speciality badges for BDUS

[CAPLAW]

Would CAP Members like to have speaciality badges for BDUS?

Example I.G, P.D, AD, MLO for wear above CAP STRIP.

[Pylon]

Would CAP Members like to have speaciality badges for BDUS?

Example I.G, P.D, AD, MLO for wear above CAP STRIP.

My personal opinion is that the specialty badges should have originally been made in line with the Air Force's style of AFSC badges.   Not only would we stand-out less amongst our peers, but it would be simple and easy to wear the same badges, in the same place, on both BDUs and Blues.  Badges for each specialty area with appropriate, but distinct-from-USAF, symbology surrounded by laurel leaves would have made (and still make) the most sense to me.

But, I'm also of the opinion that we need to stop monkeying around with our uniforms for a while to allow members' pocketbooks to recover from this past year's stack of policy letters and mandatory changes.  *shrug*

[MIKE]

There was a rather lengthy topic on this subject over on CivilAirPortal.  It started with simply wanting to redesign the existing badges to look more Air Forcey in both appearance and manner of wear.  I know I suggested grouping some into functional areas rather than having so many badges.  Then it devolved/evolved into unique badges for all kinds of similar ES specialties.

[Psicorp]

What gets me is the big contrast between the Safety patch, CISM patch, and the Communications patch, which all look professional and actually look good on the BDUs...and then we have the cartoony Pluto E.S. patch (who came up with that abortion thing?).     

As far as badgery goes, I'm of the belief that what goes on the BDUs should be mission oriented.  Just because you're a technician in the PAO specialty tract doesn't mean you're qualified to be a Mission PAO, that should have a badge.  Same with MLO, very different from being a Mission Chaplain.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Would CAP Members like to have speaciality badges for BDUS?

Example I.G, P.D, AD, MLO for wear above CAP STRIP.

Let me think about this.

OK, That's enough.

NO!

We got enough crap on the BDU's.  We already look like NASCAR drivers with all our sponsor logos on.

[JohnKachenmeister]

What gets me is the big contrast between the Safety patch, CISM patch, and the Communications patch, which all look professional and actually look good on the BDUs...and then we have the cartoony Pluto E.S. patch (who came up with that abortion thing?). 

Disney Studios.  Back in the 40's and 50's it was cool, and matched the designation of the L-19 "Bird Dog" aircraft we were getting from surplus.    

Quote tag - MIKE

[Hawk200]

Would CAP Members like to have speaciality badges for BDUS?

Example I.G, P.D, AD, MLO for wear above CAP STRIP.

No. That's where I'm wearing my military badges right now.

What need is there for them on BDU's?

[lordmonar]

My personal opinion is that the specialty badges should have originally been made in line with the Air Force's style of AFSC badges.   Not only would we stand-out less amongst our peers, but it would be simple and easy to wear the same badges, in the same place, on both BDUs and Blues.  Badges for each specialty area with appropriate, but distinct-from-USAF, symbology surrounded by laurel leaves would have made (and still make) the most sense to me.

I agree...however...our CAP specialty badges are actually older than USAF AFSC specialty badges.  When CAP made their badges, the USAF only had a hand full of specialty badges.

But, I'm also of the opinion that we need to stop monkeying around with our uniforms for a while to allow members' pocketbooks to recover from this past year's stack of policy letters and mandatory changes.  *shrug*

Well seeing as how specialty badges are optional...we don't need to worry.  And what mandaroty changes are we talking about?  Putting rank on both collars, removing wing patch, putting on the US flag and putting the rank on the BDU CAP.  Were there any other manditory changes for the BDU in the last 4 years that I missed?

[Pylon]

Well seeing as how specialty badges are optional...we don't need to worry.  And what mandaroty changes are we talking about?  Putting rank on both collars, removing wing patch, putting on the US flag and putting the rank on the BDU CAP.  Were there any other manditory changes for the BDU in the last 4 years that I missed?

Yep, that's (count 'em) 1... 2... 3... 4.... four mandatory changes to the CAP uniform, footed at the cost of every member who wears those particular uniforms, all within the period of about a year.

I won't count all the optional changes and new creations and the subsequent litany of changes to the new creations, as the early-adopters bear the burden of that cost for wanting to be early-adopters.  That's a choice. 

But as for four (4) mandatory changes to some of the most common uniforms in wear in the organization within about a one year period (and issued rather disjointly, and not even to coincide with the new CAPM 39-1 in March) is about 3 changes too many for a volunteer organization.  Heck, even the USAF has the common courtesy to release to its paid members its changes in large groups (when the Uniform Board publish their changes) - not one change at a time, every two months.  Not everybody has deep pockets.  

[RiverAux]

BDUs should be considered field uniforms and should have the absolute minimum number of patches and badges on them.  Name, CAP tape, and rank should be about it.  Anything more than that should be on there for a specific purpose related to the reason you're wearing the field uniform.  For example, a paramedic badge. 

I see no reason to have somebody in the IG specialty have their badge on their BDU. 

[MIKE]

All I'd add would be the white on blue cloth badges and wings if you rate 'em.  I don't think we need the pocket patches, ES patches, wing patches or flag patches.

[lordmonar]

But as for four (4) mandatory changes to some of the most common uniforms in wear in the organization within about a one year period (and issued rather disjointly, and not even to coincide with the new CAPM 39-1 in March) is about 3 changes too many for a volunteer organization.  Heck, even the USAF has the common courtesy to release to its paid members its changes in large groups (when the Uniform Board publish their changes) - not one change at a time, every two months.  Not everybody has deep pockets.

Oh come on!  How much did those changes cost us?  The flag was what $3, the rank was $3 each and the removing the wing patch cost nothing but time!

Are you saying that there are really adult members out there that can't afford nine dollars!

Don't pull the the "it costs too much" card, it's just not true!

As for dropping them one at a time instead of all at once...well the USAF does it that way because they only meant once a year to discuss uniform issues.  Maybe we could do this but what difference does it make?  That you have to go out every six month and do something to your uniform or that once a year you have to do a lot to your uniform.

[RiverAux]

I think the biggest part of the frustration isn't the cost it is the fact that they seemingly come out at random times throughout the year.  None of these changes are in any way of such emergency importance that they couldn't wait a few months as part of an annual update to 39-1. 

Since the March 2005 issue of 39-1 there have been SEVEN uniform policy letters.  You'll not convince me that this is an efficient way of doing business. 

[lordmonar]

I think the biggest part of the frustration isn't the cost it is the fact that they seemingly come out at random times throughout the year.  None of these changes are in any way of such emergency importance that they couldn't wait a few months as part of an annual update to 39-1. 

When was 39-1 ever updated annually!

Also...while the changes came out "randomly" (after every NB and as soon as USAF approved them) it is not like they made everyone go out that day and make the changes.  Heck...the US flag is still not mandatory IIRC (April 07?). 

[RiverAux]

Never said it was updated annually, but except for extraordinary circumstances I believe that is what should be the minimum amount of time between any regulation changes. 

[Major_Chuck]

In my most humble of opinions.  No.  We shouldn't have numerous specialty insignia for the Field Uniforms.  That is what we seem to have the service uniforms for.

I am not trying to minimalize the importance of being qualified in one or more specialities.  Lets not clutter up another uniform with multiple patches.  If you are a pilot or observer, wear the wings.  If you are a comm officer, wear the badge.  Lets keep the uniform clean and well, uniform. 

[Hawk200]

BDUs should be considered field uniforms and should have the absolute minimum number of patches and badges on them. 

I wore BDU's to work every day (with exception of special occasions) for ten years while active duty Air Force. Not once out of those ten years did I ever go to the field. I was maintenance.

The idea that BDU's are only used as a field uniform by the military is inaccurate. Quite possibly, it's simply another uniform myth. The original designs of the BDU were designated as a Battle Dress Utility. It's a utility uniform. Don't pigeonhole it.

[RiverAux]

The idea that BDU's are only used as a field uniform by the military is inaccurate.

Did I SAY that they are only used as a field uniform by the military? 

No, I said they SHOULD be considered only field uniforms. 

[Hawk200]

The idea that BDU's are only used as a field uniform by the military is inaccurate.

Did I SAY that they are only used as a field uniform by the military? 

No you didn't. But there are people that believe that they only used in that manner. Thanks to Hollywood, a major portion of Americans believe that military personnel wear service dress all the time.

No, I said they SHOULD be considered only field uniforms. 

Out of curiousity, why? I'm not being challenging here, I'm legitimately curious. It's a practical, comfortable uniform. Why restrict it to only the field?

[MIKE]

2-1. c. The battle dress uniform (camouflage fatigue uniform) is worn when it is impractical or
inappropriate to wear the service uniforms.