Loss of USAF uniforms

[lordmonar]

Well this has been most helpful. Thanks.

Okay...I'll answer your question.   Yes...I do think that CAP membership would be affected IF we were forced into just the corporate uniform options.

That is one of the reasons why NHQ would never go down that route.

[goblin]

Thank you.

The reason I ask is we were having the conversation at one of our meetings about standardizing senior uniforms for meetings, and how that would affect retention.

Us Active Duty folks didn't care, but some people were genuinely upset. Which is why I wanted to ask the question.

[goblin]

By standardize, I mean the corporate uniform. We went down the road of "what ifs".

[Alaric]

Well this has been most helpful. Thanks.

Okay...I'll answer your question.   Yes...I do think that CAP membership would be affected IF we were forced into just the corporate uniform options.

That is one of the reasons why NHQ would never go down that route.

Yes they much prefer enforcing the two classes of senior membership, that way they don't need to make hard decisions

[lordmonar]

Well this has been most helpful. Thanks.

Okay...I'll answer your question.   Yes...I do think that CAP membership would be affected IF we were forced into just the corporate uniform options.

That is one of the reasons why NHQ would never go down that route.

Yes they much prefer enforcing the two classes of senior membership, that way they don't need to make hard decisions

And that is why we don't want to restart this conversation.

[goblin]

Well this has been most helpful. Thanks.

Okay...I'll answer your question.   Yes...I do think that CAP membership would be affected IF we were forced into just the corporate uniform options.

That is one of the reasons why NHQ would never go down that route.

The question is why? Ignoring those trying to start stuff, what is the reason there would be a drop off in membership?  Are there that many people in the program just for the fancy blue suit?

[abdsp51]

Pot anyone on how long this thread lasts? 

[goblin]

Just have a mod delete it then.  I didn't realize it would be such a big deal or that I would get so many snarky remarks. I assumed I'd be able to have a reasonable discussion.  I guess I need to brush up on my anonymous CAP forum standards before posting again.

[Holding Pattern]

Well this has been most helpful. Thanks.

Okay...I'll answer your question.   Yes...I do think that CAP membership would be affected IF we were forced into just the corporate uniform options.

That is one of the reasons why NHQ would never go down that route.

The question is why? Ignoring those trying to start stuff, what is the reason there would be a drop off in membership?  Are there that many people in the program just for the fancy blue suit?

It isn't just the fancy blue suit. Look at it this way: For as long as I can remember watching CAP as both an internal member (cadet and SM) and externally (My timeframe between cadet and SM was about 10 years), I've watched the things that CAP does that make its relationship to the USAF clear and obvious become less clear and less obvious. As a SM, for reasons not germane to the point I've yet to actually wear said fancy blue suit, and it would still bother me if the option was taken away.

But as a cadet in a composite squadron, it reinforced for me the reasons why I wanted to wear my uniform and wear it correctly because the SMs in my unit led by example on that front.
---------------------------------------------------------

But you can ignore all the above and distill my take on it down the the following 2 sentences:

If NHQ decides to keep taking away things from us that encourage unit esprit, I can donate my time and money to some other youth organization.

If NHQ decides to keep giving us things that encourage unit esprit, I will continue to donate my time and money to this organization.

---------------------------------------------------------

It's a pretty simple formula.

[SarDragon]

Click the Search tab. Click "Advanced Search". Click "Choose a board to search in, or search all". Uncheck "Check all", and then check "Uniforms & Awards" and "Cadet Programs Management & Activities".

Search for "corporate". You'll get many results, covering multiple threads. Explore these threads, and you'll see the discussions.

[Alaric]

Well this has been most helpful. Thanks.

Okay...I'll answer your question.   Yes...I do think that CAP membership would be affected IF we were forced into just the corporate uniform options.

That is one of the reasons why NHQ would never go down that route.

The question is why? Ignoring those trying to start stuff, what is the reason there would be a drop off in membership?  Are there that many people in the program just for the fancy blue suit?

It isn't just the fancy blue suit. Look at it this way: For as long as I can remember watching CAP as both an internal member (cadet and SM) and externally (My timeframe between cadet and SM was about 10 years), I've watched the things that CAP does that make its relationship to the USAF clear and obvious become less clear and less obvious. As a SM, for reasons not germane to the point I've yet to actually wear said fancy blue suit, and it would still bother me if the option was taken away.

But as a cadet in a composite squadron, it reinforced for me the reasons why I wanted to wear my uniform and wear it correctly because the SMs in my unit led by example on that front.
---------------------------------------------------------

But you can ignore all the above and distill my take on it down the the following 2 sentences:

If NHQ decides to keep taking away things from us that encourage unit esprit, I can donate my time and money to some other youth organization.

If NHQ decides to keep giving us things that encourage unit esprit, I will continue to donate my time and money to this organization.

---------------------------------------------------------

It's a pretty simple formula.

If the AF Uniform is needed for esprit de corps, then what does that say of the fat and fuzzies?  I have never worn the AF uniform, and have never seen it diminish the spirit of our unit.  But I'm more a steak than sizzle guy, I care more about the mission than the uniforms, and in my opinion, you can do 90% of CAP in a polo shirt and slacks, the only exception is SAR in the field

[Storm Chaser]

I think some senior members would leave CAP if the AF-style uniform was eliminated, but I don't think it would be as bad as some may think. Those who are in CAP because of the organization and mission will stay. And it's possible that losing the AF-style uniform could force the issue of coming up with a better corporate uniform alternative. I honestly don't think it would hurt the organization that much.

While I'm proud to wear the AF-style uniform, losing this uniform would not affect my membership in CAP. I think that having two classes of senior members, those who can wear the AF-style uniform and those who can't, is more detrimental to the organization than losing the AF-style uniform. Quite frankly, I don't understand why we continue perpetuating this division in our membership.

[lordmonar]

I think some senior members would leave CAP if the AF-style uniform was eliminated, but I don't think it would be as bad as some may think. Those who are in CAP because of the organization and mission will stay. And it's possible that losing the AF-style uniform could force the issue of coming up with a better corporate uniform alternative. I honestly don't think it would hurt the organization that much.

While I'm proud to wear the AF-style uniform, losing this uniform would not affect my membership in CAP. I think that having two classes of senior members, those who can wear the AF-style uniform and those who can't, is more detrimental to the organization than losing the AF-style uniform. Quite frankly, I don't understand why we continue perpetuating this division in our membership.

Yep...now put yourself in NHQ's shoes........we know for a fact that membership will be affected if we go to all corporate.....but who can put an number to that?   And so we got keep the status quo or make a change .....one does not affect membership the other does.   But it is a question mark to how badly it is going to affect membership and it is a question mark about what benefit it will bring to CAP.

So they choose to make no change....and get disrespected for making that decision.

If they make another decision and it goes south on them.....then what?

That is one of the problems with CAPTalk.....is that most of us are all talk an no one is in a position to make any change.  And when change does happen we give them nothing but grief.   When NHQ does as for feed back and input from the field.....for every good input they ask for they get nine that are completely off topic, or completely unworkable......I know one of the people who are vetting the  STRATEGIC  PLAN responses......and the vary from real strategic concepts to "why did they take the flag off the BDUs".

So....as had been said to the OP.....here on CT we have hashed this topic out before......ad nausium.  NHQ is not going to go down that route because too many members want to be in USAF style uniforms and may quite if they take them away.

Right, Wrong, or Indifferent....those are the facts of the situation.

[Holding Pattern]

If the AF Uniform is needed for esprit de corps

I'll stop you right there. I didn't say it was needed. I said it encouraged it.

Let's look at CAPM 39-1, page 5.

1.1. Basic Philosophy and Enforceability.
1.1.1 Philosophy.
1.1.1.1. CAP's philosophy is to provide a distinctive and standard set of uniform items that
provide a positive public image of the Corporation, build esprit de corps, and enhance professionalism.
1.1.1.2. A significant representation of CAP's organizational heritage, as well as CAP's
unique affiliation as the Auxiliary of the US Air Force (USAF), is the authorization for CAP members to
wear CAP distinctive uniforms as well as uniforms similar to the US Air Force. CAP uses distinctive
emblems, insignia, and badges to identify individuals wearing the USAF-style uniforms as CAP
members.
1.1.1.2.1. CAP's USAF-style uniform policies will adhere to USAF standards
found in the appropriate USAF instructions. Differences from USAF standards will be only those
differences required to meet unique CAP requirements and allowed by USAF-approved exceptions. CAP
honors our special relationship with the USAF through closely adhering to the policies set for the USAF's
uniform.
1.1.1.2.2. CAP's Corporate-style uniforms facilitate a professional image for
members who choose not to or cannot wear the USAF-style uniform. These uniforms are meant to
complement, but not replace, the USAF-style uniform. They facilitate member uniformity while neither
imposing nor authorizing a military uniform substitute for the USAF-style uniform. Corporate-style
uniforms are simpler in design and cost is minimized by making most badges and devices optional for
wear.
1.1.1.3. Pride in one's personal appearance and in wearing the uniform greatly enhances the
esprit de corps essential to an effective organization. A very important part of the image a CAP member
projects and the impression they create is how he/she wears their uniform. As with other personal
appearance standards, the CAP uniform emphasizes a neat, clean, professional image. Members have a
responsibility to keep their uniform clean, pressed, and in good repair. In addition, members are
responsible for knowing the authorized uniform combinations and the correct placement of ribbons,
insignia, badges and other uniform items.
1.1.1.4. Therefore, it is critical for members to maintain a high standard of dress and
personal appearance. The five elements of this standard are neatness, cleanliness, safety, uniformity, and
good organizational image. The first four are absolute, objective criteria needed for the efficiency and
well-being of the CAP. The fifth criterion, good organizational image, is subjective but necessary.
Appearance in uniform is an important part of CAP's corporate image. Judgment on what is the proper
image may differ. The American public and its elected representatives draw certain conclusions on
military effectiveness based on the image CAP members present. The image must instill public
confidence and leave no doubt that CAP members adhere to our Core Values and are effective and
professional in executing our missions. The image of a professional and committed CAP member is
incompatible with the extreme, the unusual, and the fad.

So if we get rid of 1.1.1.2, CAP is basically telling me they are removing not only one of our tools to encourage esprit, but that they are further distancing us from the USAF and our heritage.

If that is being done, there had best be something equal or greater in value that we are gaining to encourage esprit and represent our heritage.

[Al Sayre]

Part of the reason many people join is because of our relationship to the USAF, and it is their way of giving something back to their country.   IF they took away the AF uniform from SM's, a lot of people would see it as another step in the USAF distancing themselves from us; no matter where the decision actually came from, USAF or NHQ.  Then the question for them becomes:  "Do I want to be part of, and provide support for an auxiliary whose "parent" doesn't even support or want it?"  I'm not saying it's right, but a person's perception is their reality, and that must be considered when discussing a change so drastic.  YMMV

[NIN]

Part of the reason many people join is because of our relationship to the USAF, and it is their way of giving something back to their country.   IF they took away the AF uniform from SM's, a lot of people would see it as another step in the USAF distancing themselves from us; no matter where the decision actually came from, USAF or NHQ.  Then the question for them becomes:  "Do I want to be part of, and provide support for an auxiliary whose "parent" doesn't even support or want it?"  I'm not saying it's right, but a person's perception is their reality, and that must be considered when discussing a change so drastic.  YMMV

Couple things:

1) There would be an effect on retention (ie. some people who go "Corporate uniforms?  I'm out!") and recruiting ("So let me get this straight, this is the Air Force's Auxiliary and you wear a pair of grey slacks? How does that even work?"). 

Then again, there may be the whole "Thank god I don't have to wear the stupid blue suit anymore" and "Hey, I could care less about uniforms, so this polo shirt and a pair of slacks is awesome.." from people, so who knows.

Can we quantify this effect?  At the moment, no. 

2) At the very least, when working with cadets in the Cadet Program, we already lack sufficient folks in units, especially in leadership roles, who are knowledgeable in USAF and/or military uniform wear.  Reducing this further would, in my personal opinion, have a long-term deleterious effect on the wear of the Air Force-style uniform by cadets.

[FW]

Part of the reason many people join is because of our relationship to the USAF, and it is their way of giving something back to their country.   IF they took away the AF uniform from SM's, a lot of people would see it as another step in the USAF distancing themselves from us; no matter where the decision actually came from, USAF or NHQ.  Then the question for them becomes:  "Do I want to be part of, and provide support for an auxiliary whose "parent" doesn't even support or want it?"  I'm not saying it's right, but a person's perception is their reality, and that must be considered when discussing a change so drastic.  YMMV

It would be interesting if our leadership really thought this was a big problem, and decided to poll the membership on the issue.  Until we really know what "we" want, the "discussion" will drone on for quite a while...

[Ned]

Can we quantify this effect?  At the moment, no. 

Heck, we can't even quantify the "problem."

And until we can actually establish some sort of problem beyond members' personal opinions about what looks "better," or "more professional," or what is more respectful for our diverse membership, we will forever just have two groups of folks who sincerely and passionately believe that the other group's uniform preferences are incorrect.

(Plus the majority of the members who just focus getting the missions done.)

[Alaric]

Can we quantify this effect?  At the moment, no. 

Heck, we can't even quantify the "problem."

And until we can actually establish some sort of problem beyond members' personal opinions about what looks "better," or "more professional," or what is more respectful for our diverse membership, we will forever just have two groups of folks who sincerely and passionately believe that the other group's uniform preferences are incorrect.

(Plus the majority of the members who just focus getting the missions done.)

I absolutely agree with Ned, and until NHQ decides to actually ask the people in the organization we will never be able to quantify if there is a problem, and what impact "solving" the problem may have.

[Garibaldi]

I'm not 100% sure it would have an effect on us at all. Surely, we can perform our ES missions in BBDUs and corporates. On the cadet side, it would be beneficial to have seniors INVOLVED IN THE CADET PROGRAM who can wear the AF uniform in support of that mission. AE doesn't require much in the way of  uniforms for anyone. I don't think I would forsake 20+ years of CAP because they told me I couldn't wear BDUs anymore. I already don't wear blues anymore (thanks to all who bought mine when I "quit" last year, BTW), so not having  another uniform wouldn't hurt me too much. Today, I went and chased an ELT for 3 hours at our local airport in BDUs, and the other people I was with wore the polo/slacks combo. We got the mission done, the ELT shut off and who gave much of a *%#$& what we were wearing at the time? Our group commander showed up briefly in civvies to lend a hand, as well.

I don't think it will much impact our missions, but it might torque some folks off. And if that is the only reason they're in, then really, is it a great loss?