NHQ Uniform Committee

[LtCol White]

"Why are cadets REQUIRED to have their grade on their nametags and sm officers aren't?"

With regards to the cadets, I'm a little foggy on that myself.  These young people promote on an average of every 2 1/2 months.  How about just the word "Cadet" on the name tag?  Or did you say that?

This is for the leather flight suit nametag and instead of rank it says "CADET"

[Hawk200]

Which means it has to meet a set criteria (like safety or AF ordered us to do this) to categorize it that way, and need an overwhelming vote (like 2/3rds of NB) to be enacted.

In the case of safety, or the Air Force telling us to, I don't think an NB vote is even appropriate. We do what mother branch tells us, and in the case of safety, we do what's needed. A necessary safety related change shouldn't require months of waiting for the Board to bring it up.

[DNall]

Which means it has to meet a set criteria (like safety or AF ordered us to do this) to categorize it that way, and need an overwhelming vote (like 2/3rds of NB) to be enacted.

In the case of safety, or the Air Force telling us to, I don't think an NB vote is even appropriate. We do what mother branch tells us, and in the case of safety, we do what's needed. A necessary safety related change shouldn't require months of waiting for the Board to bring it up.

I would agree, but I don't want to get into a case where the policy letter of the month changes the command patch yet again with a sentence about some made up safety claim that exists only in the proponent's mind.

On the whole, I'm quite alright with regs being decentralized from the corporate governing structure all together. Why are they voting on uniform changes or any other reg changes for that matter.Those should be handled the same way the military does, which is to delegate the authority to the level where the expertise is & not micromanage so much.

I'm open on how to work that angle of the process. Mainly I'm focused on longer term stability for uniforms & much greater alignment with the parent org.

[Hawk200]

I would agree, but I don't want to get into a case where the policy letter of the month changes the command patch yet again with a sentence about some made up safety claim that exists only in the proponent's mind.

We're definitely in one accord there. That's the kind of thing that needs to be bounced back with a "Denied. Resubmit in 90 years.".

I guess it would have to see some kind of board then, with repercussions on emergency submissions that are submitted on a basis of stupidity. I think most of us would agree that an immediate new command patch design based on safety probably isn't going to be really valid.

[BillB]

Having served for a short (very) period on the National Uniform Committee years ago, the first priority should be to clean up 39-1 and get rid of the conflicting portions. Clarify the information so there is no misunderstandings. In general you can see from the various threads and posts that members feel there are to many corporate uniform combinations, and many should be dropped. Probably one action that could be taken is to place insignia on uniforms where USAF places theirs and limit the 3rd world amount of insignia worn on USAF style uniforms.  The idea of former commanders wearing the command badge on blues on the pocket or pocket flap rather than above it appears to be a valid suggestion

[davedove]

One place that I think needs more clarification is uniforms for SMWOG.  It's not bad for the AF-style uniform, but for the Corporate uniforms it needs some clarification on what devices to wear (CAP cutout, etc.).

[scooter]

The gray pants with the golf shirt uniform. I my wing there must be 20 different shades of gray. To keep the cost to a minimum and have some standardization recommend a store available manufacturer, like Dockers, that we can all find at the local mall.

[DrJbdm]

better yet, because of those problems of standardization why don't we simply just eliminate that uniform. it would be one less uniform. it truly doesn't serve an absolute needed purpose. Nothing that the CSU and golf shirt don't already do.


   Get rid of the three different styles of golf shirts and go to one well made, professional looking standardized golf shirt. those should all look the same, except for pilot wings or aircrew wings if the person is rated, otherwise it's blank on that side.

[A.Member]

Get rid of the three different styles of golf shirts.

I think you could've just ended your statement there. 

[SJFedor]

Get rid of the three different styles of golf shirts and go to one well made, professional looking standardized golf shirt. those should all look the same, except for pilot wings or aircrew wings if the person is rated, otherwise it's blank on that side.

Amen. Although, I don't really see a problem with, if someone is non-aircrew and has no desire to be, allowing the GT emblems there. If I didn't have wings, I'd be proud of my senior GT badge.

[Jerry]

5.  Consider allowing wear of AF-style uniforms by those who don't meet the height/weight requirement if they do meet some variation of the body fat percentage scale that the AF uses as an alternate.

Not to throw cold water, but I can see how this would open a can of worms and leave too much to interpretation----unless there is some really clever way of regulating it.  I've already seen Senior members with their bellies hanging over their belts in clear defiance of the regs, and when you pointed it out to the appropriate commander, etc, nothing was done. I've seen beards-------Yes! Full beards or scruffy half-shaven or 5 o'clock shadow.   So this would be very difficult to enforce.  WHO decides who looks good in a uniform or not?  Now, I look decent in my USAF uniform. I am large-framed, something I inherited from my mother's side.  But I am NOT fat, nor does my belly hang distended over my belt!  But according to the chart, I am 20 lbs "overweight".  So, I cannot wear the USAF uniform--and I despise the aviator combo!  I HATE that cussed thing.  But I wear it because I am "big-boned", large-shouldered and my age works against me as well in trying to get rid of the weight.  So I ought to support allowing "non-compliant" members to wear the USAF uniform, right?   NO!  USAF is VERY sensitive to their image, and they simply cannot take a chance on having CAP members with huge distended bellies hanging over their belts just BURSTING their buttons. And I don't want to see that, either!
So until I can exercise (and, yes, I have been) enough, or starve meself enough to get down to 219, I will remain out of the uniform--much as I would love to be back IN it. I still remember how much I resented those who ignored the uniform standards when I COULD wear it.     I could wear the uniform and look fine in it------but my weight will STILL say 20 lbs over, so.   And I don't like that----that-------that "1898 'Commodore'-looking thing, either (corporate dress)   Picky picky


Jerry
MERNC-024

Tags - MIKE

[RiverAux]

You've just pointed out that ignoring regulations can be a problem no matter what the regulation is, but this isn't a problem with the regulation itself, it is a people problem.  Should we keep from adopting a more modern and sensible approach to the issue just because the same people ignoring the current standards might ignore the new ones?

[DNall]

You've just pointed out that ignoring regulations can be a problem no matter what the regulation is, but this isn't a problem with the regulation itself, it is a people problem.  Should we keep from adopting a more modern and sensible approach to the issue just because the same people ignoring the current standards might ignore the new ones?

My thing here is you need to enforce the regs... with an iron fist if necessary.

I'm really not much of a uniform nazi, but what is a big deal is the same guy that's lax about following the uniform rules is going otb e lax on his flight checklist, his safety brief, his regard for regs when on GT or working with cadets. Discipline & attention to detail start with the little things. If you can't or refuse to get those things right, then we can't trust you & there is absolutely no place for you in CAP -- here's your 2b, thanks for playing. If a commander isn't willing to take it to the mat like that, then they don't belong in command, and if no one at that location is capable of doing it, then by God, shut down the unit. We have to have quality over quantity or we're dead. I mean that figuratively of course, but you should know very well it can turn literal in a heart beat.


Oh, and yeah I support aligning wear policy on the CC badge to AF. That's yet another example of what I mean when I say the regs should be linked so it doesn't take ana ct of congress to keep policies aligned. It should just be an administrative correction on our side to follow the AF reg on such issues/items.

[Dragoon]

The only reason not to allow former CCs to wear the command badge is that we give out a ribbon for command service, so the badge would be redundant.

So the answer is easy - get rid of the ribbon and allow the badge.

[DNall]

The only reason not to allow former CCs to wear the command badge is that we give out a ribbon for command service, so the badge would be redundant.

So the answer is easy - get rid of the ribbon and allow the badge.

Perfect. far too many ribbons already.

[Cecil DP]

The only reason not to allow former CCs to wear the command badge is that we give out a ribbon for command service, so the badge would be redundant.

So the answer is easy - get rid of the ribbon and allow the badge.

The National Board actually wears the Command Service Ribbon, the NEC Badge, and the Command Badge.

[Cecil DP]

On the subject of suggested changes/corrections. Can we have just ONE nameplate? We currently have at least 4 (silver for service dress, , grey for shirts, Blue for Cadets, blue for CDU)

[Eclipse]

The only reason not to allow former CCs to wear the command badge is that we give out a ribbon for command service, so the badge would be redundant.

So the answer is easy - get rid of the ribbon and allow the badge.

I disagree - the command badge should be the honor of the sitting commander(s) ONLY, which means in most cases they can pass them from member to member.

If we allow every current and former commander to continue to wear the badge, in about 10 years, 1/3 of the room at any given time will be wearing them.

The ribbon works just fine.

[Dragoon]

But USAF handles this just fine - the current commander wears it above the pocket.  Former commanders wear it on the pocket.  No confusion for them - why is it confusing for us?

[Trung Si Ma]

But USAF handles this just fine - the current commander wears it above the pocket.  Former commanders wear it on the pocket.  No confusion for them - why is it confusing for us?

They don't have people sitting in the room who gave up command 30+ years ago?