How Soon Will We see This New Style?

[Spam]

We went through this should-we-seek-a-waiver thrash exactly one year ago now. I did the full research drill, including the 39-1 Section 1.5.1.6. process, the AFI cited above, and also including the OSD level policy the AFI fulfills, and including the "will normally approve / must forward for higher review any cases of disapproval" language. Heck of a food chain, and we all agreed that our cadet should be able to wear her hijab, but we were stuck in a do loop of regulatory brain freeze.


The bottom line for us was that by May 2015, NHQ/DP refused to rule, citing that it wasn't in their swim lane, suggesting that she should wear the corporate uniform, and kicking it to CP for further suggestion, from whom I got no reply. My Wing/CC (Col Greenwood, the NHQ Uniform Chair) commented to me that we seem to have stumped the experts. I went back to the then-new issue reg, and found this:

CAPM 39-1 26 JUNE 2014
6.3.1.6. Religious Apparel. Members may wear certain visible items of religious apparel
while in uniform. Religious apparel is defined as articles of clothing or dress that are part of the doctrine
or traditional observance of the religious faith practiced by the member. Hair and grooming practices are
not included in the meaning of religious apparel. Jewelry of a religious nature must conform to standards
set forth in this regulation for wear of non-religious jewelry. Head coverings must be plain dark blue or
black without adornment. In addition, they may be worn underneath military headgear if they do not
interfere with the proper fit or appearance of the headgear. For example, Jewish yarmulkes meet this
requirement if they do not exceed 6 inches in diameter.


Sooo...Done.  I dropped the exemption request through DP, documented via an email to the DCP, encampment/CC and copying the Wing/CC, and sent her to encampment, where she had zero issues at all.


Recommendation 1: don't fret like I did with four page exemption requests. They would be good only for Corporate uniforms any way. So, just cite this para for HEAD GEAR, if your member needs to wear USAF style, and go.

Recommendation 2: note however that the current language specifically does not cover GROOMING. If you have a male who requires a beard, long hair, or forelocks, etc. they must wear corporate. An adult (post pubescent) male Sikh is not apparently authorized to grow and wear a beard with a USAF style uniform, even if they are authorized to wear headgear by 39-1 6.3.1.6. Religious Apparel. If they must wear such, they must wear corporate only, period.


Warning: National HQ/DP then, based on our experience from mid 2015, was unprepared for the topic (of seeking uniform waivers, and of the 39-1 6.3.1.6 head gear reference even), so I would not hold hopes that you'd get much support from NHQ on seeking a CAP/USAF endorsement for a beard waiver, to then send up through the MAJCOM for approval (that would be ACC) per the AFI.


Upcoming "fun":
I have an Orthodox Jew brother and sister cadet recruit pair interested right now, whom I'm anticipating having to have a discussion with their Dad over this issue. The male cadet won't be able to wear a USAF style uniform (and have his hair in forelocks or wear a beard when of age), and the female cadet should be able to wear USAF style (either BDUs or Blues or even PT) as Kiddush Hashem* requires that she not wear trousers, nor expose skin other than face and hands... and the USAF style skirt isn't ankle length. I am concerned that she wont be able to perform PT, as well. Can't pass a PT run running in an ankle length skirt.


V/R
Spam


*sanctifying the name of God (Hashem) through speech, deeds and looks. This isn't unique to Orthodox Jews or Muslims... I've had several conservative Christian families who departed the pattern over the years rather than require their daughters to wear running shorts around boys. My female Muslim cadet runs (and passes) our 3 mile run PT in a workout body suit (black) and the woodland camo head scarf, which actually looks pretty bad-ahem, like some ninja warrior suit (except she is always grinning widely). I don't think the Orthodox Jewish folks would approve the full coverage workout suit, though I will offer it as a suggestion.

[Garibaldi]

Spam, I'm wondering, in this case, if we should find an Orthodox rabbi to give some guidance on what she can/cannot wear with regards to exercise clothing.

[PHall]

Which goes back to old old old argument.

What damages will CAP incur if it does away with the USAF style uniform?

The status quo is the status quo because it is a compromise between two competing ideas.

On the one side....we should all be in USAF style uniforms.....which excludes the fat and fuzzies and those who don't want to be "in the military".
On the other side is the "we should all be in corporates"....which would bring the wrath of a good sized portion of the members who joined to be part of the USAF.

CAP is what it is.   Sure we can change it.   But like most everything in a volunteer organizations baby steps and the long haul is the way to make those changes.

Which goes back to your same old argument that you've been making ever since you joined CAP Pat.
Why do you want CAP to not wear the USAF style uniforms? 

[ProdigalJim]

Warning: National HQ/DP then, based on our experience from mid 2015, was unprepared for the topic (of seeking uniform waivers, and of the 39-1 6.3.1.6 head gear reference even), so I would not hold hopes that you'd get much support from NHQ on seeking a CAP/USAF endorsement for a beard waiver, to then send up through the MAJCOM for approval (that would be ACC) per the AFI.

I hear ya. I think your experience may have paved the way to educate them, because we got support from NHQ/DP and from CAP-USAF for the hijab waiver for the USAF-style uniform and we got the waiver done in a shade over three months. Maybe things have changed... 

[Spam]

Spam, I'm wondering, in this case, if we should find an Orthodox rabbi to give some guidance on what she can/cannot wear with regards to exercise clothing.

HER Rabbi. You don't want to get started on a Rabbinical debate! (grin)

V/R
Spam

[USACAP]

The Navy just allowed full sleeves and neck tats...
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/03/31/navy-just-approved-militarys-best-tattoo-rules/82425974/

Nope, there are no pending changes to any of the services tattoo policies.

[Eclipse]

Which goes back to your same old argument that you've been making ever since you joined CAP Pat.
Why do you want CAP to not wear the USAF style uniforms? 

Not presuming to speak for Lord, but I think the issue is that "A" uniform does not automatically equal "not the USAF style", however
given the posture of the USAF in regards to CAP's wear, and the organization's inability to enforce its standards properly,
the only way CAP is going to ever get to a uniform, is by moving to something that does not concern the USAF.

The organization as a whole would be much better served, internally and externally, by a single uniform that
presents a consistent identity and message regarding the membership, vs. the perceived value of the affinity the USAF
uniform provides.

A simplified uniform, especially for non-formal operations, would remove an unnecessary distraction from the real problems
CAP is facing.

What the organization has today is divisive, dilutes the brand and identity, and cause more issues then it solves.

If it neither "efficient" nor "effective".

[PHall]

Which goes back to your same old argument that you've been making ever since you joined CAP Pat.
Why do you want CAP to not wear the USAF style uniforms? 

Not presuming to speak for Lord, but I think the issue is that "A" uniform does not automatically equal "not the USAF style", however
given the posture of the USAF in regards to CAP's wear, and the organization's inability to enforce its standards properly,
the only way CAP is going to ever get to a uniform, is by moving to something that does not concern the USAF.

The organization as a whole would be much better served, internally and externally, by a single uniform that
presents a consistent identity and message regarding the membership, vs. the perceived value of the affinity the USAF
uniform provides.

A simplified uniform, especially for non-formal operations, would remove an unnecessary distraction from the real problems
CAP is facing.

What the organization has today is divisive, dilutes the brand and identity, and cause more issues then it solves.

If it neither "efficient" nor "effective".

Bob, I think Pat can speak for himself. But thank you for your interest.

[Holding Pattern]

Which goes back to old old old argument.

What damages will CAP incur if it does away with the USAF style uniform?

This is a topic for a different thread.

But I found someone that answered it:

I still say if we are going to go to an updated or different uniform then we need to go to one that ALL members can wear and not a select few.  If not all members can wear the BDU or the ABU then we all need to go to one that we can.  BBDU fits that bill.

Or......we could just tell those who refuse to meet standards "thanks for playing", 

The problem is......looking like the USAF IS  important to our rank and file.   And doing away with the USAF style uniforms will affect the membership and the nature of CAP.

The status quo is and always has been a compromise between these two issues.

If we went all corporate a not insignificant number of members would quit.
The USAF says you must meeting weight and grooming standards to wear their uniform.....so we would have to kick out a not insignificant number of members to go all USAF uniforms.

If you can figure out how to solve one or the other of these problems.....I'm all ears.

[Storm Chaser]

Which goes back to your same old argument that you've been making ever since you joined CAP Pat.
Why do you want CAP to not wear the USAF style uniforms? 

Not presuming to speak for Lord, but I think the issue is that "A" uniform does not automatically equal "not the USAF style", however
given the posture of the USAF in regards to CAP's wear, and the organization's inability to enforce its standards properly,
the only way CAP is going to ever get to a uniform, is by moving to something that does not concern the USAF.

The organization as a whole would be much better served, internally and externally, by a single uniform that
presents a consistent identity and message regarding the membership, vs. the perceived value of the affinity the USAF
uniform provides.

A simplified uniform, especially for non-formal operations, would remove an unnecessary distraction from the real problems
CAP is facing.

What the organization has today is divisive, dilutes the brand and identity, and cause more issues then it solves.

If it neither "efficient" nor "effective".

Eclipse is absolutely right. Except for wearing the corporate working uniform (polo) on occasion, all my uniforms (and I have a lot of uniforms) are AF-style uniforms. I like the AF-style uniform and wear it professionally and with pride. But given the circumstances surrounding CAP uniforms and the present policies excluding a large portion of our membership from being able to wear it, I would gladly give up all my AF-style uniform sets to replace them with a single, professional-looking uniform that all our members can could wear.

Heck, National made us change our e-mail signature blocks with an ugly thing full of pictures, a departure from AF-style signature blocks, in the name of corporate identity and brand. I say there's nothing more visible that conveys our corporate identity and brand than the uniforms we wear.

[Brit_in_CAP]

(snipped) I like the AF-style uniform and wear it professionally and with pride. But given the circumstances surrounding CAP uniforms and the present policies excluding a large portion of our membership from being able to wear it, I would gladly give up all my AF-style uniform sets to replace them with a single, professional-looking uniform that all our members can wear.

Heck, National made us change our e-mail signature blocks with an ugly thing full of pictures, a departure from AF-style signature blocks, in the name of corporate identity and brand. I say there's nothing more visible that conveys our corporate identity and brand than the uniforms we wear.

+1

[FW]

(snipped) I like the AF-style uniform and wear it professionally and with pride. But given the circumstances surrounding CAP uniforms and the present policies excluding a large portion of our membership from being able to wear it, I would gladly give up all my AF-style uniform sets to replace them with a single, professional-looking uniform that all our members can wear.

Heck, National made us change our e-mail signature blocks with an ugly thing full of pictures, a departure from AF-style signature blocks, in the name of corporate identity and brand. I say there's nothing more visible that conveys our corporate identity and brand than the uniforms we wear.

+1

Considering what we already deal with, I agree.  IMHO, we do need a single style  uniform for all members, giving us a professional uniform appearance.  We should be consistent in branding...
CAP has a proud history of service.  We can show our Air Force ties in other ways than the uniform (for senior members).  It just might be the straw that helps break years of stagnation; letting qualified and motivated members to join and stay without regard to height. weight, and grooming issues.

That said, will we really lose a significant portion of our membership if we drop the AF style uniforms? We really have no idea.  I don't remember the question ever asked of the membership.  I haven't seen a poll, questionnaire, or ballot on the subject; just some "talk" on forums and meetings.  Maybe this is a question which needs to be officially dealt with; once and for all.  At least, then, we will be able to make decisions based on real data...

[arajca]

To those pining for a single uniform, we did have one. While the AF style service uniforms were not removed, I had noticed a number of folks who could wear the AF style adopting the white/blue corporate style. I think, if it had remained, a significant number of seniors would have adopted it - both those who met h/w and those who didn't - leading to a drop in the percentage of seniors wearing the AF service uniforms. Those who protested grooming, were not permitted to wear it, but that could have been changed.

However, for reasons unknown to the general membership, that uniform no longer exists.

I do not see ANY potential for a single senior uniform to arise.

I also noticed, after the white/blue uniform was removed, a large increase in the number of seniors wearing the golf shirt. After being burned for a few hundred dollars, I think many decided the heck with dress uniforms of any type.

[Storm Chaser]

That said, will we really lose a significant portion of our membership if we drop the AF style uniforms? We really have no idea.  I don't remember the question ever asked of the membership.  I haven't seen a poll, questionnaire, or ballot on the subject; just some "talk" on forums and meetings.  Maybe this is a question which needs to be officially dealt with; once and for all.  At least, then, we will be able to make decisions based on real data...

You're probably right. But how many members would we lose and whether the number is significant enough to impact the organization is yet to be determined. Some will say that due to our small active membership base, which is much smaller than the numbers published by NHQ, the impact would be large; that we can't afford to lose a single member. I don't know. CAP is a very cyclical organization and members come and go all the time. If that wasn't the case, our numbers would be larger.

Either way, while I wouldn't want to lose any active, contributing members, someone who leaves the organization strictly because we can't wear the AF-style uniform anymore is probably not someone we want to keep anyway. The reason is simple. Members set the culture of the organization. A culture focused on uniforms and "bling" is not what we need to be successful and relevant. The other factor to consider is how many new members would join and stay as a result of a uniform policy that doesn't exclude or single out those who cannot meet the weight/height or grooming standards to wear the AF-style uniform. Of course, we don't know for sure what that impact would be either. But I suspect over time we would be much better off.

[Spam]

Chaser, I'd tend to agree.

If your goal is to serve as a DoD funded program effectively providing lead-in recruiting for USAF (via a Cadet Program), then a USAF style uniform as close as possible to current USAF is indicated for success, with fairly rigid enforcement of height/weight and grooming standards. That should be blues and ABUs with distinctive CAP elements.


If your goal is to maximize the number of members (of all physical types and shapes, of all financial backgrounds and inclinations) who can take part in ES and AE missions, then something else might be in order - as low cost, as informal, as suitable as possible for field/ES use, and as easily purchased the better, with zero height/weight and grooming standards.


If you can't meet standards for the former, just wear the latter. Don't fake it, try to rationalize it, or lie about it. If you're fat, don't buy or don USAF style. If you have a beard or long hair, don't wear USAF style.


Just my thoughts.
Spam

[Eclipse]

If your goal is to serve as a DoD funded program effectively providing lead-in recruiting for USAF (via a Cadet Program), then a USAF style uniform as close as possible to current USAF is indicated for success, with fairly rigid enforcement of height/weight and grooming standards. That should be blues and ABUs with distinctive CAP elements.

This would seem to be the stated mission of JROTC / ROTC, even to the degree that CAP makes a fair point about not being a career exploration organization, not a recruiting arm.

If your goal is to maximize the number of members (of all physical types and shapes, of all financial backgrounds and inclinations) who can take part in ES and AE missions, then something else might be in order - as low cost, as informal, as suitable as possible for field/ES use, and as easily purchased the better, with zero height/weight and grooming standards.

This would seem to the be stated goal of CAP as a whole.

[Spam]

Yep, I agree. The only caveat I omitted is that the cadets can meet the more restrictive standards of case 1, and still participate in case 2.

Agreed...
Spam

[Eclipse]

Yep, I agree. The only caveat I omitted is that the cadets can meet the more restrictive standards of case 1, and still participate in case 2.

And if the USAF uniform is actually a draw, allow it for cadets as-is, with the totality of the leadership in corporate.

This is not unheard of in similar organizations, and ends the conversation quickly and easily.

And as I've said 100 times before, institute a mandatory annual weigh-in for anyone who wants to wear the USAF combos
and this problem will evaporate in a year.

Either A: those not in spec will be unable to pretend anymore.

B: Those charged with making the decisions will be held to the standard, and will push for a consolidated uniform.

Either way, big wing CAP, end of decades of problems.  Zero mission-centric cost.

Safe, Effective, efficient.

[Brit_in_CAP]

Yep, I agree. The only caveat I omitted is that the cadets can meet the more restrictive standards of case 1, and still participate in case 2.

And if the USAF uniform is actually a draw, allow it for cadets as-is, with the totality of the leadership in corporate.

This is not unheard of in similar organizations, and ends the conversation quickly and easily.

Nailed it.

[Fubar]

And as I've said 100 times before, institute a mandatory annual weigh-in for anyone who wants to wear the USAF combos and this problem will evaporate in a year.

But then we'll have complaints about buddies doing weigh-ins for buddies and fudging the paperwork. Then you'll end up with some new form and a requirement to be seen by your doctor for an official weight. Or only having one woman in your squadron and nobody to weigh her, or whatever.

It's a great idea, but those who intentionally and willfully ignore the rules will always find a way.