Epauletes on white aviator shirt for SMWOG

[indygreg]

If wearing the white shirt/gray slacks combo, does a SMWOG wear the epauletes with CAP only, or do they wear them at all?

[lordmonar]

They would wear the gray epaulete sleve with just CAP on it as best as I can tell from 39-1.

Fig 4-2 Note 2 simply says Grade Insignia:  Gray CAP Epaulete sleeve displaying grade insignia.

[Eclipse]

The blank epaulet sleeves are not for SMWOG.

You wear nothing on your shoulders, just as with the blue shirt.

[ßτε]

Remember that senior members without grade have no grade insignia to wear.

[Pylon]

No.  SMWOG do not wear epaulets on any uniform.

[lordmonar]

The blank epaulet sleeves are not for SMWOG.

You wear nothing on your shoulders, just as with the blue shirt.

That's not what 39-1 says..... 

[Brad]

Well seeing as how you are considered "Senior Member Without Grade" by definition of the title, then how can you wear Grade Insignia that doesn't exist? A CAP cutout is NOT a grade insignia...it's just that, a CAP cutout. Even in 39-1 it's specifically differentiated from grade insignia.

[Rotorhead]

The blank epaulet sleeves are not for SMWOG.

You wear nothing on your shoulders, just as with the blue shirt.

That's not what 39-1 says..... 

I can't find where 39-1 says SMWOG wear those blank slides. Please elaborate.

[lordmonar]

Fig 4-2 Note 2
Grade Insignia:  Gray CAP Epaulete sleeve displaying grade insignia

Which Gray CAP Epaulete Sleeve displays the SMWOG insignia?  The one that is blank!

[ßτε]

Senior members without grade do not wear grade insignia. So this is not applicable to senior members without grade.

[Eclipse]

Fig 4-2 Note 2
Grade Insignia:  Gray CAP Epaulete sleeve displaying grade insignia

Which Gray CAP Epaulete Sleeve displays the SMWOG insignia?  The one that is blank!

Are you new here?

[lordmonar]

Guys.....you are barking up the wrong tree. 

The REGULATION sucks!  This is just one more instance of how poorly the reg is written.

If I wrote the regulation I would a) eliminate the SMWOG rank all together, b) If we kept SMWOG I would have a sentance like "SMWOG do not wear any CAP Gray Epaulete Sleeves and wear the CAP cut outs on their colars".

Clear simple and to the point.

The BOZOS who wrote 39-1 were so narrowly focused on their pet project we have the wonderfuly useless document we've got today.

[Hawk200]

The REGULATION sucks!  This is just one more instance of how poorly the reg is written.

So that justifies bad info? It's OK to lie to someone just so you can demonstrate "how poorly the reg is written"?

[lordmonar]

The REGULATION sucks!  This is just one more instance of how poorly the reg is written.

So that justifies bad info? It's OK to lie to someone just so you can demonstrate "how poorly the reg is written"?

I did not lie....the regulation says Senior Members wear the gray epaulet sleeve with their rank insignia....you interpet that.

Where does it implicitly say that SMWOG do not wear epaulet sleeves?

I stand by my original statement.  SMWOG on the white aviator shirt wear the blank epaulet sleeve as is noted in FIG 4-2 Note 2.

It is everyone else who are stating something that is not in the regulation.

I see where they think that they are right.....and I see where what I thing is right.  The reason why two (or more) grown adults can read the same regulation and come up with two radically different interpretation is because (as I said in my last post) the REGULATION SUCKS!

I wonder what KB says?.....oh that's right we can't use KB to resolve these issues 

[a2capt]

We can't use the KB for these kinds of questions? Was that published somewhere?

This is even getting more comical.

An official channel that won't deal with issues of a certain nature. What does that really tell you?

[Eclipse]

I wonder what KB says?.....oh that's right we can't use KB to resolve these issues 

Says who?

Any answer the KB gives me that doesn't conflict with a published reg (etc.), I accept and move on (now go use search and find some place three years ago I disagreed with the KB).

SMWOG's don't wear blank sleeves - even VG lists them now as for "enlisted".   

[lordmonar]

Oops....sorry projecting an argument thrown at me from another thread.

Okay brass tacks.

I tell my new SM not to buy anything for the uniform.

I tell them not to wear a uniform until they get 2d Lt.  It is just a waste of time.

The OP asked a question....I look in 39-1 in the appropriate section saw that the only mention is the note on fig 4-2 and I passed that info on to the OP.

End of story.

You want to argue......call NHQ.

[Hawk200]

The REGULATION sucks!  This is just one more instance of how poorly the reg is written.

So that justifies bad info? It's OK to lie to someone just so you can demonstrate "how poorly the reg is written"?

I did not lie....the regulation says Senior Members wear the gray epaulet sleeve with their rank insignia....you interpet that.

Where does it implicitly say that SMWOG do not wear epaulet sleeves?

I stand by my original statement.  SMWOG on the white aviator shirt wear the blank epaulet sleeve as is noted in FIG 4-2 Note 2.

It is everyone else who are stating something that is not in the regulation.

I see where they think that they are right.....and I see where what I thing is right.  The reason why two (or more) grown adults can read the same regulation and come up with two radically different interpretation is because (as I said in my last post) the REGULATION SUCKS!

I wonder what KB says?.....oh that's right we can't use KB to resolve these issues 

The blank grey epaulet wasn't used for that purpose, and you are quite familiar with that. Or did your retirement come with a side order of Alzheimers?

How about instead of actually putting misleading information out, you actually make an attempt to do something about it? It's childish to whine when you can do.

[lordmonar]

Gee....why the hate?

[spacecommand]

It has always been my understanding that SMWOG wear CAP cutouts on the collars of the whites and blues, and CAP cutouts on the lapel of the service jacket, but they do not wear epaulets. 
However, even vanguard is confused (or correct) (I really don't know) but they list the blank epaulets as:

Civil Air Patrol - Enlisted Senior Member Gray Epaulets
Grey epaulet - enlisted senior member (no rank).
http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_390_408_2035_2037&products_id=7207

My understanding was that the blank epaulets were for the few number of Senior member NCOs to pin their insignia on, however if I recall regulations say NCO's pin their insignia on their collars and lapels like SMWOG.  I could be wrong though.

[Slim]

It has always been my understanding that SMWOG wear CAP cutouts on the collars of the whites and blues, and CAP cutouts on the lapel of the service jacket, but they do not wear epaulets. 
However, even vanguard is confused (or correct) (I really don't know) but they list the blank epaulets as:

Civil Air Patrol - Enlisted Senior Member Gray Epaulets
Grey epaulet - enlisted senior member (no rank).
http://www.vanguardmil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_390_408_2035_2037&products_id=7207

My understanding was that the blank epaulets were for the few number of Senior member NCOs to pin their insignia on, however if I recall regulations say NCO's pin their insignia on their collars and lapels like SMWOG.  I could be wrong though.

I concur.  The intended use of those blank sleeves was for senior member NCOs to pin metal insignia on.  However, for a time, Vanguard was doing special orders for embroidered NCO slides (just set up the machine to run on a grey CAP epaulet sleeve instead of a blue AF sleeve).  They were never intended to be a "rank" insignia for SMWOG.

With the latest round of ICLs published, they now specify that senior member NCOs wear standard, embroidered chevrons on the sleeve of both AF style and corporate style uniforms.  Possibly because the Air Force has also done away with the embroidered epaulet sleeves.

Here's what the current 39-1 has to say on the subject.

1. Grade Insignia: Senior member officers wear embroidered grade insignia on gray epaulet sleeve.  Senior member NCOs and Airmen wear 4-inch cloth chevrons halfway between shoulder seam and
elbow bent at 90-degree angle.
2. Lapel Insignia: Highly polished U.S. insignia worn by senior member officers; highly polished CAP
insignia worn by senior member NCOs and Airmen and senior members without grade. Insignia is
placed halfway up the seam, resting on but not over it. Bottom of insignia is parallel with the ground.

1. Grade Insignia: Senior member officers wear embroidered grade insignia on gray epaulet sleeve. Senior
member NCOs and Airmen wear 3-inch or 3 1/2-inch cloth chevrons on the sleeve or embroidered gray epaulet sleeve. Senior members without grade and NCOs and Airmen wearing chevrons on the sleeve wear the CAP lapel/collar insignia on both sides of collar.

1. Grade Insignia: Senior member officers wear embroidered grade insignia on gray epaulet sleeve. Senior
member NCOs and Airmen wear the 3-inch or 3 1/2-inch cloth chevrons on the sleeve or embroidered gray epaulet sleeve. Senior members without grade and NCOs and Airmen wearing chevrons on the sleeve wear the CAP lapel/collar insignia on both sides of collar.

FWIW, the same bolded clauses are listed for the female equivalents to each of these combinations.  Notice that it doesn't say anywhere that a blank gray epaulet sleeve may be worn.  Being a restrictive regulation, if it doesn't say you can, then you can't.

Since the white shirt for the CSU combination is set up the same as the AF style blue shirt per the ICL, I'm safe to say that these clauses also apply to that combination.

Oddly enough, here's what the manual says about the aviator shirt/gray slacks combo:

2. Grade Insignia: Gray CAP epaulet sleeves displaying grade insignia.

I would argue that, since a SMWOG has no grade by definition, that nothing is worn on the collar or epaulets.

[EMT-83]

Never, ever, count on Vanguard for uniform information.

Regarding the original question, simply look at 39-1, Figure 6-1 and 6-4.

[indygreg]

From the CAP Knowledge Base:
Members without grade wear the gray CAP epaulet sleeves without grade insignia. (Vanguard Item# CAP0747U)

See CAPM 39-1 Figure 4-2. Men's and Women's Aviator Shirt with Epaulets (Senior Members Only)
NOTES:
1. Nameplate: Gray, 3-line CAP nameplate is worn immediately above the right breast pocket.
2. Grade Insignia: Gray CAP epaulet sleeves displaying grade insignia.
3. Tie/Tab: USAF blue tie (males) or CAP blue ties/floppy bow are authorized. Mandatory with long sleeve shirt.
4. CAP Aviation Badges and Specialty Insignia: Worn 1/2 inch above the left breast pocket or 1/2-inch above CAP ribbons. If both an aviation badge and specialty insignia are worn the specialty insignia will be placed 1/2 inch below the aviation badge.
5. CAP Specialty Badges: Worn centered on left breast pocket. Females also have the option of wearing specialty badges 1/2 inch above the pocket (beneath the aviation badge) if they prefer.

I finally figured out how to submit a question to the Knowledge Base.

[Eclipse]

From the CAP Knowledge Base:
Members without grade wear the gray CAP epaulet sleeves without grade insignia. (Vanguard Item# CAP0747U)

100% INCORRECT

We just can't win...

What's the date of that article, and who answered it if it was a direct response?  Unfortunately there are old articles with bad info
there which is corrected in subsequent articles but not removed or corrected in the old ones.

We need to get this corrected once and for all.

[indygreg]

I submitted the question last evening, and it was answered this afternoon. Answer was from NHQ.  If that's what they say, then it's good enough for me.

[heliodoc]

"We need to get this corrected once and for all."

Is that the "war cry" from the CAP out in the field?  How about real coherent clear and up-to-date info?  None of which CAP cares much about!!!!

NHQ  listening, reading, evaluating ANYTHING from the PAYING membership?

Corrected once and for all?  Knowledgebase, 39-1, the membership all running 'round and 'round giving out the wrong poop.  Can not wait 'til a COMPLETELY new uniform gets commissioned

Wait til 2030 on that   until then CAP gets what it gets.......stellar MISinformation!!!

[Eclipse]

How about you knock it off?

[lordmonar]

From the CAP Knowledge Base:
Members without grade wear the gray CAP epaulet sleeves without grade insignia. (Vanguard Item# CAP0747U)

100% INCORRECT

We just can't win...

What's the date of that article, and who answered it if it was a direct response?  Unfortunately there are old articles with bad info
there which is corrected in subsequent articles but not removed or corrected in the old ones.

We need to get this corrected once and for all.

What's to be corrected?

39-1?  They used the same reference that I did.
So is it the interpetation that needs to be corrected?  I think I got Gen C's number around here somewhere...

[vento]

Incidentally, the knowledgebase just issued an update on the subject today 15 APR 2010.
link here

It does not mention SMWOG at all. It points to 39-1 which does not ask SMWOG to wear any epaulets at all.

[SarDragon]

That link is to an ancient response. Its number is 608, while a new today response is numbered 2162.

That question was related to a long discontinued uniform option.

In any case, it's not a convincing argument on the correctness of a SMWOG wearing plain epaulet sleeves.

[kd8gua]

I have never, ever seen a SM wear blank epaulet sleeves. I myself am a SM, and I don't wear blank epaulet sleeves. Neither do the other SM's in my squadron. The rule is pretty much identical to the cadets with no grade: CAP cutouts on the collar of the Blues shirt/BDU blouse or lapels of the service coat if wearing one. The only major difference is that SM's wear cloth CAP cutouts on the BDU's in lieu of metal. I've yet to see any SM wear the blank epaulets. If someone does see one, please take a photo!

[vento]

Yes, it is number 608 and it was updated today 15 APR. Agree it answers an older question but it is the most relevant one when searching for white aviator shirt. I guess the point is, we should really look for the answers in 39-1 instead of the knowledge base.

[SarDragon]

But what was the update? How did it relate to the topic at hand?

The original Q, and the response, had nothing to do with the correctness of a SMWOG wearing blank epaulet sleeves. It was related to a long discontinued uniform combination, and is, IMHO, useless for the current topic.

[indygreg]

I'd like to point out that the answer I posted earlier was to a question that I submitted to the knowledge base earlier this week, and was specifically about SMWOG's wearing blank epaulets.  If they say SMWOG's wear blank sleeves, the issue is decided, as far as I'm concerned.  That seems as close as we can get to an "official" ruling.

[Rotorhead]

I'd like to point out that the answer I posted earlier was to a question that I submitted to the knowledge base earlier this week, and was specifically about SMWOG's wearing blank epaulets.  If they say SMWOG's wear blank sleeves, the issue is decided, as far as I'm concerned.  That seems as close as we can get to an "official" ruling.

I'd like to point out that the "Knowledge Base" is NOT official regulation and has, in the past, been known to offer answers that were clearly incorrect

[vento]

But what was the update? How did it relate to the topic at hand?

The original Q, and the response, had nothing to do with the correctness of a SMWOG wearing blank epaulet sleeves. It was related to a long discontinued uniform combination, and is, IMHO, useless for the current topic.

Major, I am not trying to argue with you here. I guess I should make it more clear when I posted. The original poster said that the knowledgebase told him/her that SMWOG is to wear the blank epaulets even though it is not what 39-1 said. So I searched the knowledgebase using the keyword "white aviator shirt" and the only one article that was recently updated within the timeframe of this post is that OLD article 608.

Why an old article needed an update is beyond me, perhaps the gentleman or lady answering the questions that the original poster asked made a mistake? Just a guess based on the date of update of the article, and also the fact that I didnot find any other articles about the subject, hence my comment to look in the 39-1 instead of the knowledgebase. The knowledgebase is great and most of the time gives me the answer I seek, but it is also known to provide funny answers. 

[lordmonar]

I'd like to point out that the answer I posted earlier was to a question that I submitted to the knowledge base earlier this week, and was specifically about SMWOG's wearing blank epaulets.  If they say SMWOG's wear blank sleeves, the issue is decided, as far as I'm concerned.  That seems as close as we can get to an "official" ruling.

I'd like to point out that the "Knowledge Base" is NOT official regulation and has, in the past, been known to offer answers that were clearly incorrect

But when the regulations are clearly not adequate to the job....what else are you going to do?

[indygreg]

I'd like to point out that the answer I posted earlier was to a question that I submitted to the knowledge base earlier this week, and was specifically about SMWOG's wearing blank epaulets.  If they say SMWOG's wear blank sleeves, the issue is decided, as far as I'm concerned.  That seems as close as we can get to an "official" ruling.

I'd like to point out that the "Knowledge Base" is NOT official regulation and has, in the past, been known to offer answers that were clearly incorrect

But when the regulations are clearly not adequate to the job....what else are you going to do?

My point exactly! I'll admit that I'm completely new to CAP, so I certainly have a long way to go before understanding all the regs, but 39-1 is way to confusing.  Everyone seems to have opinions on how items in 39-1 are interpreted, but who knows which interpretation is correct.  I sincerely appreciate everyones advice, however.

[SarDragon]

<Personal opinion follows>

I think a SMWOG not wearing blank sleeves will be less likely to get any questions/hassle about it than would a SMWOG who does wear them.

</Personal opinion>

[Gunner C]

The reason SMOGs wear CAP cutouts on the blue shirts is so they'll be easily distinguished from an AF airman basic.  There's no reason for that in the aviator shirt, so don't ruin the collar.

SMOGs have never worn blank sleeves.  That comes from the same people who will tell you the wrong information about foreign awards - they just make it up as they go and pass this off as 39-1 gospel just because to their unlearned ears it "sounds about right".  This is just another example of NHQ incompetence.  It's not that they're bad people, they just don't know what the heck they're talking about. 

This is a consequence of second rate training programs and crummy manuals & regulations.  I've seen SMOGs in all sorts of uniform combinations:  CAP cutouts on the lapels and US cutouts on the collar, CAP cutouts on the collar and lapels and officer braid on the sleeves, or any combination of the forgoing and an officer flight cap.

It's a never-ending parade of [word deleted by author] with no end in sight.  Personally, I'm tired of it and I'm not sure that I'm going to spend the $60 in the next two weeks to keep dealing with it.

[Custer]

If wearing the white shirt/gray slacks combo, does a SMWOG wear the epaulets with CAP only, or do they wear them at all?

I think what got this started is the fact that the Coast Guard Aux in fact DOES wear blank Epaulets for basic members.  Apparently CAP does not though it actually sounds like a good idea.

What amazes me the most about this is that 39-1 is five years old, and the entire blue/white uniform came AND went since its last publication.  I can only imagine how many change letters there must be and can not imagine how one would make sure they had all of them.

I drifted out of CAP in the late 80's and all I've figured out for sure is that my blue Captains slide on rank is out now.  (I don't think the rank would be restored if I came back after all this time anyway)

[Eclipse]

What amazes me the most about this is that 39-1 is five years old, and the entire blue/white uniform came AND went since its last publication.  I can only imagine how many change letters there must be and can not imagine how one would make sure they had all of them.

You would download them here:

http://www.capmembers.com/forms_publications__regulations/indexes_regulations_and_manuals.cfm

[mynetdude]

I see a SM wearing the grey sleeves on his white aviator shirt, I'm seeing all kinds of things that shouldn't be done and should be done that aren't being done.

I'm always harrassed that I am not wearing my uniform correctly even though regs TELL me I can wear what I am wearing and some states such as Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, etc where the winters are far from mild (it can get pretty COLD here) IIRC I thought the use of civilian coats over the BDUs were not permitted but I have been told they are ONLY in the northern states in the colder winter months and I am making an effort to wear what would normally go with my BDUs because at the beginning I didn't have a camo outerwear BDU coat for a long time until now.

I have also contemplated not staying in CAP because people continue to flaunt regulations and tell people who are within regulations that they aren't.  It gets old, but you know what??? There is something about CAP I know I can make a difference and I have to go somewhere else in CAP to do that.

I am not giving up, but I do not see an end to this baloney which only means my future goals for CAP are no longer long term.

I don't have any plans to tell that SMWOG that he is wearing his uniform wrong because I can't be so sure its wrong.

[Eclipse]

I'm always harrassed that I am not wearing my uniform correctly even though regs TELL me I can wear what I am wearing and some states such as Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, etc where the winters are far from mild (it can get pretty COLD here) IIRC I thought the use of civilian coats over the BDUs were not permitted but I have been told they are ONLY in the northern states in the colder winter months and I am making an effort to wear what would normally go with my BDUs because at the beginning I didn't have a camo outerwear BDU coat for a long time until now.

There is no such blanket waiver for Northern states, and doubtful in any.  39-1 is clear on both outerwear for seniors and the SMWOG issue.

The ICL issue not withstanding, for the most part 39-1 is clear on the major parts of the uniforms, and most people with issues are tying themselves in knots to do something they want to.

It could be much better, and would be simple to update regularly, but most "problems" are caused because people can't be bothered to read at all, preferring to believe the old wives over common sense.

[mynetdude]

I'm always harrassed that I am not wearing my uniform correctly even though regs TELL me I can wear what I am wearing and some states such as Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, etc where the winters are far from mild (it can get pretty COLD here) IIRC I thought the use of civilian coats over the BDUs were not permitted but I have been told they are ONLY in the northern states in the colder winter months and I am making an effort to wear what would normally go with my BDUs because at the beginning I didn't have a camo outerwear BDU coat for a long time until now.

There is no such blanket waiver for Northern states, and doubtful in any.  39-1 is clear on both outerwear for seniors and the SMWOG issue.

The ICL issue not withstanding, for the most part 39-1 is clear on the major parts of the uniforms, and most people with issues are tying themselves in knots to do something they want to.

It could be much better, and would be simple to update regularly, but most "problems" are caused because people can't be bothered to read at all, preferring to believe the old wives over common sense.

I wasn't sure there was a blanket waiver, however many squadrons don't have the heavy coat that you are supposed to wear with the BDU and IIRC I paid $30-$40 for mine (used, not goretex) and so they think they can put civvie coats on cadets because they don't have a choice 1) cadet needs to participate in said activity outside in the cold or 2) don't wear BDU or cadet does not participate.

MY squadron HAS these coats, but not available to all of our cadets because we don't have that many so what do you do? Single out cadets because we don't have enough? Regs are regs.

FWIW I don't have an issue with a SMWOG wearing a blank grey sleeve but regs doesn't seem to allow it nor prohibit it so I tend to err on the caution and consider it prohibited.

One other issue is with SMs who have prior military experience keep telling people they can't wear their uniforms the way CAP allows them to... YES we wear military uniforms but OUR regs differentiate WEAR for specific reasons!

I got told I couldn't wear a black turtleneck or anything other than a black/brown tshirt but according to regs that isn't true.  I have a military brown fleece winter undergarment that I wear under extreme cold conditions (I don't like wearing it because of the super static electricity it builds up) I also have thermals (top/bottom) but they aren't black.

I'm all for following the regs to the best I can and if I am not willing to follow the regs or take the time then I simply limit my exposure to CAP until then.

[lordmonar]

There is no such blanket waiver for Northern states, and doubtful in any.  39-1 is clear on both outerwear for seniors and the SMWOG issue.

With the caviate that common sense outweighs the regulations.  i.e. if it is cold wear an appropriate coat.

As for thw SMWOG issue....the regs are not clear or we would not be having these arguments.

[a2capt]

There is no such blanket waiver for Northern states, and doubtful in any.  39-1 is clear on both outerwear for seniors and the SMWOG issue.

But that might just do the trick. Give them a blanket ...  ;-)

"I've been told" never should be a substitute for "What I (should) read", and thats a problem thats everywhere. Folks ask, and if someone else says "this is what you can do", they mostly never bother to travel the 39-1 maze for themselves.  The best thing you can do is read that regulation. No matter how John and Martha like it can be, read it.

About the only thing on cold climate I seem to recall right now is thermal underwear as long as all the rest of the uniform parts are used with regards to the BDUs. There are similarities in variances for things, but you'll find that variances are usually NOT substitutes, but more to be used with. That way there is still uniformity among everyone (thats in the same uniform anyway.. thats another 20 threads, not here)

[mynetdude]

There isn't anything in 39-1 that says you can wear civvie coats over the BDU in cold weather conditions neither have I seen any ICL that states otherwise.

If you want to talk about common sense vs regulations, then I'd have the common sense to not put the SM/cadet out there to begin with end of story.  But then I am sure gonna have a lot of complainers as to why nobody can supply enough camo coats or have money to get their own.

[Hawk200]

There isn't anything in 39-1 that says you can wear civvie coats over the BDU in cold weather conditions neither have I seen any ICL that states otherwise.

If you want to talk about common sense vs regulations, then I'd have the common sense to not put the SM/cadet out there to begin with end of story.  But then I am sure gonna have a lot of complainers as to why nobody can supply enough camo coats or have money to get their own.

It used to be permitted, but many haven't read the latest 39-1. And it's back to people just not reading again.

[mynetdude]

There isn't anything in 39-1 that says you can wear civvie coats over the BDU in cold weather conditions neither have I seen any ICL that states otherwise.

If you want to talk about common sense vs regulations, then I'd have the common sense to not put the SM/cadet out there to begin with end of story.  But then I am sure gonna have a lot of complainers as to why nobody can supply enough camo coats or have money to get their own.

It used to be permitted, but many haven't read the latest 39-1. And it's back to people just not reading again.

Ah ok that's where they get the idea, looks like I need to go through 39-1 again completely but even doing so will not make me remember it all.

So are we to leave those who are wearing these grey blank sleeves alone or are we to pester them to follow regs? IMHO apart from following regs, this seems like a good idea really.

[Eclipse]

So are we to leave those who are wearing these grey blank sleeves alone or are we to pester them to follow regs? IMHO apart from following regs, this seems like a good idea really.

You should politely and privately correct them, including letting the CC know so he can be more forceful with the correction.

[mynetdude]

So are we to leave those who are wearing these grey blank sleeves alone or are we to pester them to follow regs? IMHO apart from following regs, this seems like a good idea really.

You should politely and privately correct them, including letting the CC know so he can be more forceful with the correction.

eh CC being forceful? In your dreams, unless its a life or death matter he won't flinch (that doesn't make him a bad member cuz he does EXCELLENT as part of our airscrews)

[davidsinn]

So are we to leave those who are wearing these grey blank sleeves alone or are we to pester them to follow regs? IMHO apart from following regs, this seems like a good idea really.

You should politely and privately correct them, including letting the CC know so he can be more forceful with the correction.

eh CC being forceful? In your dreams, unless its a life or death matter he won't flinch (that doesn't make him a bad member cuz he does EXCELLENT as part of our airscrews)

Then he shouldn't be a commander.

[mynetdude]

So are we to leave those who are wearing these grey blank sleeves alone or are we to pester them to follow regs? IMHO apart from following regs, this seems like a good idea really.

You should politely and privately correct them, including letting the CC know so he can be more forceful with the correction.

eh CC being forceful? In your dreams, unless its a life or death matter he won't flinch (that doesn't make him a bad member cuz he does EXCELLENT as part of our airscrews)

Then he shouldn't be a commander.

I suppose not, but I am sure our wing isn't the only one with commanders like this eh? I want to try my share of a command position, granted CAP isn't for everyone and neither is commanding; If I were commander and were regulation hardcore I'd have people writing up complaints against me as well as I writing up complaints against the members who are out of regs (I certainly don't want to make a command career out of that).

[Cecil DP]

So are we to leave those who are wearing these grey blank sleeves alone or are we to pester them to follow regs? IMHO apart from following regs, this seems like a good idea really.

You should politely and privately correct them, including letting the CC know so he can be more forceful with the correction.

eh CC being forceful? In your dreams, unless its a life or death matter he won't flinch (that doesn't make him a bad member cuz he does EXCELLENT as part of our airscrews)

Then he shouldn't be a commander.

I suppose not, but I am sure our wing isn't the only one with commanders like this eh? I want to try my share of a command position, granted CAP isn't for everyone and neither is commanding; If I were commander and were regulation hardcore I'd have people writing up complaints against me as well as I writing up complaints against the members who are out of regs (I certainly don't want to make a command career out of that).

It doesn't necessarily have to be the Commander. In some units RM and CAP, the "Bad guy"  or "Enforcer"is the XO or Deputy Commander.

[mynetdude]

I thought in CAP the CC"s job to be the "enforcer?

[Eclipse]

You should politely and privately correct them, including letting the CC know so he can be more forceful with the correction.

If I were commander and were regulation hardcore I'd have people writing up complaints against me as well as I writing up complaints against the members who are out of regs (I certainly don't want to make a command career out of that).

See above - no one is filing complaints against commanders who do it correctly.

Start dressing someone down FMJ-style in the middle of a unit meeting and you deserve what you get.

[mynetdude]

You should politely and privately correct them, including letting the CC know so he can be more forceful with the correction.

If I were commander and were regulation hardcore I'd have people writing up complaints against me as well as I writing up complaints against the members who are out of regs (I certainly don't want to make a command career out of that).

See above - no one is filing complaints against commanders who do it correctly.

Start dressing someone down FMJ-style in the middle of a unit meeting and you deserve what you get.

LOL you can be correct all you want and being "too" correct can still get you into trouble, not saying it is what it is or should be but it does happen though shouldn't be a reason to not be doing a commander's job.

I dunno, people just aren't what they used to be, if I go around following the regs people are going to turn the other way pretty soon which is why many squadrons do things differently arbitrarily different than what the regs tell them they are supposed to do.

Anyway this thread isn't about that, and it just bugs me and I got a better look at the issue at last night's meeting it turns out he was wearing the CSU/with blue trousers so their excuse was that they didn't have any or didn't order the blue epaulets that is supposed to match it so the grey one was fitting for now WITHIN the squadron but heh

I'm no better than he is right now since I am not wearing any uniform to meetings for the moment.

[vento]

^^^
He was correct wearing the blue pants CSU with grey epaulets. The blue AF epaulets are history.

[mynetdude]

^^^
He was correct wearing the blue pants CSU with grey epaulets. The blue AF epaulets are history.

oh ok, but they ARE going to discontinue the entire CSU then? Whew I'm still wrong on my own again as always at least I don't have to worry that someone else is wrong cuz he's right .

[Eclipse]

^^^
He was correct wearing the blue pants CSU with grey epaulets. The blue AF epaulets are history.

Members may continue to wear the CSU in its original configuration (blue epaulet sleeves, metal grade, blue name tag, etc.) until September 2010.  Switching early is at the option of the wearer.  While it sounds like he may be ok - assuming he switched to the gray nameplate, it doesn't sound like he actually did it on purpose - uniforms are either correct, or they aren't. 

It's just as disrespectful to ignore regulations "just in the squadron" as outside.

oh ok, but they ARE going to discontinue the entire CSU then? Whew I'm still wrong on my own again as always at least I don't have to worry that someone else is wrong cuz he's right.

Assuming no further comment from NHQ, the CSU will be approved for wear in its September 2010 variant until 30 DEC 2011.

[Custer]

What amazes me the most about this is that 39-1 is five years old, and the entire blue/white uniform came AND went since its last publication.  I can only imagine how many change letters there must be and can not imagine how one would make sure they had all of them.

You would download them here:

http://www.capmembers.com/forms_publications__regulations/indexes_regulations_and_manuals.cfm

Thank you that helps a lot.  So those three letters summarize all the changes?  I found two published in 2008 and of course the latest one ditching the new CSU.  Also in my searchings I found a California Wing supplement dated 2006.  It made for interesting reading, especially the Shirt/khaki shorts/tennis shoe uniform.  We have five CA Wing specific uniforms, and we can wear no fewer than six different polo shirts.

We could have 29 people show up for a meeting, ALL be correct, and no two of them dressed the same way.  And that's even assuming everyone wearing grey pants has the same shade & type.

And the April 2008 letter from NHQ ends by saying several more uniforms were approved but are waiting for USAF approval.

[ßτε]

Also in my searchings I found a California Wing supplement dated 2006.

The California Wing supplement dated 2006 has been obsolete since 2008 (according to CA WING SUPPLEMENT 1, CAPI 0-2, 15 July 2008) and has recently been updated: http://www.cawg.cap.gov/Files/Supplements/CAWG39-1.PDF  For a discussion on the new supplement, look here: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=10321.0

[kd8gua]

We could have 29 people show up for a meeting, ALL be correct, and no two of them dressed the same way.  And that's even assuming everyone wearing grey pants has the same shade & type.

Rather than a squadron meeting, that sounds like the beginnings of a costume party!

[mynetdude]

We could have 29 people show up for a meeting, ALL be correct, and no two of them dressed the same way.  And that's even assuming everyone wearing grey pants has the same shade & type.

Rather than a squadron meeting, that sounds like the beginnings of a costume party!

Beginnings? It HAS begun! So true!