As you can imagine, living in Michigan it gets cold during the winter the months.
Much of our unit membership has transitioned over to ABUs and are asking the question, "What headgear can we wear in the winter?"
My interpretation is that they are only allowed to wear the ABU cap.
From the ABU Wear Instruction - "Headgear. The ABU cap is the only authorized headgear with this uniform"
Referencing 39-1 and cold weather accessories they refer to the black watch cap - but that is only for the BDU uniform.
Several members have the Air Force Green fleece cap and would like to wear it when it is cold and give the usual arguments. However, I gently remind them that since it is not mentioned in the instructions it is NOT authorized.
Insight from the hive mind to validate my interpretation or provide justification that changes my mind would be appreciated!
Use common sense.
Wear the appropriate cold weather gear despite what the regulations may or may not say.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 29, 2017, 06:45:19 PM
Use common sense.
Wear the appropriate cold weather gear despite what the regulations may or may not say.
Exactly. Good grief.
You can probably rightly assume that a black watch cap, or maybe even the fleece watch cap, would be allowed.
Cuz if you put on the Online CAPF 73: "Cadet suffered severe frostbite to his ears because of CAPM 39-1" you likely will get laughed at.
Just saying.
Quote from: NIN on June 29, 2017, 07:56:36 PM
You can probably rightly assume that a black watch cap, or maybe even the fleece watch cap, would be allowed.
Cuz if you put on the Online CAPF 73: "Cadet suffered severe frostbite to his ears because of CAPM 39-1" you likely will get laughed at.
If you indicate that on a CAPF 73, you will get more then laughed at.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 29, 2017, 08:07:47 PM
If you indicate that on a CAPF 73, you will get more then laughed at.
Yeah, oops..
;)
If it's not specifically mentioned, I would refer to the AFI for guidance.
Quote from: AFI 36-29036.3.8. Cold Weather Accessories. Cold weather accessories will only be worn when wearing
authorized outer garments (Exception: gloves may be worn solely with the service dress
uniform, ABUs and BDUs). With the exception of functional items, cold weather
accessories are only worn while outdoors.
6.3.8.1. Gloves (black or sage green). Gloves may be worn with all authorized outer
garments. They will be all one color, leather, knitted, tricot or suede, or a combination of
leather, knitted, tricot, and suede. Black or sage green gloves may be worn with the
ABU, FDU and all authorized outer garments to the ABU or FDU. Only black gloves
may be worn with the service dress uniform and all approved outer garments worn with
the blue service and service dress uniforms.
6.3.8.2. Scarf (black). A scarf may be worn with all authorized outer garments except
the pullover and cardigan sweaters (when worn solely as an outer garment). The scarf
must be tucked in and will only be worn with an outer garment. The scarf will not
exceed 10 inches in width and can be knit, all wool or cotton simplex, with or without a
napped surface.
6.3.8.3. Earmuffs (black). Earmuffs may be worn with all authorized outer garments and
may wrap around either the top or rear of the head. Earmuffs may be made of any
material and will only be worn with an outer garment
Sage green watch cap should suffice, we wear it in the USAF.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 29, 2017, 08:07:47 PM
Quote from: NIN on June 29, 2017, 07:56:36 PM
You can probably rightly assume that a black watch cap, or maybe even the fleece watch cap, would be allowed.
Cuz if you put on the Online CAPF 73: "Cadet suffered severe frostbite to his ears because of CAPM 39-1" you likely will get laughed at.
If you indicate that on a CAPF 73, you will get more then laughed at.
You might get the stupid regulations changed.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
This was addressed in 39-1 and the ICL that came out for ABUS.
All:
Ref. the search function, this has been done before extensively (just half a year ago).
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=21688.0;all (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=21688.0;all)
V/r
Spam
Every exercise I've participated in allow civilian outer clothing when the winter months hit. I've had cadets out there in pink hats and coats. Safety > Regulations
Since when are we bound by AFI instructions?
All I have seen are the CAPR, CAPM, CAPP, and other official CAP publications. No mention of any AFI!
AFI are important to provide some guidance but these are not binding on us.
And I have 20 years in Civil Air Patrol.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on July 02, 2017, 05:22:56 PM
Since when are we bound by AFI instructions?
All I have seen are the CAPR, CAPM, CAPP, and other official CAP publications. No mention of any AFI!
I would be a little more careful with blanket statements like this. Go back and read the tattoo section(s) of 39-1. It specifically mentions the AFI that provides guidance and even directs to it.
I was referring to the statement "Check the AFI." Not to when the "instructions to check the AFI originate in the CAP publication." Many but many times our members try to apply what they learned in RM without it being authorized by a CAP pub.
Really the first thing that needs to be decided is whether or not the ABU wear instruction pdf is a part of the CAPM39-1 before they are written into the revision.
I have seen those that argue it is a stand alone document but then try to apply height/weight, tattoo, all of chapters 1-3 from 39-1 and other standards not listed in the pdf but found in the 39-1 to it.
Quote from: Sapper168 on July 03, 2017, 09:10:18 PM
Really the first thing that needs to be decided is whether or not the ABU wear instruction pdf is a part of the CAPM39-1 before they are written into the revision.
I have seen those that argue it is a stand alone document but then try to apply height/weight, tattoo, all of chapters 1-3 from 39-1 and other standards not listed in the pdf but found in the 39-1 to it.
Really? It is an ICL to 39-1 and therefore everything that is in 39-1 that applies to USAF uniforms applies to the ABU.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 29, 2017, 06:45:19 PM
Use common sense.
Wear the appropriate cold weather gear despite what the regulations may or may not say.
... or how
you might interpet them.
Absolutely! wear 'appropriate cold weather gear! If you need an 'interpretation' of a reg where serious injury might (and would likely) result from
YOUR read consult with your Wing Safety Officer. The last place to go is an online forum.
If I cannot trust my troops to follow a simple uniform regulation to not wear pink coats, why in the world would I trust them to follow regulations that deal with operational matters? Why in the world would I trust people with that cavalier attitude with the care of trainees on a ground team, for example? Ref: the "five hazardous attitudes", this is the one that leads people to think that "their" common sense/opinion trumps regulations, and is coupled with a long history of hazardous behavior related to ignoring procedure.
Everyone makes the occasional uniform error, but in an organization where ES activities are an OPTIONAL element in the cadet program, training cadets thus, that regulations don't matter and are worth ignoring, is a systematic bust of our core values of excellence in all we do.
This is a tired, cyclical argument filled with fallacious arguments: some members who have knowingly joined a USAF-affiliated organization can't afford or obtain the items to participate in some element, and then invent this idea that we should circumvent uniform regulations because of some perceived mandate that members without MUST show up. Anyone who holds to standards, is then cast as a mean heartless Grinch who hates kids/the poor. Then we run to a Safety Officer asking for a hall pass, when this is a Command issue, not a safety issue. You don't deploy people to exercises who aren't properly equipped.
So I call Bull. Budget to buy your field gear, including the dang headgear/thermal skivvies/outerwear, and show up when you're legal per the SQTRs. There are affordable options, as per the other thread.
R/
Spam
As pointed out several times, this is a well intentioned but an incorrect interpretation of both the regulations
and the practical reality of the organization as it exists today.
In fact, by regulation there is no cold weather headgear approved, so anything worn other then the patrol cap is a violation,
and further, ABUs themselves are not properly authorized since they exist in the uniform inventory based solely on an ICL that violated § 8.2 of CAPR 1-2.
If you're going to try and play the ATRATT cards, you have to play the whole deck, (not pretend the
jokers and the advertising cards aren't in there), which, as again pointed out multiple times,
includes a number of areas where regs and pamphlets, especially in regards to uniforms wear, contradict either each other othemselves.
Trying to insinuate that one or the other of CAP's missions are somehow "optional", which is ridiculous as a support for something like this,
ignores issues of command intent in regards to member experience, retention, and most importantly safety, and it further pre-supposes
that one specific area is the only place a given uniform is worn.
To put it succinctly, again...to deny any member participation in a given activity, especially a cadet, because they do not have a regulation
jacket or hat, flies in the face of CAP's core values, the stated intentions of the program(s), especially the CP, and literally denies the
realty of CAP within its entire history to ultimately make a self-defeating point.
It is not "leadership".
It is not "mentorship".
It is "...small-minded and ignoble and takes the trivial seriously..."
Quote from: Eclipse on July 04, 2017, 02:33:24 AMIn fact, by regulation there is no cold weather headgear approved, so anything worn other then the patrol cap is a violation, and further, ABUs themselves are not properly authorized since they exist in the uniform inventory based solely on an ICL that violated § 8.2 of CAPR 1-2.
Ya know, this makes me wonder if there isn't a reason NHQ plays fast and loose with the ICL process. Since it would have been so easy to simply put the ABU instruction letter inside CAPM 39-1 (there's already a chapter sitting unused just for ABUs), there must be some sort of process that using an ICL allows NHQ to bypass or work around some larger issue, such as 1AF approval or something within CAP-USAF. We have some pretty smart leaders, both volunteer and paid staff, I can't imagine they would intentionally violate how ICLs are supposed to work without a reason.
I'm not saying having a reason makes it right, but I just feel like they have a reason that we don't know about.
Nothing in either the NHQ announcement or the ABU wear instructions say it is an ICL, unlike the other ICL's which have 'interim change letter' in the subject. There are two of them attached to the 39-1.
Quote from: Sapper168 on July 04, 2017, 06:37:07 AM
Nothing in either the NHQ announcement or the ABU wear instructions say it is an ICL, unlike the other ICL's which have 'interim change letter' in the subject. There are two of them attached to the 39-1.
That is a very interesting point, in fact, there is no properly published ICL or regulation update authorizing the ABU.
The original announcement was a "Transition memo", and the subsequent changes were via unsigned documents.
Technically ABUs are not authorized since neither an ICL or updated CAPM 39-1 have been published. The "transition letters" both seemed to have been hastily written and definitely poorly worded as to lead to confusion. I'm not sure why NHQ chose this approach when an ICL could have been easily crafted by just referencing the BDU section of 39-1 with a few "EXCEPT" clauses to cover what is not authorized on the ABU but is authorized on the BDU.
Please note that I am not fighting to say that ABU are unauthorized but by CAP's own processes, they are. Not sure what was so difficult about putting "Interm Change Letter" instead of "transition memo."
Quote from: kwe1009 on July 04, 2017, 02:48:57 PM
Please note that I am not fighting to say that ABU are unauthorized but by CAP's own processes, they are. Not sure what was so difficult about putting "Interm Change Letter" instead of "transition memo."
Because reading regulations and properly publishing changes isn't as much fun as shopping on base for your new ABUs...
It wouldn't matter anyway, since the reg at the time (CAPR 5-4), clearly stated that ICLs intending to be permanent
were to be incorporated within 90 days of publication, and all ICLs expire within 180 days regardless, something wholesale
ignored by NHQ for basically ever.
That language was removed with the publication of CAPR 1-2, however adding uniform items to the inventory is hardly a matter
"...requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency or an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property..."especially considering that the instructions themselves had been in draft form for somewhere between 2-5 years awaiting approval.
One could make the argument that the original 2016 "Transition Memo" has the equivalent weight of an "Executive Order" that's at least a valid stance,
however the two subsequent "updates" which purported to approve things like ball caps, ranger tabs, and unit patches hold no weight of
authority as they aren't even
signed.
They didn't make this an ICL because ICL's have a time limit, letters don't.
They knew it was going to take awhile to do the simple job of adding the letters to the 39-1... ::)
Quote
They knew it was going to take awhile to do the simple job of adding the letters to the 39-1...
Like... forever?
Nah, they are just sitting back on their desks, to see if someone posts a uniform blockbuster in CAPTalk, to add it to CAPM 39-1. So come on, add to the discussion!
The obvious irony here is in watching the highly critical comments from people who will then knowingly with forethought then violate the regs six ways to Sunday because they find it convenient, all the while bashing the original authors as well as anyone who tries to follow said regs, while inventing spurious "safety" related justifications. Then, they'll make ignoring the uniform regs a systematic process through their troops, building a cultural bias against following (rather than fixing) leadership issues, and undermining the system they criticize.
Hypocrisy... on display. How we can openly admit and encourage breaking the system while complaining about it amazes me.
R/
Spam
Edit: in the spirit of Glasnost, I forgot the tie to wear with my long sleeve grays at a meeting last week. I proactively apologized to the SER/CC when I realized it, and he stated "I noticed". That's an "oops", which you fix and move on from, and which is different from systematically and corrosively skipping wearing the tie and telling your troops to not bother.
The regulations allow the wear of black ear muffs, so what's the problem?
Quote from: CS on July 05, 2017, 11:46:22 AM
The regulations allow the wear of black ear muffs, so what's the problem?
[citation needed]
Quote from: waukwiz on July 06, 2017, 12:46:42 AM
Quote from: CS on July 05, 2017, 11:46:22 AM
The regulations allow the wear of black ear muffs, so what's the problem?
[citation needed]
CAPM 39-1 5.1.1.10
Quote from: Mordecai on July 06, 2017, 12:51:27 AM
Quote from: waukwiz on July 06, 2017, 12:46:42 AM
Quote from: CS on July 05, 2017, 11:46:22 AM
The regulations allow the wear of black ear muffs, so what's the problem?
[citation needed]
CAPM 39-1 5.1.1.10
Has no bearing on the wear of the ABU.
How about this?
Quote from: CAPM 39-1
6.3.1.7.3. Earmuffs (black). Earmuffs may be worn with all authorized outer garments and may wrap around either the top or rear of the head. Earmuffs may be made of any material and will only be worn with an outer garment
Quote from: SarDragon on July 06, 2017, 05:40:34 AM
How about this?
Quote from: CAPM 39-1
6.3.1.7.3. Earmuffs (black). Earmuffs may be worn with all authorized outer garments and may wrap around either the top or rear of the head. Earmuffs may be made of any material and will only be worn with an outer garment
Quote from: CAPM 39-1
1.1.2.1. COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY. This publication is the sole source for wear instructions and authorized items for various uniform combinations as prescribed within.
I'm not an attorney, but to me this seems to imply that CAPM 39-1 only applies to the uniform ensembles that it of itself authorizes, therefore none of the restrictions/allowances are valid when discussing the ABU.
Wow. It's now down to crying about if the ABU is even authorized, especially after all the moaning and footstopping and tantrum throwing about getting them. SMH, now I've seen it all.
Beginning to see how this is the same argument given by those that want "green boots." If it is cold enough for outwear, you can wear black earmuffs, period, no legal interpretation needed. You want to wear a green watch cap, sorry, you can't. Don't like it, don't wear the ABU. BDU's still have another 4 years authorized wear!