, and Reserve components unless their officers are not Federally recognized.

In short, if General Butterworth had decided to use his Air Force rank when he was active Air Force as Adjutant General, he could wear his US cutouts. There is a reason he chose not to do so, and I am not going to speculate on it.

Flyer

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

This is a personal pet peeve of mine, as most CT'ers know.  The logical fallacies in AFI 10-2701 are big enough to fly a C-5 through.  "Low-light/at-a-distance" are highly subjective and not quantifiable.

Usually it is interpreted as "make it grey."

If someone is close enough to see grade insignia and cannot read "CAP" on the rank slide, of whatever colour, I suggest a visit to the base opthalmologist.

The cadet forces in Canada, Australia, the UK and New Zealand apparently give their membership more credit than CAP/the AF give ours.

Using Australia as an example:


Group Captain (Colonel equivalent) Ken Gividen, Australian Air Force Cadets


Air Vice-Marshal (Major-General equivalent) Gavin Davies, CSC, Deputy Commander Royal Australian Air Force

The only difference in the uniforms is the shoulder flashes.  GPCAPT Gividen has "Australian Air Force Cadets" and AVM Davies has "Australia."


Rank slides, Australian Air Force Cadets


Rank slides, Royal Australian Air Force

The only difference is the title on the epaulette..."AAFC" v. "Australia."

It is very similar in the UK, Canada and New Zealand.

I know, I know..."they're not us."

To quote Billy Joel, "it's a matter of trust."

This should never, ever, even be whispered within range of the USAF, ever again.

Why?  Are you afraid that even asking the question will cause a revert to berry boards?

I think the short answer is that the "distinctiveness" requirement you speak of is found in AFI 10-2701 that governs CAP, and not in any AFI or other instructions that govern the uniforms of the State Defense Forces authorized by the US Consitution and various federal and state laws.

Are there such USAF regulations?  That's a sincere question, Colonel.  It seems that, from what I know of SDF's (I almost joined one), they take their uniform rules from the National Guard regs of their various states.

Keep in mind, also, that, outside their State of commissioning, SDF officers are no more "entitled" to a salute than we are, though I would do so as a courtesy.  Their commissions are not recognised outside their State.

As I have mentioned in several other threads, there is no reason that CAP could not request a return to metal grade and CAP cutouts.  But we would need to prepare a formal request for us to do so, and as part of that packet we would need to explain why the change is needed.

And I just don't think "We think it looks better" or "we want to go back to the way we looked 25 years ago" is going to be perceived as sufficient justification to change the AFI and our regulations.

Isn't the fact that "we have done enough penance for members who are long gone from CAP," and just asking why we are still being punished for the sins of the past enough?

The USCG doesn't force their Auxiliary to take such measures, other than silver sleeve lace and the "A" on metal office devices...which they have had for a looooong time.

The USNSCC doesn't force their personnel to do so.  A couple of years ago I ran into a USNSCC Ensign wearing BDU's, subdued metal grade insignia and subdued nametapes.  The Ensign and I talked a bit about uniforms of NSCC v. CAP and he said he could not understand why the Air Force was making us do what we have to do.

The ACU does not make their personnel do so.

So why is is just US?

[Ned]

This is a personal pet peeve of mine, as most CT'ers know.  The logical fallacies in AFI 10-2701 are big enough to fly a C-5 through.  "Low-light/at-a-distance" are highly subjective and not quantifiable.

Usually it is interpreted as "make it grey."

We've talked about this before, of course.  And I suspect the essense of the communication problem is that neither you nor I wrote AFI 10-2701, nor were we asked to comment on the draft.

Because it is an AF AFI, binding only on AF personnel. 

And there is no known, practical way I am aware of for us to influence it.

Sure, I can mention the issue to the various AF-affiliated members of the BoG and even to key folks in CAP-USAF.  (Actually, I have already done so on several occaisons.)

But until we can present a case that grey rank slides somehow impede our ability to perform our assigned missions, it is always going to come across as an esthetic issue.  And no one is in any hurry to change an otherwise functional AFI over a difference in opinion about what would look "better" or "more professional."

I think the short answer is that the "distinctiveness" requirement you speak of is found in AFI 10-2701 that governs CAP, and not in any AFI or other instructions that govern the uniforms of the State Defense Forces authorized by the US Consitution and various federal and state laws.

Are there such USAF regulations?  That's a sincere question, Colonel.  It seems that, from what I know of SDF's (I almost joined one), they take their uniform rules from the National Guard regs of their various states.

Honestly, I am fairly sure there are, at least for the Army side,  But I can't point you to them.  I suspect if you look at the various SDF uniform manuals, they will have some sort of citation in them.  For example, I'm pretty sure the Army version requires the red nameplates that are worn fairly universally on the SDF Class A uniforms.

But I am most assuredly not an SDF uniform wonk.  I have trouble keeping track of CAP's uniform issues.

Keep in mind, also, that, outside their State of commissioning, SDF officers are no more "entitled" to a salute than we are, though I would do so as a courtesy.  Their commissions are not recognised outside their State.

Leaving the salute issue aside, state commissioned officers are indeed "recognized" outside their respective states.  The US Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause requires states to recognize the executive officers of other states.  As a practical matter, states can send SDF members to other states for duty as California did by sending some of their CSMR folks to help out after Katrina.  Not to mention the whole TAG thing discussed above.

[Concerning requesting hard rank and blue shoulder marks from the AF,] Isn't the fact that "we have done enough penance for members who are long gone from CAP," and just asking why we are still being punished for the sins of the past enough?

As we have discussed before, there is literally no one still in the Air Force that can even remember when we wore metal grade and blue shoulder marks.  Accordingly, it is just wierd to talk about "penance" or "punishment."  The staff folks who write the AFIs certainly don't think of it that way.  They - being the good staff officers that they are -- will ask "well, if it is working now, why should we change it?"

And the answer will need to be better than "because we want to go back to the way it was 25 years ago when we looked cooler."

So why is is just US?

Because we are the only auxiliary the AF has.  They are responsible for us, and have acted honorably and been supportive of us for many, many decades.

[Duke Dillio]

Isn't the fact that "we have done enough penance for members who are long gone from CAP," and just asking why we are still being punished for the sins of the past enough?

I have heard off-hadn there is still a former national commander running around who used to close down the base O-club on Maxwell. 

[Ned]

I have heard off-hadn there is still a former national commander running around who used to close down the base O-club on Maxwell.

I am not sure I understand your point.  Over the years, I have been in the club at Maxwell several times at closing time.  (They close rather early, BTW).

Did I do something wrong?

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

We've talked about this before, of course.  And I suspect the essense of the communication problem is that neither you nor I wrote AFI 10-2701, nor were we asked to comment on the draft.

I think so many people were just relieved to get rid of the berry boards that there wasn't an issue made of it.

Because it is an AF AFI, binding only on AF personnel. 

Isn't it binding on us, since we have to wear the prescribed uniforms?

And there is no known, practical way I am aware of for us to influence it.

Some have suggested sending it up the chain...which would be useless, because there are so many people in CAP (and on this board) who don't think we should even wear the USAF uniform at all that it would very likely get halted before it got too far.

Sure, I can mention the issue to the various AF-affiliated members of the BoG and even to key folks in CAP-USAF.  (Actually, I have already done so on several occaisons.)

Sir, I'm not trying to place any onus on you.  However, I am curious as to what the response of CAP-USAF has been when you've asked.

Honestly, I am fairly sure there are, at least for the Army side,  But I can't point you to them.  I suspect if you look at the various SDF uniform manuals, they will have some sort of citation in them.  For example, I'm pretty sure the Army version requires the red nameplates that are worn fairly universally on the SDF Class A uniforms.

That's probably true on the Army side, and since there are so few naval (Ohio, New York)/air (Texas, though Indiana used to have one) units it does not get a lot of notice.

However, many years ago I did see an SDF Air First Lieutenant wearing the short-sleeve dress...the only thing distinguishing him was it had his state name on his blue nameplate.  I was able to see this because he was wearing the lightweight jacket open (unzipped completely).

Leaving the salute issue aside, state commissioned officers are indeed "recognized" outside their respective states.  The US Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause requires states to recognize the executive officers of other states.  As a practical matter, states can send SDF members to other states for duty as California did by sending some of their CSMR folks to help out after Katrina.  Not to mention the whole TAG thing discussed above.

This is a mystery to me...I had thought that the "full-faith-and-credit-clause" only applied to ARNG/ANG commissioned/warrant officers because their commissions are given full Federal recognition, whereas the SDF commissions are only granted by a State Governor through the Adjutant General.  Ya, vell.

As we have discussed before, there is literally no one still in the Air Force that can even remember when we wore metal grade and blue shoulder marks.

That surprises me, given that the staff of CAP-USAF are bound to have access to many old photographs of CAP personnel(?).

Accordingly, it is just wierd to talk about "penance" or "punishment."  The staff folks who write the AFIs certainly don't think of it that way.  They - being the good staff officers that they are -- will ask "well, if it is working now, why should we change it?"

I use that terminology because the berry boards were indeed a punitive measure...that happened just before I joined, and I remember being told by several high-ranking CAP officers why they were instituted, including one who was a friend of then-national CC General Anderson and spent a lot of time at Maxwell.

So why is is just US?

I guess the gist of that question was why we are alone among service auxiliaries/cadet forces in having to comply with this...why the AF sees the need for it when the CG, Navy and Army do not.

I have heard off-hadn there is still a former national commander running around who used to close down the base O-club on Maxwell. 

Major General Ernie Harwell?

[Eclipse]

My point was that with all the challenges CAP and the USAF have on their plate right now, every conversation and request needs to be mission-focused and driven, there is no time
for nonsense.

If you want to discuss uniform requests which seek to reduce and unify the members' closet (i.e. providing a uniform instead of a "selection"), that's one thing, but to be
asking for cosmetic changes that would feed egos but literally make no difference to anyone, including and especially the membership, no.  Just no.

I stand by my assertions that the current state of the uniform is, in fact, detrimental to mission and spirit, since we don't actually have a "uniform" in the textbook sense of the word,
but until there's writing on the wall that things can actually be "fixed", these discussions aren't even interesting coffee-house fodder anymore.

What we need is one variant of each uniform, and that needs to be 100% mission driven and focused.  Not what someone else wears, not what is best for other services, but
what is singularly best for the membership and the mission.  Two of everything isn't.

Metal grade isn't even on that radar.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

If you want to discuss uniform requests which seek to reduce and unify the members' closet (i.e. providing a uniform instead of a "selection"), that's one thing, but to be
asking for cosmetic changes that would feed egos but literally make no difference to anyone, including and especially the membership, no.  Just no.

Agreed, and of course, as you know, we had one of those.

I stand by my assertions that the current state of the uniform is, in fact, detrimental to mission and spirit, since we don't actually have a "uniform" in the textbook sense of the word, but until there's writing on the wall that things can actually be "fixed", these discussions aren't even interesting coffee-house fodder anymore.

Agreed again, but getting agreement on what that "uniform" should be is about like getting Washington to get anything done.

[Eclipse]

In this context, the CSU made things worse, since it increased the size of the closet.  It served a purpose, and was certainly a better
alternative then the whites in regards to a uniform look, but it wasn't really a solution.

And then of course it was handled badly, end-to-end, from implementation to retirement.

[Ned]

Because it is an AF AFI, binding only on AF personnel. 

Isn't it binding on us, since we have to wear the prescribed uniforms?

Come on, think it through. 

Think of it this way, if you were at your meeting and decided to wear blue grade slides, you could not be courts-martialed for violating the AFI.  Because as a CAP member, you are not bound to obey AFIs.  Just as AF folks are not bound to obey CAPRs.

But the AFI is binding on the AF personnel who control our uniforms.  So I suppose it works out the same in the long run.

Leaving the salute issue aside, state commissioned officers are indeed "recognized" outside their respective states. 

This is a mystery to me...I had thought that the "full-faith-and-credit-clause" only applied to ARNG/ANG commissioned/warrant officers because their commissions are given full Federal recognition, whereas the SDF commissions are only granted by a State Governor through the Adjutant General.  Ya, vell.

Not that strange.  An LAPD officer can certainly travel to New York and perform their LAPD duties as required.  Sure, they may not exercise the powers of a New York police officer, but their status as a California officer does not evaporate when they hit the state line.

And as a side note, when I was a Guard officer, I received an actual paper Federal Commission to hang on the wall.  I also received various state commissions.  There sometimes can be a difference between a state grade and an officers "federally-recognized" grade (kinda like that federal captain / state LTG picutred above), but that doesn't mean that the state officer is not still an officer in a military force recognized by federal law.  The Fed-rec stuff only relates to the internal workings of the DoD.

I use that terminology because the berry boards were indeed a punitive measure...that happened just before I joined, and I remember being told by several high-ranking CAP officers why they were instituted, including one who was a friend of then-national CC General Anderson and spent a lot of time at Maxwell.

Well, as long as you heard the gossip from a reliable source, it must be true.    

It is only "punitive" by self-definition.  The AF needed it to be distinctive.  For you and others, anything distinctive is "punitive." 

Since our very first shoulder insignia were on flaming red shoulder straps, unless the AAF was trying to "punish" the heroic volunteer pilots who were risking their lives to defend the nation against armed Nazis, it is pretty hard to imagine how wearing maroon shoulder marks was "punitive."

[johnnyb47]

This thread got me to thinking so I looked up the history of our rank insignia.
I came across this:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/104939401/CIVIL-AIR-PATROL-UNIFORM-INSIGNIA-SINCE-1941--4th-EDITION

I'm sure others have seen it (a CAP member WROTE it) but I thought it was interesting and relatively relevant.
I'll have to track down a copy and buy it for the coffee table.

[RiverAux]

Is it still the case that JROTC uniforms look more Air Forcey than ours?  If so, I still can't take any  need for "distinctiveness" seriously. 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Is it still the case that JROTC uniforms look more Air Forcey than ours?  If so, I still can't take any  need for "distinctiveness" seriously.

They do, as do, of course, our cadet uniforms.  I suppose that is because there is no danger in a JROTC cadet trolling for a salute from a military member.

Think of it this way, if you were at your meeting and decided to wear blue grade slides, you could not be courts-martialed for violating the AFI.  Because as a CAP member, you are not bound to obey AFIs.  Just as AF folks are not bound to obey CAPRs.

Perhaps not.  But if I were to do something that stupid, my squadron CC would probably give me a well-deserved punt in the posterior...to say nothing of if there were any AF personnel dropping in that night.

And as a side note, when I was a Guard officer, I received an actual paper Federal Commission to hang on the wall.  I also received various state commissions.  There sometimes can be a difference between a state grade and an officers "federally-recognized" grade (kinda like that federal captain / state LTG picutred above), but that doesn't mean that the state officer is not still an officer in a military force recognized by federal law.  The Fed-rec stuff only relates to the internal workings of the DoD.

Scwewy (Elmer Fudd voice).

The only other instance where I've heard of that (and this is a bad one) is the WWII SS.

A member could be an SS-Mann (Private) in the Allgemeine-SS and an Obersturmbannfuehrer (Lieutenant Colonel) in the Waffen-SS.

Well, as long as you heard the gossip from a reliable source, it must be true.    

Gossip, in most cases, tends to vary and increase in sensationalism depending on who is telling it.  The stories I heard back in 1993 had a consistent thread: General Harwell and CAP officers trolling for salutes.  I heard very, very little variation.  The CAP officer in question was my first Squadron CC, a former Cadet (not sure how far up the ladder he went as a cadet), who later became a Wing CC, who finally landed a Region spot before retiring as a full Colonel with quite a rack of awards, including a Gill Robb Wilson.  He was indeed personal friends with General Anderson and once told me WRT the issue of metal grade/blue epaulettes that the General said "You will never get them back."

So, no, it's not primary information and would likely be dismissed as hearsay in a court of law, but as circumstantial evidence it would have at least some validity, I believe.  In any case, this officer was someone I respected (and still do, though I haven't seen him in about 15 years) quite a lot.

For you and others, anything distinctive is "punitive." 

Again it depends on an objective definition of "distinctive."  The pre-berry boards uniforms had CAP cutouts on the lapels, the same blue nameplates that cadets wear now and "CAP" embroidered on the blue shoulder marks.  All of those were "distinctions," because the Air Force did not have them.  I also believe that buttons with the CAP crest, if not mandatory (?), were in widespread use at that time.

I am willing to allow that it was indeed a series of remarkable coincidences: hearsay about a General self-promoting, hearsay about CAP officers trolling for salutes, and the almost concurrent call from the Air Force for "distinctive" insignia, resulting in first maroon shoulder loops, and then the infamous epaulettes.

Since our very first shoulder insignia were on flaming red shoulder straps, unless the AAF was trying to "punish" the heroic volunteer pilots who were risking their lives to defend the nation against armed Nazis, it is pretty hard to imagine how wearing maroon shoulder marks was "punitive."

I never said anything about our AAF/CAP predecessors, who of course had the red backing from NCO insignia and red epaulettes removed in 1946.

[LGM30GMCC]

A few things...

JROTC is part of AFOATS, they have MUCH tighter restrictions on their senior leadership. Every single one of their senior officers is either a retired NCO or Officer. NONE of them are off the street volunteers so while quality still varies, the USAF KNOWS the baseline training they have. Hell, they are still helping pay for them through retirement pay.

RCAC, RAC, AACF and similar organization's officers are COMMISSIONED OFFICERS IN THEIR MINISTRY OF DEFENSE. They are required to go through a much more strictly controlled training process and there is a wait list to try to become an officer. They are also paid members so the tools at the disposal of the forces to ensure proper compliance are a lot bigger.

The CGAUX is 40% the size of the entire CG. They have a closer relationship to their parent service as a result of this much greater size proportion. For a similar proportion/notice CAP would need approximately 300,000 members, or be equivalent in size to the entire active duty component of the USAF.

The majority of the USAF is unaware of the State Defense Force's existence. There's enough confusion between Guard/Active Duty you mix in SDF and most folks would have no idea what you're talking about. I'd likely pop an SDF officer a salute if I saw them since I have no idea what the rules are, but based on the qualifications listed for that GA SDF 2 Star having an equivalent level of military training to an AD Captain...he better be [darn] fine at his job or he's going to get some eye rolls behind closed doors.

As much as I would like to see CAP closer to the USAF the VAST MAJORITY of our members, and perception of them needs to be that our officers behave and act like USAF officers. Right now I would argue most don't. For many this is a lack of training/understanding, for others it's just sloppiness. Clean up the act first, part of which means not worrying about what color rank slides we have.

I thought the CSU was a nice idea, up to the point of the parts that SCREAMED wannabe at me. The Hard rank on it, the silver sleeve braid, etc. It just screamed childish 'You can't stop me from doing this so I'm going to do it!' I thought it wasn't bad (though still hated the braid) when it was swapped to the rank slides. However, by then it was dragged through the muck with its creator.

I can tell you quite a few AF officers look at these things as 'I EARNED my bars and am expected and have to behave a certain way.' There are those who begrudingly accept that lawyers, doctors, and chaplains earn theirs a different way (though there are comments that doctors/lawyers/chaplains aren't 'real' officers). However, as soon as a CAP member starts acting like an ass, and not getting smacked up longside the head for it, we start to lose credibility.

As officers some of us get pissed enough at some of our bad apples, but we have a mechanism to smack them, and generally someone does. In CAP this frequently doesn't happen and because we are so few the bad apples stick out a whole lot more in people's memory.

If we want to 'look' less distinctive, we need to ACT less distinctive first.