I'm trying to create a list of all of the errors, perceived ambiguities, gray areas, contradictions and conflicts that CAPM 39-1, the CAP Uniform Manual, has within itself and with other CAP regulations. Please help point these out to me so we can get them corrected.
This is not a wish list of uniform items you wish we had, or changes to our insignia you wish they'd make, but rather pointing out existing issues. There are a handful I'm already aware of and would like to ensure we get all of them.
P.S.: We know the photos are all, for the most part, bad examples.
The diagrams for placement of the embroidered rank for BDUs seems like someone forgot to finish them (especially for the "CAP" placement on the BDU field jacket). Some aspects just have to be "eyeballed" by the sewing member.
Grade on the BDU caps should be centered on the front of the cap vertically and horizontally. Not 1/2 inch up from the visor.
Address the wearing of more than one specialty insignia, and military badges in relation to same.
Ditch the requirement to crease shirt and blouse sleeves centered off the epaulet.
Model Rocketry badge placement for females needs to be looked at. While you are at it, move the patch to the left pocket.
Change clothing accessories to be IAW AFI 36-2903. Scarf color has changed to black IIRC.
CAPM 39-1 badge placement verses AFI 36-2903 badge placement.
Edit: Grooming standards should be the same reguardless of cadet or senior status. i.e. Sideburns
Really have to go through the manual with a fine toothed comb to find them all.
There are two tables for precedence of decorations.
One table places them AFTER all US ribbons,
The other table places foreign awards after US Military Awards, but ahead of CAP awards.
I never liked how there was a picture, and then there was a list of where things went. Keep the picture but elaborate on the list, (take 6 pages) on the proper way to wear and place badges on the Service Coat. Don't try to jam it all on one page.
As discussed here before, 39-1 conflicts with 39-3 in the wear of US Military awards and decorations.
Quote from: mikeylikey on November 28, 2007, 07:24:08 PM
I never liked how there was a picture, and then there was a list of where things went. Keep the picture but elaborate on the list, (take 6 pages) on the proper way to wear and place badges on the Service Coat. Don't try to jam it all on one page.
The problem with the tables for badges and patches is that they lump everything together for males and females and the different but similar uniforms. I wonder if it might be better to do the tables different or forgo all together in favor of much more detailed notes specific to each combination instead of two different places... the Figure and the Table?
1. Specify exactly whether or not the tie bar/pin is required. AFI-36-2903 does not require a tie bar/pin but CAPM 39-1 hints that it's required.
2. Respecify exactly where certain cadet items go on CAP distinctive uniforms. Many cadets have to leave much to their own way of how a uniform should be since the manual does not specifically cover this on some CAP distinctive uniforms.
There are more things, but I'll have to dig through my mind for all of them.
There was an illustration from a Marine uniform manual that looked helpful. It seemed to designate places on the uniform and list what uniform items went there and how they went. A list of what can go over the ribbons and what can go on the pocket could be very helpful.
With this latest revision of the manual, a lot of Chapter 1 was changed from regular paragraphs of text to a tabular format, which is not the ideal way to display that information. It should be reverted to regular paragraphs.
Also, not directly related... 39-1 is huge. 90% of the time, a simple one-sheet with a good portrait with callout boxes pointing out key areas is all you need. With the revised 39-1 should come color one-sheets of every uniform combination suitable for posting on squadron bulletin boards. Refer people to 39-1 for details and edge cases.
Quote from: justin_bailey on November 28, 2007, 09:47:38 PM
With this latest revision of the manual, a lot of Chapter 1 was changed from regular paragraphs of text to a tabular format, which is not the ideal way to display that information. It should be reverted to regular paragraphs.
Also, not directly related... 39-1 is huge. 90% of the time, a simple one-sheet with a good portrait with callout boxes pointing out key areas is all you need. With the revised 39-1 should come color one-sheets of every uniform combination suitable for posting on squadron bulletin boards. Refer people to 39-1 for details and edge cases.
You mean something like this? Attached are a couple of one sheet guides I prepared for the corporate blue and corporate gray uniform. (Well, not exactly one-sheets, but they can be easily edited.)
Sorry, don't have one yet for the AF-style blues.
Yeah, something like that, but with people modeling the uniforms.
I was initially going to suggest that we return to the pre-1997 uniform manual days when all the uniform "pictures" were drawings. But, after looking at the 1997 manual again, it really is nice to see how the uniform is supposed to look on a real person, particularly for the items that don't have precise locations (e.g., the silver nameplate, or the nameplate/ribbons on female dress uniforms).
The 2005 pictures are a joke, but that's already been pointed out.
Just as a suggestion...
Why do we insist on showing how to wear the uniform of a higher grade officer in all our manuals? The most likely person to even open the uniform manual is a new person, so shouldn't the examples be showing lower grade individuals and focus on how to put on CAP cutouts instead of Lt Col epaulet sleeves?
Quote from: jimmydeanno on November 29, 2007, 01:26:56 PM
Just as a suggestion...
Why do we insist on showing how to wear the uniform of a higher grade officer in all our manuals? The most likely person to even open the uniform manual is a new person, so shouldn't the examples be showing lower grade individuals and focus on how to put on CAP cutouts instead of Lt Col epaulet sleeves?
That's a very valid point. It should be very explicit for SMWOG and Lieutenants, giving the exact position of EVERY device. As you said, these are the people who are most likely to be looking at the manual.
The manual could then maybe give an example of a field grade officer to highlight the differences.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on November 29, 2007, 01:26:56 PM
Just as a suggestion...
Why do we insist on showing how to wear the uniform of a higher grade officer in all our manuals? The most likely person to even open the uniform manual is a new person, so shouldn't the examples be showing lower grade individuals and focus on how to put on CAP cutouts instead of Lt Col epaulet sleeves?
Because 1) the majority of members are sm'officers, rather than SMwoGs. 2) Once you put on grade, it doesn't matter what it is, the placement remains the same unless you have stars.
Having said that, there's nothing wrong with including a section for brand spanking new members. Many of whom have never put on a uniform in their life.
If such an addition would be too lengthy for 39-1, a clear-as-the-nose-on-your-face pamphlet for the new member package and online might be a good idea.
It would not be a bad idea to have a Figures specfic to NCOs and "Airmen".... Senior Members without grade. Like they do with cadets. Could have two pictures. One SM and one NCO.
Bump.
Rather than trying to pick apart CAPM 39-1 to find the existing issues, it might actually be easier to just start over. As I've mentioned before, I think a lot can pretty much be copied and pasted from AFI 36-2903. Also I think you can make some allowances for how it was versus how it's gonna be change wise.
Quote from: MIKE on December 12, 2007, 02:45:30 AM
Bump.
Rather than trying to pick apart CAPM 39-1 to find the existing issues, it might actually be easier to just start over. As I've mentioned before, I think a lot can pretty much be copied and pasted from AFI 36-2903. Also I think you can make some allowances for how it was versus how it's gonna be change wise.
Instead of cutting and pasting from 36-2903, why not just make a CAP Supplement to AFI 36-2903?
Quote from: PHall on December 12, 2007, 02:54:27 AM
Quote from: MIKE on December 12, 2007, 02:45:30 AM
Bump.
Rather than trying to pick apart CAPM 39-1 to find the existing issues, it might actually be easier to just start over. As I've mentioned before, I think a lot can pretty much be copied and pasted from AFI 36-2903. Also I think you can make some allowances for how it was versus how it's gonna be change wise.
Instead of cutting and pasting from 36-2903, why not just make a CAP Supplement to AFI 36-2903?
A few reasons. One, a lot of folks in CAP have a problem with using an Air Force publication.
Two, that would require having two different pubs to put together a CAP uniform.
Three, there is corporate stuff that isn't listed in 36-2903, so there would have to be something separate anyway.
Plus, it's easier to just have a single pub for CAP uniforms. It would be a little cumbersome to have to look up stuff in two different manuals.
I've heard this "just use 2903" argument a lot lately, especially as a back-door to quickly getting new items approved (i.e. as soon as it hits 2903, it'd be ok for us).
I'm sure many of you can see the issue with that.
Since there are many USAF items prohibited for our wear, >our< manual should be complete, with no references to outside pubs. This clears up any ambiguity wth regards to items we're not allowed.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 12, 2007, 02:23:03 PM
Since there are many USAF items prohibited for our wear, >our< manual should be complete, with no references to outside pubs. This clears up any ambiguity wth regards to items we're not allowed.
I'll second that one. And as an example, -2903 allows subdued flightsuit nameplates, and the A-2 leather jacket.
Use -2903, and someone would wear both those items, and use the excuse that "It's in AFI 36-2903, so it's legal!"
We could save ourselves some heartburn by having our own pub.
Error or ambiguity?? Basic uniform for cadets is the blue short sleeve uniform. No other uniform can be required unless provided for free or as an optional uniform. However, whenever the cadet turns 18, he/she must meet weight standards or they must wear CAP distinctive uniforms. Will the CAP distinctive uniforms be free or optional?? If not, how can they be required in lieu of the other regulation??
youth programs cost money.
even the boy/girl scouts require the purchase of uniforms. Multiple ones none the less, short sleeve, long sleeve, shorts, pants, jackets, hats, etc
The argument of not providing free uniforms holds a lot of water with some, but none with me.
It would take half the CAP supplement to clear up what items in the AF regs we aren't allowed to wear.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 13, 2007, 01:11:39 AM
It would take half the CAP supplement to clear up what items in the AF regs we aren't allowed to wear.
We dont need to say what we can't wear but emphasize that "only items from the following list are authorized for wear"
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on November 28, 2007, 07:20:00 PM
There are two tables for precedence of decorations.
One table places them AFTER all US ribbons,
The other table places foreign awards after US Military Awards, but ahead of CAP awards.
But that should be correct. Foreign "military" awards earned on active duty take precidence over CAP awards.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on November 29, 2007, 01:26:56 PM
Just as a suggestion...
Why do we insist on showing how to wear the uniform of a higher grade officer in all our manuals? The most likely person to even open the uniform manual is a new person, so shouldn't the examples be showing lower grade individuals and focus on how to put on CAP cutouts instead of Lt Col epaulet sleeves?
A higher grade officer is more likely to have more doodads and bling....ergo making a better illustration of placement of the various badges.
If we had a pictures of or typical cadet we would have only A1C's that have done nothing other than earn their Arnold.
I don't know what our "typical" officer is but I suspect they are 1st Lt's with just a tech rating.
My pet peeve.
We can wear rank on BBDU hats, and BDU hats but not organizational ball caps. The USAF does let's follow suit.
I have a really good idea on how to eliminate 98% of the problems.
Step 1. Change all our specialty badges to something that looks more USAFish.
Step 2. Us AFI 36-2903 as our primary source of uniform wear information.
Step 3. Write a simple supplement (or better yet get the USAF to reserve a whole chapter) stating the difference between USAF rules and CAP rules.
I'd support a change in our specialty badges to look more like USAF occupational badges, also would be interesting to see if at least a supplement could be done.
Quote from: lordmonar on December 13, 2007, 05:22:27 AM
My pet peeve.
We can wear rank on BBDU hats, and BDU hats but not organizational ball caps. The USAF does let's follow suit.
I have a really good idea on how to eliminate 98% of the problems.
Step 1. Change all our specialty badges to something that looks more USAFish.
Step 2. Us AFI 36-2903 as our primary source of uniform wear information.
Step 3. Write a simple supplement (or better yet get the USAF to reserve a whole chapter) stating the difference between USAF rules and CAP rules.
USAF has eliminated all org hats with the ABU
There is ambiguity over the wear of outergarments with USAF style unforms. The phrase in tables 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3:
"...... use good judgment in choosing
appropriate garments for wear based on
weather conditions and duties."
...has been used as an excuse to choose civilian outergarments not listed in the chart "Hey, in my good judgement, my Florida Marlins jacket is appropriate for the weather, so I'll wear it."
Suggest adding the sentence "Only outergarments listed in this chart are authorized." right before the phrase listed above.
Quote from: isuhawkeye on December 12, 2007, 11:24:24 PM
youth programs cost money.
even the boy/girl scouts require the purchase of uniforms. Multiple ones none the less, short sleeve, long sleeve, shorts, pants, jackets, hats, etc
The argument of not providing free uniforms holds a lot of water with some, but none with me.
GSA does not require the purchase of any uniforms and most BSA troops only require one shirt with patches and neckerchief. We expect our Cadets to have multiple uniforms and hold them to a lot higher standard than your average youth group.
Do I have a problem with that? Not really, as long as we let a prospective Cadet know what they'll need to really participate. Just talking about the minimum service uniform and the free uniform program is close to "bait and switch," considering encampment requires almost two sets of everything blue and green.
QuoteJust talking about the minimum service uniform and the free uniform program is close to "bait and switch," considering encampment requires almost two sets of everything blue and green
Which is exacly why you should not sell our program with the idea that a "free" uniform will meet their needs. They will have to buy uniforms, and they should know that before they join
Quote from: Eclipse on December 12, 2007, 02:23:03 PM
I've heard this "just use 2903" argument a lot lately, especially as a back-door to quickly getting new items approved (i.e. as soon as it hits 2903, it'd be ok for us).
I'm sure many of you can see the issue with that.
Since there are many USAF items prohibited for our wear, >our< manual should be complete, with no references to outside pubs. This clears up any ambiguity wth regards to items we're not allowed.
Who put the bump in the bump-she-bump-she-bump... who put the ram in the ram-a-lama-ding-dong...? ;D
About the only thing I'd adopt from 36-2903 is the current format for preparing regulatory publications. The front title should read "COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY" in bold letters and the introductory paragraph should inform our members that "Willful failure to observe the prohibitions and mandatory provisions of this instruction may result in the member being suspended or terminated from membership in Civil Air Patrol."
These warnings shouldn't just apply to 39-1, but other big-dog regs as well (60-series, for example).
Send printed poster sized illustrations for units to have to supplement the Manual.
Make sure everyone gets a Uniform Manual with membership or change.
Clear communication of the regs prevents most of the ambiguity.
This might be off topic, a bit.
Back in the day WIWAC, there was a CAP poster that illustrated all of the CAP insignia items.
It was a combination ribbon chart, badge identifier, and wing patch illustrator.
I realize we'd need a bigger poster now, but something like that would be useful at the unit level.
The older versions of 39-1 (1977, 1988) did not have the errors and conflicting instructions that the current version does. I'd go back to one of the old manuals, and update it rather that update and correct the current reg. The older versions also had better photos of correct uniform wear which should serve as a model for new photos.
Quote from: BillB on January 07, 2008, 12:26:29 PM
The older versions of 39-1 (1977, 1988) did not have the errors and conflicting instructions that the current version does. I'd go back to one of the old manuals, and update it rather that update and correct the current reg. The older versions also had better photos of correct uniform wear which should serve as a model for new photos.
The issue is not a case of old vs. new. The manual we need is one that is properly written,
proof-read, and crosschecked for continuity. The current manual just seems to be a re-hash of an earlier one, and new stuff isn't checked with the old stuff to be certain that they match.
The uniform manual seems to be an afterthought. It needs to be written from beginning to end on its own, rather than just republished with a few new pictures and content.
One small thing is the embroidered CAP cutout on the epaulets on the field jacket. It isn't mentioned in the notes for Figure 2-18, nor is it mentioned in Table 6-1. Yet Figure 6-3 clearly shows the embroidered CAP cutout on the epaulet.
Quote from: davedove on January 07, 2008, 06:24:24 PM
One small thing is the embroidered CAP cutout on the epaulets on the field jacket. It isn't mentioned in the notes for Figure 2-18, nor is it mentioned in Table 6-1. Yet Figure 6-3 clearly shows the embroidered CAP cutout on the epaulet.
Nice find! Thanks.
A suggestion for clarification in CAPM 39-1
Fig 2-19 Flight Suit
1. Grade Insignia: Senior members will wear regular size plastic encased grade insignia centered horizontally on top of each shoulder with bottom edge of insignia placed 1/2 inch from shoulder seam. General officers will center plastic grade insignia on shoulder. CAP cutouts will not be worn. Cadets do not wear insignia or cutouts
Clarification needed: ... as measured from the insignia itself or the clear plastic? If from th e insignia, there is not enough space between the insignia and the edge of the plastic - the plastic would overlap the shoulder seam and make it very difficult to seew on.
Fig 2-18: BDU
CAP Aviation Badges and Specialty Insignia: Embroidered, worn 1/2 inch above the cloth "Civil Air Patrol" tape worn over the left breast pocket. If both devices are worn, aviation badges should be 1/2 inch above specialty insignia.
Clarification needed: should all badges sewn above the civil air patrol branch tape be spaced from the insignia or the blue field? Should the blue field the insignia is on be spaced to "touch" each other, meaning there would be 1/2" of blue between insignia?
Oops, anothe rone
Fig 4-3 Blue Polo Shirt
NOTES
1. Dark blue knit shirt with embroidered CAP seal on the right breast and embroidered name and aeronautical rating or specialty badge on the left breast.
Clarification needed: I know there is an ICL allowing CAP specialty insignia to be worn. I can't find it but the Knowledgebase changes the text in Note 1 to:
1. Dark blue knit shirt with embroidered CAP seal on the right breast and embroidered name and aeronautical rating or specialty badge on the left breast.
Need to clarify how many badges total can be worn - just one right? Also, specify if only CAP aeronautical rating or any military aeronautical rating can be embroidered on the shirt. I had one member get Vanguard to embroider on USAF Command Pilot wings (took three tries but they finally understood what he was asking, the first two had CAP Command Pilot wings but he sent them back)
Quote from: lordmonar on December 13, 2007, 05:13:13 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on November 28, 2007, 07:20:00 PM
There are two tables for precedence of decorations.
One table places them AFTER all US ribbons,
The other table places foreign awards after US Military Awards, but ahead of CAP awards.
But that should be correct. Foreign "military" awards earned on active duty take precidence over CAP awards.
Pat:
I do not care about the precedence, I am only pointing out the ambiguity. Table (I think) 5-3 shows the precedence as:
1. US Military Awards
2. CAP Awards
3. Foreign Awards
Table 5-2 shows the same precedence, but includes certain foreign awards among the listed US Military Awards.
So, if I am setting my rack up IAW 5-3, I put my Vietnam Campaign Medal and Vietnam Cross of Gallantry at the bottom of my awards, behind the CAP awards. That makes sense, since CAP awards are US awards, and should take precedence, IMO, over awards from lesser (and in my case, now non-existant) countries.
But if you read 5-2, the VCG and VCM are listed as "US Military Awards" which they are not.
I called NHQ and I was told that foreign awards earned as a member of the US armed forces count as US awards on the CAP uniform, and the "Foreign decoration" reference in Table 5-3 refers to awards earned as a member of a foreign armed force.
My preference is immaterial. What should happen is that this regulation should be clarified, and what NHQ explained to me should be written down so everybody knows it.
The DoD manual 1348.33 shows that non-military awards go before foreign awards in precedence.
While CAP is not specifically listed as a non-military organization, I believe it is an appropriate model to follow.
Thoughts on changes to 39-1, from a female perspective...
Section 1-5 Paragraph a.
"Female: Short-sleeve light blue blouse; Dark blue skirt or slacks; flight cap; neutral nylon hose; black shoes; black handbag." Should the word "optional" be included since not all females carry handbags?
Section 1-6 Paragraph b.
The sentence in Section 1-6 Paragraph a. reads, "Articles such as wallets, pencils, pens, watch chains, fobs, pins, jewelry, handkerchiefs, combs, cigars, cigarettes, pipes, and sunglass cases will not be exposed on the uniform." It seems like this sentence should also appear in Section 1-6 Paragraph b. While such items have less potential to be showing on dress uniforms, since women do not have pockets in their shirts, there is a potential for visibility on BDUs. This also applies to Section 4-3 Paragraph b, Table 4-3, Line 7 and Table 4-4, Line 5.
Section 1-6 Paragraph b.
"Appropriate undergarments will be worn to present a conservative, feminine appearance." I'm not sure why the adjective "feminine" is needed here. Actually, shouldn't it just say what it does in most other locations; undergarments are required at all times, or something like that?
Section 1-8 Paragraph e.
"All Air Force uniform garments, footwear, and accouterments that the Defense Personnel Support Center (DPSC) supplies to AAFES military clothing sales stores (MCSS) and conform to Air Force specifications;" This phrase doesn't make sense to me. Am I missing something or is it missing a word?
Table 1-3
"Berets provided at special activities may be worn at the activity ONLY." "Special activities" is pretty generic here. You might want to add a list of activities and exclude all others, or in some other way narrow down any possible WIDE interpretations.
Figure 2-9. Women's Service Dress Uniform (Senior Members)
From Figure 2-1: "A maximum of four devices may be worn on this uniform with a maximum of two devices worn above the ribbons." This line should be added to Figure 2-9 – unless female uniforms do not permit the same number of devices as the male uniforms.
Figure 2-10. Women's Service Dress Uniform (Cadets)
The New-style Service Dress Uniform is shown first then the Old-style Service Dress Uniform is shown (unless there is an error in wording). This is opposite to the order given in Figure 2-2; they should be in the same order.
Table 2-1 and Table 2-2, Line 1
Indicate the appropriate shade(s) of color acceptable. This is also relevant in other locations within the document.
Table 2-1, Line 8
"White socks must not show when crossing legs." Since men also cross their legs shouldn't this line be added here? (See Table 2-2, Line 9)
Table 2-1, Line 9
"Wear collar [or] shirt inside or outside sweater." Should the "or" here in the brackets be "of" instead?
Table 2-2, Line 14
"When not wearing the flight cap but wearing a belt, tuck under the belt on either side, between first and second belt loops;" Where should the cap be placed when not wearing a belt?
The following is from: MEMORANDUM FOR ALL CAP UNIT COMMANDERS, 29 June 2006
"The male service cap with gray braid on the visor was also approved for wear with its currently authorized service cap device... Females may wear their currently authorized service cap." So, are women authorized to wear the female service cap AND the male service cap?
"Service coat may also be worn with plain black bow tie at formal occasions where the mess dress may be worn." What do women wear; a tab, a men's bow, the (ugh) floppy bow?
Hope this helps. :)
Quote from: cnitas on January 07, 2008, 11:18:23 PM
The DoD manual 1348.33 shows that non-military awards go before foreign awards in precedence.
While CAP is not specifically listed as a non-military organization, I believe it is an appropriate model to follow.
I knew that was always at least the tradition, but I guess there is an official precedent for placing foreign awards behind all US awards.
In any case, the CAP regulation on this issue is unclear and contradictory.
Table 6-5. US Military Badges Authorized on CAP Service Uniforms and BDUs
3. Combat Infantry or Army Medical Badge
Need to add Combat Action Badge too.
note:
The Combat Action Badge may be awarded to any soldier after the date of September 18, 2001 performing duties in an area where hostile fire pay or imminent danger pay is authorized, who is personally present and actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy, and performing satisfactorily in accordance with the prescribed rules of engagement
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/CombatActionBadge1stAwd.jpg/175px-)
Quote from: sfdefender on January 09, 2008, 03:39:23 AM
Table 6-5. US Military Badges Authorized on CAP Service Uniforms and BDUs
3. Combat Infantry or Army Medical Badge
Need to add Combat Action Badge too.
note:
The Combat Action Badge may be awarded to any soldier after the date of September 18, 2001 performing duties in an area where hostile fire pay or imminent danger pay is authorized, who is personally present and actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy, and performing satisfactorily in accordance with the prescribed rules of engagement
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/CombatActionBadge1stAwd.jpg/175px-)
As far as badges go, I think that most military badges should be authorized. I would exclude branch marksmanship badges, and only allow the DCM badges. Our organization is made up of a lot of former military, and they ought to be able to continue wearing what they've earned.
However, I wouldn't authorize any more than the maximum of four per uniform that is currently permitted. Got to have a limit in the interest of good taste.
Which reminds me...
CAPR 39-1 lists the Army Overseas Service Ribbon as authorized, but the list omits the Reserve Component Overseas Deployment Ribbon.
As a suggestion, 39-1 could be amended to authorize all military awards and decorations authorized and in the same precedence as the AFI governing the AF uniform. That way we don't have to change 39-1 every time any of the other branches make changes or add awards. We won't have to constantly play catch-up.
I can't find what type of slacks are regulation for the female Mess Dress either in Figure 2-15 or in Table 2-2 in 39-1. (I do see special trousers in the Men's table.)
I also notice there's no check mark next to low quarters for female mess dress. Is this an oversight or a regulation that women must wear pumps with the mess dress?
Thanks.
That's because the female mess dress only has a skirt, no trousers. Ditto for the footwear.
But I don't see the skirt authorized either... just a dress. And if slacks aren't authorized, why not?
Quote from: tjaxe on January 13, 2008, 08:15:51 PM
And if slacks aren't authorized, why not?
Ask the AF.
[redacted]
CAPM 39-1, Figure 2-26, Note 4 and Figure 2-28, Note 4, and Table 2-3 (6) allow "unit commanders" to authorize various types of CAP ball caps. Somehow this needs to be incorporated into Table 1-3, which lists what uniform items Wing and Region Commanders can authorize. CAP baseball hats need to be added to that table and perhaps there should be a table for what uniform items squadron and group commanders can authorize.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 13, 2008, 09:03:42 PM
CAPM 39-1, Figure 2-26, Note 4 and Figure 2-28, Note 4, and Table 2-3 (6) allow "unit commanders" to authorize various types of CAP ball caps. Somehow this needs to be incorporated into Table 1-3, which lists what uniform items Wing and Region Commanders can authorize. CAP baseball hats need to be added to that table and perhaps there should be a table for what uniform items squadron and group commanders can authorize.
Thanks Riveraux. :)
Quote from: tjaxe on January 13, 2008, 08:00:11 PM
I can't find what type of slacks are regulation for the female Mess Dress either in Figure 2-15 or in Table 2-2 in 39-1. (I do see special trousers in the Men's table.)
The AF mess dress for men comes with mess dress pants. The AF mess dress for women comes with a dress. It's a "here's the uniform, wear it or don't" type of deal. Women AF members don't have the choice of pants, so by extension neither do CAP members. We can't do anything to change that at our level.
Quote from: tjaxe on January 13, 2008, 08:00:11 PMI also notice there's no check mark next to low quarters for female mess dress. Is this an oversight or a regulation that women must wear pumps with the mess dress?
Thanks.
I can look into that, but I suspect that it's an AF thing. I'll find out. Thank you for combing through CAPM 39-1, though. We really appreciate the assistance in this endeavor. :)
Quote from: Pylon on January 13, 2008, 09:53:16 PMQuote from: tjaxe on January 13, 2008, 08:00:11 PM
I can't find what type of slacks are regulation for the female Mess Dress either in Figure 2-15 or in Table 2-2 in 39-1. (I do see special trousers in the Men's table.)
The AF mess dress for men comes with mess dress pants. The AF mess dress for women comes with a dress. It's a "here's the uniform, wear it or don't" type of deal. Women AF members don't have the choice of pants, so by extension neither do CAP members. We can't do anything to change that at our level.
Quote from: tjaxe on January 13, 2008, 08:00:11 PMI also notice there's no check mark next to low quarters for female mess dress. Is this an oversight or a regulation that women must wear pumps with the mess dress?
Thanks.
I can look into that, but I suspect that it's an AF thing. I'll find out. Thank you for combing through CAPM 39-1, though. We really appreciate the assistance in this endeavor. :)
In the olden days when dinosaurs roamed the earth and there were white and black mess dress uniforms (the current blue mess dress was not introduced until the early 1980s) women were allowed to wear either standard-length or street-length skirts with summer mess dress. That was eliminated with the current mess dress.
Patent leather pumps (both male and female versions) are usually standard footwear for mess dress, though poromeric (Corfam) is allowed. Males can wear patent leather or Corfam low-quarters with mess dress.
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on January 14, 2008, 01:17:52 AM
Quote from: Pylon on January 13, 2008, 09:53:16 PMQuote from: tjaxe on January 13, 2008, 08:00:11 PM
I can't find what type of slacks are regulation for the female Mess Dress either in Figure 2-15 or in Table 2-2 in 39-1. (I do see special trousers in the Men's table.)
The AF mess dress for men comes with mess dress pants. The AF mess dress for women comes with a dress. It's a "here's the uniform, wear it or don't" type of deal. Women AF members don't have the choice of pants, so by extension neither do CAP members. We can't do anything to change that at our level.
Quote from: tjaxe on January 13, 2008, 08:00:11 PMI also notice there's no check mark next to low quarters for female mess dress. Is this an oversight or a regulation that women must wear pumps with the mess dress?
Thanks.
I can look into that, but I suspect that it's an AF thing. I'll find out. Thank you for combing through CAPM 39-1, though. We really appreciate the assistance in this endeavor. :)
In the olden days when dinosaurs roamed the earth and there were white and black mess dress uniforms (the current blue mess dress was not introduced until the early 1980s) women were allowed to wear either standard-length or street-length skirts with summer mess dress. That was eliminated with the current mess dress.
Patent leather pumps (both male and female versions) are usually standard footwear for mess dress, though poromeric (Corfam) is allowed. Males can wear patent leather or Corfam low-quarters with mess dress.
"Patent leather pumps..." come in a male version? Since the Clinton Administration, perhaps?
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 14, 2008, 02:03:05 AM"Patent leather pumps..." come in a male version? Since the Clinton Administration, perhaps?
Yep, they sure do... they're called 'opera pumps' ;D
(http://manolomen.com/images/operapump.jpg)
About the only time you might see that kind of shoe style is for white tie occasions.
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on January 14, 2008, 02:45:27 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 14, 2008, 02:03:05 AM"Patent leather pumps..." come in a male version? Since the Clinton Administration, perhaps?
Yep, they sure do... they're called 'opera pumps' ;D
(http://manolomen.com/images/operapump.jpg)
About the only time you might see that kind of shoe style is for white tie occasions.
In the Army you could get beat up for wearing a shoe like that!
Incidentally, in regards to the ability of unit commander to authorize their own special ball caps.... That needs to be clarified that such authorizations must be in a properly reviewed squadron operating instruction or wing supplement. No verbal authorizations.
How about all additions or changes to 39-1 by local commanders have to be approved by Wing CC, and Region CC. Then sent to the National Historian.
From figure 2-17:
"Senior member NCOs and Airmen wear the 3-, 3 1/2-, or 4-inch (women) or 4-inch (men) sleeve chevrons centered halfway between shoulder seam and elbow when bent at 90-degree angle on the sleeve."
Note that this does not specify regular or subdued. It should be specified.
I noticed this because we had this question at our squadron.
I believe that follows from AF- the Full color on blues, and Subdued on BDU's. IIRC, the BBDU's use the full color as well. I know thats what I have seen.
Quote from: RogueLeader on January 16, 2008, 09:08:18 PM
I believe that follows from AF- the Full color on blues, and Subdued on BDU's. IIRC, the BBDU's use the full color as well. I know thats what I have seen.
Actually, our Commander called National and was told the full colored stripes should be used on the BDU's, not the subdues.
Still, this shows that it should be specified in 39-1.
Quote from: davedove on January 16, 2008, 09:29:12 PM
Actually, our Commander called National and was told the full colored stripes should be used on the BDU's, not the subdues.
Still, this shows that it should be specified in 39-1.
Agreed. I remember California Wing used to mandate subdued in their uniform supplement. Some people might not even realize they were NCO's until they got close.
I would also suggest (if I haven't done so earlier in this thread) that we lose the CAP collar insignia for NCO's. It's unnecessary. Considering that we wear rank insignia on both sides now, it's pretty pointless. If a member has no rank, got no problems with it. But with stripes on the sleeve
and collar insignia, it's just wierd.
Then again, I'd reorient the "CAP" to be worn on the collar for those without rank insignia. More like this:
C A Prather than this:
CAPIt would align to the front of the collar like any set of bars would, and when you sew on LT bars, you wouldn't have any odd-ball stitching shadow that's oriented 90 degrees to it.
But to really make things easier, we could just eliminate it altogether.
I do not understand the previous post.
^ The orientation of the CAP device or cloth is standardized the way it is so that if you were to button the shirt all the way up to your neck, when the collar pulls up, you still can read the "CAP" cutout or cloth. It is throwback to before fatigues were worn. Say "US" insignia on Officers Khaki shirts WW1-WW2, even before that.
End of history lesson
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 16, 2008, 11:49:55 PM
I do not understand the previous post.
OK. Current cutouts are on a horizontal plane, oriented on a collar in much the same way as a colonel's eagles would be. I would suggest orienting them on a vertical plane more like a lieutenants bar. That is if they weren't just canned altogether.
Clear as mud?
1. SM NCO's are required to wear cloth CAP cutouts on both sides of the collar. Why? wearing full color chevrons on the BDU's already screams "Not Air Force"
2. SM NCO's are supposed to wear embroidered grey epaulets, however vanguard does not sell these and when I call all I get is:
VG: "those will be have to be custom ordered"
ME: "Ok... well... can I order a couple pairs?"
VG: "No, sorry they are sill in R&D"
R&D seriously? you take they gray cloth stick in in the machine and press the start button! how much research does that take?!? (sorry but its been almost 3 years now)
here is one for the committee.....
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 18, 2008, 08:48:59 PM
Wings have as much authority to place patches on the left shoulder as they do to place them on the right knee.
Placement of special activity patches is prescribed by NHQ in 39-1. Changes to the regulation can only be made by NHQ. Additional authorizations may be made by subordinate units to be worn within that unit's AOR.
Take the placement of Patches and other items out of the hands of Commanders at any level when NHQ clearly tells Everyone where to place said patch or device!
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 18, 2008, 10:13:08 PM
Take the placement of Patches and other items out of the hands of Commanders at any level when NHQ clearly tells Everyone where to place said patch or device!
I'll second that one.
Give definitive guidance on all the crap that Hawk mountain gives out. I don't mind the LL patch at all, as a matter of fact I like it, but there should be instructions on where to place it. The Ranger Tabs: Personally i don't care. The orange T-shirt: BAN IT! Orange Hat: Let them keep it for OPs only, but reiterate the standing ban on "ranger rolls" and explain better what a "ranger roll" is. While you're at it give guidance on NCSA Blue Berets. I'm for letting them wear it since in INWG GTM3 qualed people can wear one for ES and I kinda like mine.
Quote from: davidsinn on January 27, 2008, 08:13:32 PM
Give definitive guidance on all the crap that Hawk mountain gives out. I don't mind the LL patch at all, as a matter of fact I like it, but there should be instructions on where to place it.
There are instructions on where to place it. Reference the Interim Change Letter released, that moved it to the pocket. I am surprised National lets HAWK folks get away with a blatant violation of 39-1.
QuoteThe Ranger Tabs: Personally i don't care.
Ummm......where are Ranger Tabs referenced in 39-1, or the 60 series? Anyone?? Once again National letting Rangers do what they want.
QuoteThe orange T-shirt: BAN IT!
Agreed! It serves no purpose (can't really see it underneath the BDU shirt can you?? Also, if you can remember back to Katrina, National "photoshoped" the orange T-shirts of the PAWG ranger team there to black, so they could be included in PAO releases! So basically, Brown or Black T-Shirts....right??
QuoteOrange Hat: Let them keep it for OPs only, but reiterate the standing ban on "ranger rolls" and explain better what a "ranger roll" is.
Can't agree less. Get rid of the Orange Hat. You are supposed to be wearing a hard-hat anyway! I do agree with you on the "Ranger rolls". If 39-1 says no......how can they allow it? Once again, violation of 39-1, and HAWK doing whatever it wants!
QuoteWhile you're at it give guidance on NCSA Blue Berets. I'm for letting them wear it since in INWG GTM3 qualed people can wear one for ES and I kinda like mine.
So you take a test and are awarded the beret? Wow. I say let blue beret keep them (For wear at Blue BERET), but everywhere else....no way!
Quote from: Pylon's original post
I'm trying to create a list of all of the errors, perceived ambiguities, gray areas, contradictions and conflicts that CAPM 39-1, the CAP Uniform Manual, has within itself and with other CAP regulations. Please help point these out to me so we can get them corrected.
This is not a wish list of uniform items you wish we had, or changes to our insignia you wish they'd make, but rather pointing out existing issues. There are a handful I'm already aware of and would like to ensure we get all of them.
P.S.: We know the photos are all, for the most part, bad examples.
ie:
point out the discrepancies, not debate your personal cause.FYI, there's still the 54 page of
garbage uniforms
thread for that. kthx.
One thing that would have saved me from some embarassment was a pictoral descrition of how to properly "roll" your sleeve on the BDU's. I'm not sure if this will happen with ABU's or not, but I know that the Coast Guard has a great tutorial in the Reservist.
http://www.uscg.mil/reserve/magazine/mag2006/Special%20Issue%20Uniform/UniformIssue2.pdf
This might be something to consider that may help in making things more "uniform" across the nation. We do not necessarily have the ability to have more senior giving proper uniform advise to their subordinates, even if the subordinate wants to be in the correct uniform. Maybe part of the solution is to provide at the national level a section of the website with tutorial movies, .pdf's, or other things that would show various ways to put the "polish" on our uniforms. Although this is separate from the manual, I think it deserves some consideration.
Quote from: SSgt Rudin on January 17, 2008, 04:38:09 AM
1. SM NCO's are required to wear cloth CAP cutouts on both sides of the collar. Why? wearing full color chevrons on the BDU's already screams "Not Air Force"
2. SM NCO's are supposed to wear embroidered grey epaulets, however vanguard does not sell these and when I call all I get is:
VG: "those will be have to be custom ordered"
ME: "Ok... well... can I order a couple pairs?"
VG: "No, sorry they are sill in R&D"
R&D seriously? you take they gray cloth stick in in the machine and press the start button! how much research does that take?!? (sorry but its been almost 3 years now)
For the other NCO's out there, these are available via phone order now.
Quote from: Tubacap on February 03, 2008, 06:45:05 PM
One thing that would have saved me from some embarassment was a pictoral descrition of how to properly "roll" your sleeve on the BDU's. I'm not sure if this will happen with ABU's or not, but I know that the Coast Guard has a great tutorial in the Reservist.
http://www.uscg.mil/reserve/magazine/mag2006/Special%20Issue%20Uniform/UniformIssue2.pdf
This might be something to consider that may help in making things more "uniform" across the nation. We do not necessarily have the ability to have more senior giving proper uniform advise to their subordinates, even if the subordinate wants to be in the correct uniform. Maybe part of the solution is to provide at the national level a section of the website with tutorial movies, .pdf's, or other things that would show various ways to put the "polish" on our uniforms. Although this is separate from the manual, I think it deserves some consideration.
I was at a loss for finding out how to wear things, or get them to look right too. I didn't want to show up to my first meeting in BDUs looking like a clown so I did a search on YOU TUBE, in this particular case, on how to blouse trousers. The video I found was great and YT may provide some other interesting "how to's" as well. I do, however, think your idea of having one place with tutorial videos is great!
8)
Quote from: tjaxe on February 06, 2008, 03:51:06 AM
I was at a loss for finding out how to wear things, or get them to look right too. I didn't want to show up to my first meeting in BDUs looking like a clown so I did a search on YOU TUBE, in this particular case, on how to blouse trousers. The video I found was great and YT may provide some other interesting "how to's" as well. I do, however, think your idea of having one place with tutorial videos is great!
8)
ABSOLUTELY! Not everyone that joins up is a former cadet or former/active Military or LEO.
Quote from: davidsinn on January 27, 2008, 08:13:32 PM
Give definitive guidance on all the crap that Hawk mountain gives out. I don't mind the LL patch at all, as a matter of fact I like it, but there should be instructions on where to place it. The Ranger Tabs: Personally i don't care. The orange T-shirt: BAN IT! Orange Hat: Let them keep it for OPs only, but reiterate the standing ban on "ranger rolls" and explain better what a "ranger roll" is. While you're at it give guidance on NCSA Blue Berets. I'm for letting them wear it since in INWG GTM3 qualed people can wear one for ES and I kinda like mine.
I say....
1) Change 39-1 and the 60 series to include the Ranger tab.
2) Do away with the orange shirt or hat except at the ranger school.
3) Have a sit down with the "powers that be" and explain why, IN THE FIELD, a "ranger roll" is far more approrpiate than a garrison style, Castro looking cap. (I spent six years in Airborne, LRS, and even SF units...if you wore the cap you wore it crushed to the head...it presented less of a "catch" when going through trees. We are going into the woods correct?
4) Blue berets? I have no thoughts on them, though I like berets...than again I wore them most of my military career.
A 'ranger roll' or 'dog dish' is different than 'crushed to the head' in field ops.
Quote from: LittleIronPilot on February 06, 2008, 02:02:59 PM
I say....
1) Change 39-1 and the 60 series to include the Ranger tab.
2) Do away with the orange shirt or hat except at the ranger school.
3) Have a sit down with the "powers that be" and explain why, IN THE FIELD, a "ranger roll" is far more appropriate than a garrison style, Castro looking cap. (I spent six years in Airborne, LRS, and even SF units...if you wore the cap you wore it crushed to the head...it presented less of a "catch" when going through trees. We are going into the woods correct?
4) Blue berets? I have no thoughts on them, though I like berets...than again I wore them most of my military career.
My Responses.....
#1) No! Lets get away from more badges/tabs/bling. Last I looked the AF peeps don't wear "ranger" anything!
#2) Why does Hawk need an Orange shirt? Why does anyone? They are already a no-go in the regs! Black or Brown are enough choices! Heck, the orange shirts were freaking photoshopped out of every single Katrina Picture that went through NHQ, by NHQ! So that must mean something right? The only reason to keep them is to make the wearer DIFFRENT from everyone else! As far as HATS go, Negative guy, no more colored hats anywhere! The AF just released guidance on it for themselves, and the only ones allowed to wear colored hats in the AF starting (I think in 6 months) will be REDHORSE Squadrons.
#3) What?!?! That is the most pitiful reasoning for wanting to wear a "ranger roll". If your hat is getting caught on tree branches, duck a little lower! PLUS shouldn't you be wearing a HARD-HAT out on ES missions anyway??
#4) I agree with you on this one. However, a NCSA patch will suffice instead of a beret.
Quote from: mikeylikey on February 06, 2008, 04:36:52 PM
My Responses.....
#1) No! Lets get away from more badges/tabs/bling. Last I looked the AF peeps don't wear "ranger" anything!
#2) Why does Hawk need an Orange shirt? Why does anyone? They are already a no-go in the regs! Black or Brown are enough choices! Heck, the orange shirts were freaking photoshopped out of every single Katrina Picture that went through NHQ, by NHQ! So that must mean something right? The only reason to keep them is to make the wearer DIFFRENT from everyone else! As far as HATS go, Negative guy, no more colored hats anywhere! The AF just released guidance on it for themselves, and the only ones allowed to wear colored hats in the AF starting (I think in 6 months) will be REDHORSE Squadrons.
#3) What?!?! That is the most pitiful reasoning for wanting to wear a "ranger roll". If your hat is getting caught on tree branches, duck a little lower! PLUS shouldn't you be wearing a HARD-HAT out on ES missions anyway??
#4) I agree with you on this one. However, a NCSA patch will suffice instead of a beret.
1) We are AF-lite, remember that. We do not have to be 100% Air Force. Besides, unless things changed, Combat Controllers, PJ's and others CAN wear the Ranger or Special Forces tab if they earned it (again this may have changed).
2) Agreed.
3) Give it a rest, some people like a crushed hat, some do not. I, for one, would prefer to not look like Castro or some garrison-monkey, however until the regs change I will follow them.
4) Again...agreed.
Quote from: lordmonar on December 13, 2007, 05:22:27 AM
My pet peeve.
We can wear rank on BBDU hats, and BDU hats but not organizational ball caps. The USAF does let's follow suit.
I have a really good idea on how to eliminate 98% of the problems.
Step 1. Change all our specialty badges to something that looks more USAFish.
Step 2. Us AFI 36-2903 as our primary source of uniform wear information.
Step 3. Write a simple supplement (or better yet get the USAF to reserve a whole chapter) stating the difference between USAF rules and CAP rules.
When I was a commander, I called NHQ and was told that wearing of rank on organizational ballcaps was up to the commander. The color, style, and design were all up to the commander. Maybe that has changed, not sure.
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 14, 2008, 05:01:46 AM
How about all additions or changes to 39-1 by local commanders have to be approved by Wing CC, and Region CC. Then sent to the National Historian.
Commanders can create local supplements to the 39-1M. The supplements can not change the 39-1M or allow for something specifically not allowed. If you have to wait for a Wing CC to approve a local supplement, that could take forever, and I am sure the Wing or Region CC's do not want to have to do it!
Quote from: LittleIronPilot on February 06, 2008, 05:32:42 PM
3) Give it a rest, some people like a crushed hat, some do not. I, for one, would prefer to not look like Castro or some garrison-monkey, however until the regs change I will follow them.
Crushed is different than "ranger rolled". Plus, our current BDU Hats are not of the same design that were worn during the 50's-60's. They do not look anything like what the Cuban military wears.
Quote from: mikeylikey on February 06, 2008, 06:01:18 PM
Quote from: LittleIronPilot on February 06, 2008, 05:32:42 PM
3) Give it a rest, some people like a crushed hat, some do not. I, for one, would prefer to not look like Castro or some garrison-monkey, however until the regs change I will follow them.
Crushed is different than "ranger rolled". Plus, our current BDU Hats are not of the same design that were worn during the 50's-60's. They do not look anything like what the Cuban military wears.
Agree on the "rolled" versus "crushed".
Bit of history on the Ridgeway cap: http://www.olive-drab.com/od_soldiers_clothing_m1951_cap_ridgeway.php
Castro pretty much adopted it as an affectation. Their military wears it as well. The irony is that it was a US Army headgear first, and we ceased wearing it because Castro wore one.
Something I would like to see in 39-1 are black and white pictures! Lets ditch taking pictures of people, and just have drawn pics.
Unless....the Pics are of Pylon, then I guess it wouldn't be that bad ;D
Quote from: mikeylikey on February 06, 2008, 06:01:18 PM
Quote from: LittleIronPilot on February 06, 2008, 05:32:42 PM
3) Give it a rest, some people like a crushed hat, some do not. I, for one, would prefer to not look like Castro or some garrison-monkey, however until the regs change I will follow them.
Crushed is different than "ranger rolled". Plus, our current BDU Hats are not of the same design that were worn during the 50's-60's. They do not look anything like what the Cuban military wears.
I can see where some see the difference, but crushed or "ranger roll" is fine with me personally. Again..I follow the regs, but I would be fine with either if they let us.
As for the Castro comment, lets just say that every time I see cap that is starched, or has brace in it, it looks really silly.
I resemble that remark!
WIWAC, I wore a Ridgeway back in the 60's. And I was one cool cadet!
Check out www.myspace.com/Blaster1923 and view my pics!
Figure 2-26, Note 4 and Figure 2-28, Note 4 read:
"CAP Baseball Cap: May be worn with the utility uniforms if authorized by the unit commander.
The color, material, unit designation, or silk screen organizational emblem or badge will be
prescribed by the unit commander. Emblem or badge, if authorized, will be centered 1/2 inch above
visor."
Table 2-3 Line 6 has an additional restriction:
"Color, unit designation, and cloth or silk screen organizational emblem or badge as prescribed by unit commander. Emblem or badge, if authorized, will be centered 1/2 inch above visor. No other features such as stars, designs, individual's name and so forth, are authorized."
The same text should be used whenever the "CAP Baseball Cap" is defined.
I think my biggest problem with 39-1 is that you can clearly tell the difference between the sections lifted wholesale from the AF Uniform Manual and the sections written for CAP Distintive Uniforms. There definately wasn't as much care done. I've have SMs argue with me over those blank shoulder marks, saying that just because they're not suppose to be worn with the AF tyle uniforms, doesn't mean they can't be worn with the Corporate style.
Other then that, I think a lot of this discussion is sort of either 'Well, if it doesn't say it, that means we can do it' or 'I'm sad because I can't do what I want."
Take the 'dog dishing' of the patrol cap. 39-1 says pretty clearly that the cap is to be worn square on the head. How do people interperte this as 'I'm going to dog dish my hat so it barely sits on my head and a light breeze wll blow it off' is beyond me. Some people also get confused between rumours and facts. I remember when I was a C/TSgt being told that I had to wear ribbons, because no ribbons was for Cadet Officers only.
Actually, on relfect, one thing that always confuses me is the placementof badges on BDUs. Is it half inch white to white or blue to blue?
Quote from: JThemann on February 14, 2008, 12:02:06 AM
Actually, on relfect, one thing that always confuses me is the placementof badges on BDUs. Is it half inch white to white or blue to blue?
Half inch white-to-white, except for immediately above the "CIVIL AIR PATROL" tape. That one is one-half inch blue-to-white.
Quote from: JThemann on February 14, 2008, 12:02:06 AM
I think my biggest problem with 39-1 is that you can clearly tell the difference between the sections lifted wholesale from the AF Uniform Manual and the sections written for CAP Distintive Uniforms. There definately wasn't as much care done. I've have SMs argue with me over those blank shoulder marks, saying that just because they're not suppose to be worn with the AF tyle uniforms, doesn't mean they can't be worn with the Corporate style.
It still amazes me that people want to wear something blank. Why would you want to go spend money on an item that, by itself, indicates nothing?
Quote from: JThemann on February 14, 2008, 12:02:06 AMOther then that, I think a lot of this discussion is sort of either 'Well, if it doesn't say it, that means we can do it' or 'I'm sad because I can't do what I want."
I'd put the "applause" icon up but it's broken.
Quote from: JThemann on February 14, 2008, 12:02:06 AMI remember when I was a C/TSgt being told that I had to wear ribbons, because no ribbons was for Cadet Officers only.
This seems to fall in line with the same reasoning that only staff people can wear black T-shirts. I threw a monkey wrench in that one by wearing my brown ones. Even wore brown my last few years in the Air Force, and the brief time in the Air Guard. People are still puzzled about it, but they can't really say much.
Quote from: arajca on February 14, 2008, 12:33:50 AM
Quote from: JThemann on February 14, 2008, 12:02:06 AM
Actually, on relfect, one thing that always confuses me is the placementof badges on BDUs. Is it half inch white to white or blue to blue?
Half inch white-to-white, except for immediately above the "CIVIL AIR PATROL" tape. That one is one-half inch blue-to-white.
Yes, and 7/8 inch from the nametape's blue to the blue of the badge above. (1/8" inch blue around all badges and rank insignia, measured from the widest and tallest parts of the insignia.)
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on February 15, 2008, 03:05:13 AM
Quote from: arajca on February 14, 2008, 12:33:50 AM
Quote from: JThemann on February 14, 2008, 12:02:06 AM
Actually, on relfect, one thing that always confuses me is the placementof badges on BDUs. Is it half inch white to white or blue to blue?
Half inch white-to-white, except for immediately above the "CIVIL AIR PATROL" tape. That one is one-half inch blue-to-white.
Yes, and 7/8 inch from the nametape's blue to the blue of the badge above. (1/8" inch blue around all badges and rank insignia, measured from the widest and tallest parts of the insignia.)
7/8!? How do you get that?
Quote from: LittleIronPilot on February 06, 2008, 05:32:42 PM
1) We are AF-lite, remember that. We do not have to be 100% Air Force. Besides, unless things changed, Combat Controllers, PJ's and others CAN wear the Ranger or Special Forces tab if they earned it (again this may have changed).
I resent the idea that we're "Air Force lite." That is the same mentality that excuses us from the things that the Air Force gets upset at us for blowing off. When we wear the uniform, we act accordingly and perform professionally -- that's what gets us the respect of the mother organization. The mentality CAP should have on the uniform is that we wear the Air Force uniform with insignia that indicates we're CAP members and not "real" Air Force personnel -- not that we're CAP members and we can wear whatever CAP lets us get by with, add or change.
That said, CCs wear the tabs on their shoulders over the patch of the Army unit with whom they're assigned because they're assigned there, and the Air Force allows it since the Airman is a member of that Army unit.
On the blank SM epaulets and someone's comment that "why would you want to go spend money on an item that, by itself, indicates nothing?" I disagree. The blank epaulets identify a senior member without grade as a CAP member. That by itself is notable.
Quote from: arajca on February 15, 2008, 03:18:49 AM
7/8!? How do you get that?
Do the math: 1" from the insignia white to wherever you're measuring from -- which means that if you allow the regulation 1/8" blue field around the insignia, you're actually measuring 7/8" from the edge of the blue to the point you're measuring from. Make sense now?
....Yes, the fact that they are senior members is notable. But the fact they're wearing blank shoulder marks that were intended to have something placed upon them is wrong...
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on February 15, 2008, 03:24:38 AM
Quote from: arajca on February 15, 2008, 03:18:49 AM
7/8!? How do you get that?
Do the math: 1" from the insignia white to wherever you're measuring from -- which means that if you allow the regulation 1/8" blue field around the insignia, you're actually measuring 7/8" from the edge of the blue to the point you're measuring from. Make sense now?
Where does the 1" come from? The manual says 1/2" (Table 6-4, line 5).
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on February 15, 2008, 03:22:58 AM
On the blank SM epaulets and someone's comment that "why would you want to go spend money on an item that, by itself, indicates nothing?" I disagree. The blank epaulets identify a senior member without grade as a CAP member. That by itself is notable.
SMWOG is not "specified" with a blank epaulet anywhere in regulations.
Second, if you can't identify a SMWOG as compared to a cadet AB, there's a problem. It's pretty simple. The senior is wearing a gray nametag, the cadet is wearing a blue one. That's really only necessary if you can't tell the difference age wise.
Quote from: JThemann on February 15, 2008, 03:28:54 AM
....Yes, the fact that they are senior members is notable. But the fact they're wearing blank shoulder marks that were intended to have something placed upon them is wrong...
There's the best reason.
Not sure if this goes here, but...
How about moving the Model Rocketry patch to the left breast pocket of the bdu?
Quote from: arajca on February 19, 2008, 06:08:59 AM
Not sure if this goes here, but...
How about moving the Model Rocketry patch to the left breast pocket of the bdu?
Second.
Quote from: arajca on February 15, 2008, 03:33:13 AM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on February 15, 2008, 03:24:38 AM
Quote from: arajca on February 15, 2008, 03:18:49 AM
7/8!? How do you get that?
Do the math: 1" from the insignia white to wherever you're measuring from -- which means that if you allow the regulation 1/8" blue field around the insignia, you're actually measuring 7/8" from the edge of the blue to the point you're measuring from. Make sense now?
Where does the 1" come from? The manual says 1/2" (Table 6-4, line 5).
It comes from where the collar rank insignia is sewn... yes, it's 1/2" from the breast badge to the top of the BDU nametape. D'OH.
Hope you don't think mine are out of line as a result of that misstatement!
Quote from: Hawk200 on February 15, 2008, 04:54:10 AM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on February 15, 2008, 03:22:58 AM
On the blank SM epaulets and someone's comment that "why would you want to go spend money on an item that, by itself, indicates nothing?" I disagree. The blank epaulets identify a senior member without grade as a CAP member. That by itself is notable.
SMWOG is not "specified" with a blank epaulet anywhere in regulations.
Second, if you can't identify a SMWOG as compared to a cadet AB, there's a problem. It's pretty simple. The senior is wearing a gray nametag, the cadet is wearing a blue one. That's really only necessary if you can't tell the difference age wise.
Quote from: JThemann on February 15, 2008, 03:28:54 AM
....Yes, the fact that they are senior members is notable. But the fact they're wearing blank shoulder marks that were intended to have something placed upon them is wrong...
There's the best reason.
I'd like to agree, because it would be simpler not to have shoulder marks, but the nametag is not as immediately recognizable as the epaulets.
That said, the heck with it -- let's just make 'em all NCOs and get it over with. Heh.
I'd just like to reiterate that 39-1 needs to address the Cadet First Sergeant pins. Yes or No. I don't care either way but my unit's top shirt really wants diamonds on her collar and one reg says one thing and the other is silent. She is getting to wear them.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on February 21, 2008, 05:58:01 AM
I'd like to agree, because it would be simpler not to have shoulder marks, but the nametag is not as immediately recognizable as the epaulets.
Simpler not to have shoulder marks? Are you talking about the blank ones being worn as an indicator for a Senior Member Without Grade? You write that in a manner as if we actually do have such a thing. We don't. If that is a practice in your unit or wing, it is wrong.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on February 21, 2008, 05:58:01 AMThat said, the heck with it -- let's just make 'em all NCOs and get it over with. Heh.
Make a brand new member an NCO? In the first place, that's wrong in many ways. Regardless of whatever ranks we have, you don't just hand out grade immediately. It has to be earned. We don't have to do near as much as military personnel to earn our ranks, but there are still requirements. One of them is time.
Second, those blank shoulder marks were designed for the CAP NCO's in the first place. They pin metal rank insignia onto the shoulder mark. They were never designed for any other purpose.
If you wanted a different epaulet with something written on it, like an "OC" (Officer Candidate) or "OTC" (Officer Training Corps), I would consider such a thing, and a few other people might too. The "OTC" would have some basis in history.
Or even eliminate collar insignia for Seniors without any rank. But arbitrarily giving out a rank just so you can tell they're new is the wrong path. A new senior member is pretty recognizable even with just a different colored nametag. There are a number of other indicators.
Quote from: davidsinn on February 21, 2008, 05:08:34 PM
I'd just like to reiterate that 39-1 needs to address the Cadet First Sergeant pins. Yes or No. I don't care either way but my unit's top shirt really wants diamonds on her collar and one reg says one thing and the other is silent. She is getting to wear them.
What is the question about it? 52-16 says:
Quotee. Temporary & Discretionary Grades. There are no temporary promotions or demotions, including temporary or "field" promotions or demotions at encampments and other activities. There are no discretionary grades. Cadets will wear their earned grade on their uniform at every CAP activity. The only grades authorized are those shown in Figure 2-3. However, each squadron may appoint a C/MSgt, C/SMSgt or C/CMSgt to serve as the cadet first sergeant. Cadets serving in this special duty are authorized to wear the first sergeant diamond insignia.
So if she is >=C/MSgt and appointed as a C/1Sgt she can wear the insignia that has the screen printed first sergeant diamond...
Quote from: jimmydeanno on February 21, 2008, 06:11:20 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on February 21, 2008, 05:08:34 PM
I'd just like to reiterate that 39-1 needs to address the Cadet First Sergeant pins. Yes or No. I don't care either way but my unit's top shirt really wants diamonds on her collar and one reg says one thing and the other is silent. She is getting to wear them.
What is the question about it? 52-16 says:
Quotee. Temporary & Discretionary Grades. There are no temporary promotions or demotions, including temporary or "field" promotions or demotions at encampments and other activities. There are no discretionary grades. Cadets will wear their earned grade on their uniform at every CAP activity. The only grades authorized are those shown in Figure 2-3. However, each squadron may appoint a C/MSgt, C/SMSgt or C/CMSgt to serve as the cadet first sergeant. Cadets serving in this special duty are authorized to wear the first sergeant diamond insignia.
So if she is >=C/MSgt and appointed as a C/1Sgt she can wear the insignia that has the screen printed first sergeant diamond...
Yes, but it also needs to be mentioned in 39-1. I don't know how many debates I've seen here and at CS about whether or not the diamond can be worn since its actual placement is not addressed in 39-1. It's just another one of those "Errors, Ambiguities & Conflicts" that need to be fixed.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on February 21, 2008, 06:11:20 PM
What is the question about it? 52-16 says:
Quotee. Temporary & Discretionary Grades. There are no temporary promotions or demotions, including temporary or "field" promotions or demotions at encampments and other activities. There are no discretionary grades. Cadets will wear their earned grade on their uniform at every CAP activity. The only grades authorized are those shown in Figure 2-3. However, each squadron may appoint a C/MSgt, C/SMSgt or C/CMSgt to serve as the cadet first sergeant. Cadets serving in this special duty are authorized to wear the first sergeant diamond insignia.
So if she is >=C/MSgt and appointed as a C/1Sgt she can wear the insignia that has the screen printed first sergeant diamond...
Except that CAPM 39-1 establishes itself in Section 1 as the
sole authority on the wear of uniforms and insignia. While other regulations can establish those insignia and specify criteria for earning them, allowing them to be worn on the uniform (and how) is solely the domain of CAPM 39-1.
This is exactly what this thread is for: finding conflicts between publications and adding them to the list of things which must be resolved. Thank you for bringing that up.
Quote from: Hawk200 on February 21, 2008, 05:28:34 PM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on February 21, 2008, 05:58:01 AM
I'd like to agree, because it would be simpler not to have shoulder marks, but the nametag is not as immediately recognizable as the epaulets.
Simpler not to have shoulder marks? Are you talking about the blank ones being worn as an indicator for a Senior Member Without Grade? You write that in a manner as if we actually do have such a thing. We don't. If that is a practice in your unit or wing, it is wrong.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on February 21, 2008, 05:58:01 AMThat said, the heck with it -- let's just make 'em all NCOs and get it over with. Heh.
Make a brand new member an NCO? In the first place, that's wrong in many ways. Regardless of whatever ranks we have, you don't just hand out grade immediately. It has to be earned. We don't have to do near as much as military personnel to earn our ranks, but there are still requirements. One of them is time....
Let me address the second part of my post and your response: Did you see "Heh" at the end of it? That's because I wasn't serious. That said, CAP just hands people butterbars after six months -- officer rank should be earned with a little more rigor than the cakewalk Level I. From what I've heard, that's in the works, fortunately.
Now to the first part. If no such uniform item exists, fine. The uniform changes every time I turn around and there's no regulation to back it up, so you can understand some of the confusion.
I haven't actually seen an epaulet for seniors with no grade, but then again, I never saw the epaulets for SM NCOs until a few weeks ago. They sure ain't in a regulation anywhere....
It's been dizzying, watching all these policy letters and no regulation supplements, changes or rewrites, and it's not easy to keep up. Seems to me any policy letters should clarify the gray areas of regulations until an edited regulation, change or supplement is issued. Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. It's hard to be by-the-book when the book is no longer accepted as the comprehensive last word.
I would have no problem with a plain gray epaulet for seniors without grade. Of course, I'd also be fine with an enlisted system that actually means something to more than just former military NCOs. Like I say, I'd be totally OK with not handing someone butterbars after six months. Heck, make THOSE people flight officers, and while we're at it, extend flight officer rank to Mitchell Award winners post-21 (and downgrade Earhart winners to butterbars and Spaatz cadets to first lieuy -- there's no 21-year-old in the world who should wear railroad tracks right off the bat).
As an aside to another concern: Vanguard sells the first sergeant diamonds to CAP as a standalone item (and as recently as February's Florida Wing conference). If CAP's regulations state that only a cadet NCO with rockers upward can have the diamond, that's impractical for a lot of units, and doesn't reflect the retail reality.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on February 24, 2008, 03:17:47 AM
As an aside to another concern: Vanguard sells the first sergeant diamonds to CAP as a standalone item (and as recently as February's Florida Wing conference). If CAP's regulations state that only a cadet NCO with rockers upward can have the diamond, that's impractical for a lot of units, and doesn't reflect the retail reality.
The grade requirement for the 1sgt diamond is new to the current version of CAPR 52-16. Prior to that, there was no minimum or maximum grade for a 1sgt. Therefore, the stand-alone diamond was used for those cadets who weren't C/MSgt or higher. It also harkens back to the time when the c/nco grades ended at C/MSgt (six down, zero up). One humourous argument that was brought up BEFORE the current version of CAPR 52-16 was whether or not a cadet officer could serve as 1sgt. Aside from the inherent wrongness of this idea, there was nothing in the regs to prohibit it. It was also possible to a C/Amn serve as 1sgt. I know, I've seen it.
Even under the old regs common sense dictated that the 1st shirt was by definition at least a Cadet Sgt -read NCO- ( C/SrA nowadays)
Never seen a C/Amn '1st Sgt'
Hope to heaven I never do.
Then again Ive seen a cadet wearing AF Chevrons sewn onto their sleeves with the CAP cutout on the lapel. - I politely corrected the cadet
(and ripped the responsible SM a new one) ::)
I remember going to an airshow in MAWG back in the late 90s. I think I was a C/2d Lt at the time. Anyway, we were there as a squadron separately from whatever activities MAWG was doing. There was a group of about 5 of us (a few C/Officers and SNCOs) walking around enjoying the show and some C/A1C marches up to us and demands that we need to go check in at the workers tent.
I remember saying politely, "Airman Soandso, we aren't part of the working crew, we're just here to enjoy the show." He replies, "I'm a First Sergeant, please call me such." Sure enough, this C/A1C was wearing a 1st Sgt diamond. "Well Airman Soandso, I'm a C/2d Lt, so please - address me as such."
I thought that was the most ridiculous thing I had ever seen, you know what I mean - First Airman, HA!
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on February 24, 2008, 03:17:47 AM
Let me address the second part of my post and your response: Did you see "Heh" at the end of it? That's because I wasn't serious.
I noticed the "heh" at the end, but did not interpret as humor. Mostly because it's just a not subject that we need to be joking about.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on February 24, 2008, 03:17:47 AM
That said, CAP just hands people butterbars after six months -- officer rank should be earned with a little more rigor than the cakewalk Level I.
Agreed. The current program requires little dedication for the first couple of ranks. The initial should be much more involved than it is.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on February 24, 2008, 03:17:47 AMNow to the first part. If no such uniform item exists, fine. The uniform changes every time I turn around and there's no regulation to back it up, so you can understand some of the confusion.
There isn't anything in regs on it, other than a former 39-1 that said NCO's could wear metal rank pinned on an epaulet sleeve. As to why people have the idea that it's a shoulder mark for a SMWOG, I have a few theories.
As for changes, if you have the ability to post on this forum, then you can obtain any changes. Gotta keep on them, but most of the time someone will post anything new on the HQ website here within a few days of it going up over there.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on February 24, 2008, 03:17:47 AMI haven't actually seen an epaulet for seniors with no grade, but then again, I never saw the epaulets for SM NCOs until a few weeks ago. They sure ain't in a regulation anywhere....
There is no epaulet for our rankless seniors. They pin cutouts on their collar, but those are not a rank insignia.
As for the Senior Member NCO epaulets, they are in Civil Air Patrol Manual 39-1. The first mention of them is the last line of the summary of changes,
on the very first page of that manual.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on February 24, 2008, 03:17:47 AMIt's been dizzying, watching all these policy letters and no regulation supplements, changes or rewrites, and it's not easy to keep up. Seems to me any policy letters should clarify the gray areas of regulations until an edited regulation, change or supplement is issued. Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. It's hard to be by-the-book when the book is no longer accepted as the comprehensive last word.
Agreed on the dizzying part. As for the "by the book", it's pretty much a matter of not doing or wearing something until you have the actual authorization in hand (or available for printout :) ). That doesn't mean allowing people to wear something because "I read that it was authorized in the National Board minutes". NB minutes are meeting documents, not regulatory publications.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on February 24, 2008, 03:17:47 AMI would have no problem with a plain gray epaulet for seniors without grade.
Personally, I don't see the point of requiring someone to purchase an 8, 9, or even $10 item when something for a couple dollars will do. Attention is a far smaller price to pay.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on February 24, 2008, 03:17:47 AMOf course, I'd also be fine with an enlisted system that actually means something to more than just former military NCOs. Like I say, I'd be totally OK with not handing someone butterbars after six months. Heck, make THOSE people flight officers, and while we're at it, extend flight officer rank to Mitchell Award winners post-21 (and downgrade Earhart winners to butterbars and Spaatz cadets to first lieuy -- there's no 21-year-old in the world who should wear railroad tracks right off the bat).
Right now, we need to fix our current officer system before we start creating others. I'm fine with giving just due to those with former military experience. But starting a new program when the one you've got already has problems isn't real forward looking.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on February 24, 2008, 03:17:47 AMAs an aside to another concern: Vanguard sells the first sergeant diamonds to CAP as a standalone item (and as recently as February's Florida Wing conference). If CAP's regulations state that only a cadet NCO with rockers upward can have the diamond, that's impractical for a lot of units, and doesn't reflect the retail reality.
Those diamonds were originally used by the Air Force for the old Master Sergeant stripe design that had six stripes going down, instead of one on top like it does now. Some CAP personnel got a hold of them, and haven't let go since. Those diamonds themselves have no real purpose anymore other than a museum display. Since people keep buying them, Vanguard will keep selling them. It's all about the dollar to them.
Quote from: Hawk200 on February 25, 2008, 08:22:57 AMNB minutes are meeting documents, not regulatory publications.
True, but really, are policy letters?
As for the diamonds: I'm not sure I agree, only because Vanguard isn't going to sell things the Powers That Be don't want them to. The Hock Shop, on the other hand, will sell the stuff as memorabilia, not for uniform wear.
Bottom line: We need to cut through all the stuff and have ONE CAPM 39-1, with everything in it, edited well and thought out thoroughly. All the policy letters have made it mumbo-jumbo, and it's no wonder we have uniform confusion. Well, that, plus all the uniform changes in general.
Be mindful of the topic, please. I am trying to identify all errors, ambiguities and conflicts that CAPM 39-1 has within itself and with other regulations and policies. Suggestions for uniform changes, ICL/NB Minutes/CAPR 5-2 issues, and other topics can warrant their own thread. Thanks. :angel:
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on February 26, 2008, 02:39:14 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on February 25, 2008, 08:22:57 AMNB minutes are meeting documents, not regulatory publications.
True, but really, are policy letters?
They're not a regulatory publication, they are a supplemental document
until the specific pub is updated. They are legtimate policy though, and as such, are meant to be complied with.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on February 26, 2008, 02:39:14 AMAs for the diamonds: I'm not sure I agree, only because Vanguard isn't going to sell things the Powers That Be don't want them to. The Hock Shop, on the other hand, will sell the stuff as memorabilia, not for uniform wear.
Not really correct. There's a few badges I've seen on the Vanguard website that haven't been authorized for wear on an Air Force uniform for at least ten years. Vanguard still sells them, and will happily take your money for it.
The military
cannot tell Vanguard what they can or can't sell. That's not within their authority. The military can only tell it's own members what is authorized. If they don't tell you can wear the XYZ badge on your uniform, then you can't. They can't even tell a military member that they can't own one. The only authority they have is what is permitted
on their uniforms.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on February 26, 2008, 02:39:14 AMBottom line: We need to cut through all the stuff and have ONE CAPM 39-1, with everything in it, edited well and thought out thoroughly. All the policy letters have made it mumbo-jumbo, and it's no wonder we have uniform confusion. Well, that, plus all the uniform changes in general.
If you're submitting this as a consideration, I'll wholeheartedly second the motion. It's part of our problems.
Well, not to start a flame war, but presolo wings are authorized, however, there is no place to purchase cloth presolo wings. Any possibility to rectify that?? Thanks,
Quote from: capchiro on February 26, 2008, 07:18:32 PM
Well, not to start a flame war, but presolo wings are authorized, however, there is no place to purchase cloth presolo wings. Any possibility to rectify that?? Thanks,
You can't get glider wings either. I guess those badges are not considered "operational" enough to merit producing for the BDU.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on February 24, 2008, 06:24:29 AM
I remember going to an airshow in MAWG back in the late 90s. I think I was a C/2d Lt at the time. Anyway, we were there as a squadron separately from whatever activities MAWG was doing. There was a group of about 5 of us (a few C/Officers and SNCOs) walking around enjoying the show and some C/A1C marches up to us and demands that we need to go check in at the workers tent.
I remember saying politely, "Airman Soandso, we aren't part of the working crew, we're just here to enjoy the show." He replies, "I'm a First Sergeant, please call me such." Sure enough, this C/A1C was wearing a 1st Sgt diamond. "Well Airman Soandso, I'm a C/2d Lt, so please - address me as such."
I thought that was the most ridiculous thing I had ever seen, you know what I mean - First Airman, HA!
A cadet First Sergeant is only a First Sergeant at their own unit. That airman shouldn't have been wearing a diamond at an activity like that anyway.
^ so they have to have two different sets of rank insignia?? One with the diamond, the other without it?
Quote from: mikeylikey on February 27, 2008, 07:40:22 PM
^ so they have to have two different sets of rank insignia?? One with the diamond, the other without it?
I would imagine they should. Would you want all your squadron First Sergeants at an encampment wearing their diamonds? You'd probably have at least a couple, probably more. Could make for some confusion.
As far as the incident described, it's kind of a moot point. It would have involved not putting on the diamond in the first place.
I don't know if this one has been mentioned yet, but when there are pictures with descriptions underneath, some of the descriptions seem to contain the word "maybe" when the phrase "may be" is intended.