White aviator shirt, gray pants combo

[BradM]

Hello, is the white aviator shirt gray pants combo considered a military uniform when the Pledge of Allegiance is said? Should I stand at attention or put my hand over my heart?

Also, when outside and I'm NOT wearing the squadron baseball style cap and a cadet approaches me and salutes is it custommary to salute back in this alternate uniform?

[Eclipse]

Hand over heart.

Salute and return salutes in whites.

[BradM]

Thank you

One last question on the saluting. If you are wearing the CAP golf shirt/gray slacks and a cadet salutes you knowing you are a 2nd Lt or higher do you salute back in this case too?

[bosshawk]

Two things: if you are a veteran, you may(optional)render the hand salute during the National Anthem or the Pledge of Allegiance.  This is a fairly recent Federal Law. Civilian clothes or uniform.

Two: I would suggest that you return all salutes from a cadet, regardless of whether or not you are in uniform(any uniform).

Uniform Nazis: flame away.

[cnitas]

It is good manners to return a salute no matter what you are wearing.

[BradM]

Thank you Colonel Reed and Major Piersall. Thats what I'll do from now on.

[a2capt]

It is good manners to return a salute no matter what you are wearing.

Yup. The salute, when given with the true meaning and intent, is a sign of respect as well.

If they are programmed like mechanical turks to salute when they see you, then something isn't being taught right. So I'd be willing to bet it's the former.

Always return a salute when possible, or acknowledge if you have a hand full of stuff that precludes you from doing so.

[Slim]

Hand over heart.

Salute and return salutes in whites.

CAPP 151 disagrees.  Your answer is found on page 3.

Senior Members. For senior members, the rendering of customs and  courtesies is expected when wearing a military-style uniform (all uniform combinations except the polo shirt and blazer). Regardless, CAP encourages all members to take part in something larger than themselves by participating in these rich traditions.

A more specific answer to the question is found on page 11.

When in civilian attire, the CAP polo shirt, or blazer combination, stand at attention and salute by placing your right hand over your heart while reciting the pledge.  When in a military-style uniform, stand at attention and remain silent.

In both cases, our guidance from NHQ specifically classifies both the blazer combo and polo shirt as civilian clothing.  One could logically say that all uniforms but these are considered military style uniforms.

[bosshawk]

And I suspect that CAPP 151 was produced prior to the Federal Law change.  Do what you like, but I will follow the Federal Law.  Can't say that I ever read CAPP 151 even when I was in CAP.  If you are not a vet, do what CAP says: otherwise follow the law.

[BradM]

Major Freytag,
The primary question was with the white aviator shirt with rank epaulets, ribbons, aviation and GT badges, and specialty badges on the shirt's pockets (wth the gray dress pants). Would this be considered to be like the Air Force blues when doing the Pledge of Allegiance?

Thank you

P.S. I am not a veteran.

[Eclipse]

CAPP 151 is a pamphlet, enjoy that argument.

When in whites I salute and expect to be saluted, and that should be the end of the discussion.

The flag code is a separate discussion from CAP customs and courtesies and dictates that while in white your hand should be over your heart,
which will likely conflict with any PD or FD around you wearing uniforms that look the same, but who will likely be saluting.

CAP does not have a "hat-based" salute policy, regardless of uniform.

[peter rabbit]

^+1 Eclipse has the answers. The white aviator shirt with gray pants is considered a CAP distinctive uniform, not a military-style uniform. See CAPM 39-1 Chapter 4. So, no, they aren't considered to be like the AF blues when doing the Pledge of Alligiance.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

^+1 Eclipse has the answers. The white aviator shirt with gray pants is considered a CAP distinctive uniform, not a military-style uniform. See CAPM 39-1 Chapter 4. So, no, they aren't considered to be like the AF blues when doing the Pledge of Alligiance.

I don't see CAP distinctive uniform and military-style as exclusive terms. The white shirt with epaulets and the blue BDU are CAP distinctive AND military style. CAPP 151 has been updated more recently and I believe to resolve these type of questions.

CAPP 151 designates the polo and blazer as civilian attire. Federal law says veterans can (optionally) hand salute in civilian attire.
However CAPP 151 says hand over heart in the polo and blazer. If you're in CAP uniform you should follow CAP rules not optional law.

There are plenty of places where 2 CAP regs disagree. I don't think this is one of those times

[Slim]

CAPP 151 is a pamphlet, enjoy that argument.

The guidance issued from NHQ, regarding proper rendering of Customs and Courtesies isn't binding, just because it's a pamphlet?  Lesse what other pamphlets aren't binding then:  50-2 (CAP Core Values?), 52-9 (Great Start program?), 52-14 (Cadet SDA guide?), 52-7 (Orientation flight syllabus?), 173-2 (Federal taxes?), and a whole host of others that provide guidance to implementing their programs.  But, since they're pamphlets, I guess we don't have to follow them, eh?  Maybe we can get our o-flight pilots to start doing barrel rolls on flight 1.

Oh...here's a good one.  CAPP 52-18.  I guess that a key element of our cadet progression program doesn't have to be followed because the procedures and requirements for conducting cadet physical fitness tests are in a pamphlet. 

When in whites I salute and expect to be saluted, and that should be the end of the discussion.

But...but....according to you, the guidance that tells you you're supposed to be saluted in whites isn't binding because it's in a pamphlet.  Which is it?  "Do as I say, not as I do", or "Pot, this is Kettle"?

The flag code is a separate discussion from CAP customs and courtesies and dictates that while in white your hand should be over your heart,

Again, I disagree, since the guidance states "Stand at attention and remain silent" or "Stand at attention, face the flag or music and salute" unless you're in a blazer or polo shirt.  In that case, hand over the heart would be proper.

which will likely conflict with any PD or FD around you wearing uniforms that look the same, but who will likely be saluting.

Which is irrelevant, since we're discussing CAP, not PD or FD practices.  Though, FWIW, when we raised the flag at the firehouse every morning, we stood at attention and saluted, even in our duty uniforms (department t shirt or sweatshirt).  Then again, my chief was a USAR E-8, Desert Storm vet, and drill sergeant; you better believe we did it right.

CAP does not have a "hat-based" salute policy, regardless of uniform.

On this, we agree.

^+1 Eclipse has the answers. The white aviator shirt with gray pants is considered a CAP distinctive uniform, not a military-style uniform. See CAPM 39-1 Chapter 4. So, no, they aren't considered to be like the AF blues when doing the Pledge of Alligiance.

If that was the case, why did the authors go to all the trouble to specifically call out the polo and blazer combos?  It wouldn't have been too much more difficult to say "All uniforms except CAP distinctive" instead.

[Eclipse]

On the P vs. M, vs, R discussion, you tell me.  If they are all equal, why do we need seperate designators?

On the saluting issue, old road we've never come to concensus on.

[jimmydeanno]

The wording of 151 lumping the aviator combo into the "military-style" uniforms isn't the same as 39-1 determining what you can and can't wear mildecs on.  Military style in this case is the pointing out that the uniform has ribbons, nametag, epaulet sleeves, etc.

[Ed Bos]

On the P vs. M, vs, R discussion, you tell me.  If they are all equal, why do we need seperate designators?

On the saluting issue, old road we've never come to concensus on.

For ALCON:

CAPR 5-4 specifies the differences between a pamphlet, a regulation, and a manual, as well as supplements and operating Instructions.

The primary difference is that regulations and manuals may only be issued by NHQ, while Paragraph 3 of the 5-4 explains that pamphlets may be issued by, "any level of command unless specifically limited or prohibited by the regulation or manual governing the publication's subject matter."

Is also mentions that in paragraph 1-i, that pamphlets, "are nondirective, informative, "how-to" type publications that may include suggested methods and techniques for implementing CAP policies."

In addition, it specifies the obligations indicated by the appearance of, "should," "must," and "may."

Pamphlets issued by NHQ that inform you with a Should or a Must are giving you information that is related to the subject matter. When there is conflicting or unclear information, it should be brought to the attention of the OPR or issuing office.

Otherwise, you must follow "musts," and should follow "shoulds," unless you have a good reason. Even if they appear in a pamphlet.

This insightful and exciting topic can be explored further by reading CAPR 5-4, as well as all the other administrivia that no one wants to look at, but everyone is excited to argue about.

If that's not clear enough:
If you do what it says in CAPP 151, you won't be wrong; if you choose not to, you're not breaking a written rule, you're just not performing our customs and courtesies (i.e. unwritten rules) the standardized way that CAP has provided to the membership.

[Eclipse]

^ I think we would all be better off with less "should's" and more "shalls" and "wills".

People would then be free to whine and complain, but their behavior would be dictated and clear, and there'd be a lot less arguments.

With that said, there needs to be a review of the "will's" as well, since over the last couple of years we've had "will creep" in areas which
should be command prerogative and which are practically unenforceable anyway.

Anything which is necessary for a baseline unit to function should be a "will".

Anything which is someone's "good idea" but is physically unenforceable, such as "will has 'x' staff member", should be moved to a best-practice website
and removed from the regs.

As an example, requiring a unit to have an AEO, with no means to billet a member in a volunteer paradigm, in most cases just means the commander
gets another title, or will have to simply disobey, since the odds are if anyone wanted the AEO job, they'd already have it.  Extrapolate from there.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I've always understood the G/W to be a uniform that you render a salute in, not to mention return all salutes.

OK, apples and oranges, but the USCGAUX uniform regs, at least when I was in, had uniformed members do the hand-over-heart salute during the Pledge.

Another reason we need a decent, and, yes, military-type headgear for the G/W.

[helper]

Also, when outside and I'm NOT wearing the squadron baseball style cap and a cadet approaches me and salutes is it custommary to salute back in this alternate uniform?

IMO, it's simple, salute when wearing/seeing a uniform that has visible grade/rank insignia (regardless of hat).