New 39-1

[Shuman 14]

Honestly, the Army's uniform manual, AR 670 - 1 has been line diagrams since before I can remember. even chowderheaded soldiers such as myself could figure out what to do.

The whole purpose of a uniform manual is to remove ambiguity. Reduce the opportunity to be non uniform. Make everybody look as much like they belong to the same organization as possible. ( yes, yes, CAP distinctive... I get it ).

Simple, straightforward, to the point, easy to manipulate, one dude with a copy of Adobe Illustrator in an hour could be knocking out dozens of diagrams.

Sir,

As everyone likes to point out to me... CAP is not the Army.

Such comparisons are "Max Verboten". 

[Shuman 14]

Why not shoot this at Vanguard?

They have everything, literally, and I'm sure they have mannequins.

Everything? Do they have khaki uniforms? 

Oh, boy... Here we go again.

I was kidding. 

[JeffDG]

Because we want the photos to be QC'ed by the general membership just like we want every I, T, Comma, semi colon, et al.

Why?

NHQ has basically stopped posting draft regulations for comment for the past year.  Notice the section on the website is even gone.

They got all huffy with me when I asked to see a draft of the new 173-1 as a Wing/DC, sometime before the day that a major change went into effect...got even huffier when I pointed out they'd completely screwed up the way they'd written it, and what they thought it meant isn't what they actually put in there.

So you are mad when the just ignore you and print the regs as they see fit....and you are mad when they post the regs for comments.....sound like it is a no-win scenario for NHQ.

The question is why are the holding on to the draft, waiting for the pictures....the answers is that they only want to have to do the comment and correction cycle once.

Nope.

They were nice enough to tell us a couple weeks out "There's a new reg coming out in two weeks which you will need to implement the next day."

So, I asked "Hey, can we see a draft so we can get our folks leaning the right dirrection." and was told "You don't need that, you'll get it when we publish it."

So, they publish it the afternoon before we have to implement it.  Except the wording they used didn't do what they thought it did.  When that was pointed out (which would have been done if we'd gotten a draft before they published), the response was "Just do it the way we thought it was, not how we actually published it, and STFU"

[Eclipse]

"Just do it the way we thought it was, not how we actually published it, and STFU"

Which is why in a lot of cases, nothing is done.

[JeffDG]

"Just do it the way we thought it was, not how we actually published it, and STFU"

Which is why in a lot of cases, nothing is done.

I think they were more peeved that I ran the interpretation of what they wrote through our JA for his opinion, and he told me "Yep, it doesn't say what they think it says", and I so advised my commander.

[Patterson]

I think they were more peeved that I ran the interpretation of what they wrote through our JA for his opinion, and he told me "Yep, it doesn't say what they think it says", and I so advised my commander.

No, they were probably peeved because your "that guy"!  I have to ask...you have a JA??  The dudes that rock the boat just to rock the boat always end up alienating themselves and/ or wet.

[Al Sayre]

They have to pass it to see what's in it...

[jeders]

We collectively owe the photography team a drink (or two) for just undertaking  the "most thankless job in CAP."

Absolutely.

But, why not just release the draft publication with empty boxes of place of the photos and then release the photos as a separate item a week or two later? Gives the membership time to digest the new uniform issues and find typos in the manual while giving the photo team a little more time to get everything perfect. Just a thought.

Because we want the photos to be QC'ed by the general membership just like we want every I, T, Comma, semi colon, et al.

Why send out the draft with out pictures.....then published the manual just have 300 people go "the photo in fig 4.2 is wrong".

You all waited this long....a few more weeks is not going to kill anyone.

You misunderstand me, I never said not to release the photos for comment as well. I simply said get the reg out there for comment while you finish the photos. It doesn't add any time to the already delayed timeline, and it doesn't add any more revision cycles.

[NIN]

As everyone likes to point out to me... CAP is not the Army.

Such comparisons are "Max Verboten". 

I have been there and even said that.

That being said, simple line diagrams are not the sole province of the Army.

I'm not sure what the Navy & Marine Corps do, but I'm sure they have similar issues.

Simplicity is key. Simplicity should be paramount.

A diagram can be as detailed and or as simple as you want it to be, and adjustments to one for an update don't require a model, a studio, a complete set of uniforms, etc.  Wing patches no longer on blue shirts?  Click-delete.  Publish. Done.

Its not as if we're measuring the dimensions for placement from the photographs. The photo is there it provide a generalized "this is what it looks like" idea. A diagram can do the same.  So, you don't have a qualification badge.  Then it is not worn in that location, drive on.

But from the diagram you can see: OK, the nametag is clearly resting on the pocket, and is centered. Got it.  Clear from the diagram.  You can't necessarily even see that level of detail in photo printed in the manual.

BTW, for anybody who suggested Vanguard do the photos it: Shame on you.

In 2005, CAP still had the Bookstore.  The photos in the 2005 manual were taken (supposedly) by NHQ and they had access to everything they needed right there, too. And still, these images were goofed up.  Vanguard would do it with a big fat watermark across every image!

[FlyTiger77]

I would like to see the uniform manual migrate to a web-based entity with all the information resident on the site. If you want to see where to wear a badge, mouse over it and a text box would pop up telling you where it goes on that particular uniform. When is a specific uniform suitable for wear? Select the hyperlink and the rules are right there.

If the governing entities change a uniform or uniform item, edit that particular screen with the new standard and publicize as before.

Or, we can publish a document that will be woefully outdated again in 3-5 years and not updated for 10-15 years.

[NIN]

I would like to see the uniform manual migrate to a web-based entity with all the information resident on the site. If you want to see where to wear a badge, mouse over it and a text box would pop up telling you where it goes on that particular uniform. When is a specific uniform suitable for wear? Select the hyperlink and the rules are right there.

If the governing entities change a uniform or uniform item, edit that particular screen with the new standard and publicize as before.

Or, we can publish a document that will be woefully outdated again in 3-5 years and not updated for 10-15 years.

I'm looking for Marine Corps uniform info. MCO P1020.34G is substantially text (http://www.marcorsyscom.usmc.mil/sites/mcub/pages/uniform%20regs%20chapters/Uniform%20Regs%20Index.asp) and the figures that are in the online version (not many) are POWER POINT SLIDES. 

No kidding. Not embedded images.  Not PDFs. PPTs!!  Welcome to, you know, 2001, Marine Corps!

[a2capt]

I started on something similar earlier in the year, with the intent of making a list of devices and text for each one, "it goes here" and to be followed up by a photo of it in-place on a uniform., though with having "too much of everything else" to do.. it's kinda sidelined.  About the time I disassembled the 39-1 and turned it into editable text. Initially done for the purpose of being able to capture text easily, I then thought .. "what about a group effort to remake this.. " .. PM's came saying "we're about 1/3rd complete with a rewrite of it.. "

[DennisH]

Not to stir the pot, but in this case the Army 670-1 and CAPR 39-1 are very similar , both filled with error, vague is most chapters , open to interpretation by both command and lower ranks, and never quite finished. And example would be the current AR 670-1 dates 2005 which has multiple additions done with All Army Activities messages called   (ALARACTS ) and one poor draft of the supposed changes. A regulation should be clear enough for MOST leadership and ranks to follow with minimal questions but that never happens. This is why most leaders fear new publications, they know that it can only get worse and the powers that be don't want to hear criticism.

[NIN]

Not to stir the pot, but in this case the Army 670-1 and CAPR 39-1 are very similar , both filled with error, vague is most chapters , open to interpretation by both command and lower ranks, and never quite finished. And example would be the current AR 670-1 dates 2005 which has multiple additions done with All Army Activities messages called   (ALARACTS ) and one poor draft of the supposed changes. A regulation should be clear enough for MOST leadership and ranks to follow with minimal questions but that never happens. This is why most leaders fear new publications, they know that it can only get worse and the powers that be don't want to hear criticism.

Yeah, I forgot that ACUs are completely covered in ALARACTS, as is ASU.

Hehe, the similarities are uncanny!

But again: the diagrams are fairly unambiguous.  Nobody is distracted by the facial expression on MAJ Disaster's face..

[UH60guy]

I always thought the biggest problem with 39-1 is that those most in need of it either never read it or choose to do it their way anyway. Though you ain't gonna fix that with diagrams and revisions...

[SamFranklin]

I always thought the biggest problem with 39-1 is that those most in need of it either never read it or choose to do it their way anyway. Though you ain't gonna fix that with diagrams and revisions...

Personally I don't get into a twist about arcane stuff like whether the Loeing is upside down. What get's me a bit upset is when someone looks like a slob by normal civilian workplace standards. Tuck your shirt in, shave, iron out the wrinkles, get your pants hemmed. If we could get the worst offenders to just try to "look sharp," even if their command patch is outdated, I'd be happy.

Maybe because we have so many arcane rules, so many possible combinations, the whole system is too complex and so people sort of give up. If we had a much simpler number of combinations, badges, etc., more stability, then it'd be "less is more."  Less rules means more attention to the few really important rules.

ymmv

[NIN]

Personally I don't get into a twist about arcane stuff like whether the Loeing is upside down. What get's me a bit upset is when someone looks like a slob by normal civilian workplace standards. Tuck your shirt in, shave, iron out the wrinkles, get your pants hemmed. If we could get the worst offenders to just try to "look sharp," even if their command patch is outdated, I'd be happy.

Maybe because we have so many arcane rules, so many possible combinations, the whole system is too complex and so people sort of give up. If we had a much simpler number of combinations, badges, etc., more stability, then it'd be "less is more."  Less rules means more attention to the few really important rules.

I dunno about less rules, but it would just be nice if we had less possible permutations and variations.   But I do get your point about wearing it right.

Years ago, we had a gent in my group who showed up to an airshow in BDUs. His hair was always too long, his mustache not right, seldom cleanly shaved other wise.  And at the airshow, he's wandering around with a radio or something or other hanging out of EVERY pocket on his BDU shirt.

"Hey, there, Lieutenant. You need to fix yourself."

"What do you mean?"

"You can't have all that crap hanging out of your pockets like that."

"Why?"

"Cuz it looks like hell at the very least.  Nothing is supposed to be just hanging out of the pockets and all unbuttoned and the like."

"Well, if they didn't want me to put things in them, why did they put pockets on the uniform?"

The knifehand wasn't a thing back then, but he came close to getting it.

(he was in the unit that met on the ANG base that the airshow was hosted at.  I can only imagine he was "that guy" who gave CAP a bad name among the Guard folks... "I saw some CAP guy shambling around by the BX with crap hanging out of his pockets looking like a bearded commie hippie!")

[Eclipse]

Maybe because we have so many arcane rules, so many possible combinations, the whole system is too complex and so people sort of give up. If we had a much simpler number of combinations, badges, etc., more stability, then it'd be "less is more."  Less rules means more attention to the few really important rules.

That's just it - the rules are neither arcane nor ambiguous as written.

The combination of local custom and adaptation along with simply ignoring the rules is the real problem.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

What get's me a bit upset is when someone looks like a slob by normal civilian workplace standards. Tuck your shirt in, shave, iron out the wrinkles, get your pants hemmed. If we could get the worst offenders to just try to "look sharp," even if their command patch is outdated, I'd be happy.

I get your point (I think) because some of the uniform regs are just nonsensical and likely to stay that way because there is so much inertia, and in some cases dogged resistance, against changing them.  Not necessarily from the AF, but from CAP.

However, some of the worst offences I see are from those who wear the G/W kit, thinking that since it's not an AF uniform, it doesn't matter how it looks.  I've seen sets of rumpled, worn pyjamas that look worse than some of the G/W uniforms I see:

Absolutely filthy and frayed ribbons (replacing them doesn't cost THAT much, and a shot of Scotchgard goes a long way toward preserving them).

Unauthorised blingage (military ribbons and badges).

Last pressed (if at all) during the Administration of George Bush SENIOR.

Pockets full of pens (some with the dreaded "ink explosions" in pocket), pencils, glasses, cigarettes, etc.

Grey trousers so threadbare you can almost see through them (honest guv, I've seen it, and it sure ain't pretty).

As for shaving...one of the reasons people wear the G/W is because they don't have to meet AF grooming standards.  However, I don't believe that gives one licence to go around looking like Ted Kaczynski.  I have a beard occasionally, and when I do I wear the G/W (even though I hate it), but I at least try to keep it trimmed so it doesn't look like something a gaggle of pterodactyls could nest in.

[Panache]

I dunno about less rules, but it would just be nice if we had less possible permutations and variations.   But I do get your point about wearing it right.

About a week ago I saw a CAP Lt. Col. with a wing patch on his blues.  Okay.  Fine.  He was talking to a Maj. who was, at most, 5'6" and 300 lbs.  Also in blues.

I just sighed and walked away.