CAP Corporate Working Uniform

[grunt82abn]

Is the CAP Corporate Working Uniform just for pilots, and only allowed during flight operations?

[Eclipse]

Which one are you referring to?

Corporate Field Uniform, CFU, = Blue BDU

Corporate flight Duty Uniform - CFDU = Blue flight suit in either material

Corporate Working Uniform = Golf shirt

All can be worn by all seniors, pretty much any time within the bounds of an UOD specified by someone with the authority.

[grunt82abn]

Which one are you referring to?

Corporate Field Uniform, CFU, = Blue BDU

Corporate flight Duty Uniform - CFDU = Blue flight suit in either material

Corporate Working Uniform = Golf shirt

All can be worn by all seniors, pretty much any time within the bounds of an UOD specified by someone with the authority.

Specifically the Corporate Working Uniform, The Polo with Gray pants

[Eclipse]

That is authorized for anyone, at any time UOD allows for it.

Many members believe it is the "minimum basic uniform", which it is not (that's the whites or blues).

[Chappie]

The corporate working uniform (blue polo/gray trousers) has been approved for wear (at least from my experience) - at SARXs for HQ staff, squadron meetings, wing/region staff meetings, pre-encampment staff meetings, training events, etc.   The commander or activity director does approve what will be worn for the UOD.  For example: I never have worn the CAP polo/gray trousers when staffing the NSC (they had their own polo) or for the CCRSC (wasn't an approved UOD)  - it was either blues or the corporate (white aviator/gray trousers).

[grunt82abn]

Thank you both!!!

[etodd]

The corporate working uniform (blue polo/gray trousers) has been approved for wear (at least from my experience) - at SARXs for HQ staff, squadron meetings, wing/region staff meetings, pre-encampment staff meetings, training events, etc.   The commander or activity director does approve what will be worn for the UOD.......

Every 'event' I've seen thus far in my area the "corporate working uniform (blue polo/gray trousers)" has been approved for wear by Senior members at all positions. My guess is they want as much participation as possible, and there is a large number of Senior members who own the polo uniform and nothing else. Some will jump in with regs saying those folks are suppose to own more than that. And its true ... But the reality is .... many do not possess anything else ... so it becomes a participation issue. Sometimes 'practicality and pragmatism' has to factor in if one wants a successful SAREX or other event.

[SarDragon]

If the UoD is 'X',  and you show up wearing something else, and I'm the Project Officer, I will send you home. It's not a comfort issue, it's not a financial issue, it's an integrity issue. You took that oath when you signed up, and this is one of those situations it applies to. In the end, you will be the one missing out, not me, or the event.

I, myself, almost got sent home from an event for a not-quite-right uniform, but since I was on staff, we fudged it, and "got 'er done". Had I been a student, I would have had to correct the uniform, or go home.

[Lord of the North]

I, myself, almost got sent home from an event for a not-quite-right uniform, but since I was on staff, we fudged it, and "got 'er done". Had I been a student, I would have had to correct the uniform, or go home.

Ahh yes... the infamous "fudged it" integrity play.....

[SarDragon]

Belt buckle on G/W issue.  Just disguised it a bit.

[Lord of the North]

Still an integrity issue since you stated that had you been a student it would have to be corrected or sent home.  But maybe it was just a double standard at play.  Your call.

[SarDragon]

Taken to PM.

[Ned]

If the UoD is 'X',  and you show up wearing something else, and I'm the Project Officer, I will send you home. It's not a comfort issue, it's not a financial issue, it's an integrity issue.

Global Moderator Dave (hee-hee),

I know you left out some details here, because this statement standing alone might be misleading to other leaders in the organization.  While there are certainly times and circumstances where there may be no alternatives to "sending a member home" for uniform violations, I would suggest that that would be a fairly rare occurrence in the Grand Scheme of CAP. 

I'd like to think that actual deliberate disobedience is rare; outnumbered by honest mistakes and the ever-present instances of good-faith miscommunication in CAP.  Good commanders don't hammer members for the occasional honest mistake.  Making a cadet or senior miss vital training because of an honest mistake may be overkill considering that other options to correct the problem may be available.

In an ancient thread I used a hypothetical where a commander had specified the UOD as BDU/BBDU for the meeting night because the unit was going to do some ES training in the woods adjacent to the unit.  And the senior Admin Officer showed up in her grey & whites.  I know that you would not "send her home" because she a) reasonably didn't think the admin crew needed to be in BDU since they weren't going to the field, and / or b) don't even own BDI/BBDU since it is an optional uniform.

Obviously, if the member cannot safely perform duty or training without changing into the UOD, or if you reasonably suspect the member of willful disobedience or insubordination that is a different story.  There may be no safe alternative and the member may need to go home.

But I hope that all leaders are guided by the principle that "accomplishing our Congressionally-mandated missions is more important that what we wear while doing it."

Ur buddy,

Ned

[Eclipse]

I would suggest that that would be a fairly rare occurrence in the Grand Scheme of CAP.

Many believe it is too rare, especially for people who can't read the regulations, or have superiors who refuse to enforce them.

But I hope that all leaders are guided by the principle that "accomplishing our Congressionally-mandated missions is more important that what we wear while doing it."

Is that CAP's new motto? "Exitus acta probat?"  The above is not mutually exclusive, and the attitude that "some regulations are more 'reggy' then others" is what causes a
great deal of problems in CAP.

What's wrong with just setting the standard and enforcing it?

[Ned]

The above is not mutually exclusive, and the attitude that "some regulations are more 'reggy' then others" is what causes a
great deal of problems in CAP.

What's wrong with just setting the standard and enforcing it?

Nothing of course.  But not every regulation violation deserves the death penalty.  Commanders, when reasonably possible, should employ a form of progressive discipline starting with on-the-spot corrections, verbal counselings, re-trainings, etc. and progressing to sterner measures like reprimands, written counselings, restrictions, demotions, and only after all lesser and suitable methods have been exhausted, the dreaded 2B.

My point here is "sending a member home" for a uniform violation is only one tool in the discipline tool box, and should be among the last used.

[arajca]

The above is not mutually exclusive, and the attitude that "some regulations are more 'reggy' then others" is what causes a
great deal of problems in CAP.

What's wrong with just setting the standard and enforcing it?

Nothing of course.  But not every regulation violation deserves the death penalty.  Commanders, when reasonably possible, should employ a form of progressive discipline starting with on-the-spot corrections, verbal counselings, re-trainings, etc. and progressing to sterner measures like reprimands, written counselings, restrictions, demotions, and only after all lesser and suitable methods have been exhausted, the dreaded 2B.

My point here is "sending a member home" for a uniform violation is only one tool in the discipline tool box, and should be among the last used.

Ned,
  Sometimes, most often that I have seen, it takes sending someone home to get the point across. To those who say the mission come first regardless of what uniform the member is wearing, bull-pucky! Having had a commander who made the decision that if you weren't in the proper uniform (mostly h/w issues with aircrew and flightsuit color), you would be sent home. He did this on a real mission, which resulted in a different unit getting the mission accomplished, and drove the point home in way nothing else could. The next mission, the crew showed in golf shirt uniform instead of green flightsuits (they were well outside h/w standards). The commander even followed the rules himself, wearing the g/w instead of blues during the holidays when, as he put it, his "midsection management" slipped.

[Eclipse]

+1 ^^

The above is not mutually exclusive, and the attitude that "some regulations are more 'reggy' then others" is what causes a
great deal of problems in CAP.

What's wrong with just setting the standard and enforcing it?

Nothing of course.  But not every regulation violation deserves the death penalty.  Commanders, when reasonably possible, should employ a form of progressive discipline starting with on-the-spot corrections, verbal counselings, re-trainings, etc. and progressing to sterner measures like reprimands, written counselings, restrictions, demotions, and only after all lesser and suitable methods have been exhausted, the dreaded 2B.

My point here is "sending a member home" for a uniform violation is only one tool in the discipline tool box, and should be among the last used.

I don't disagree - CC's should be establishing the expectations, publishing and discussing the minimum requirements
and insuring their members have what they need to be successful.

The problem is that CAP as a whole allows for far too much self-actualization " I feel I was successful / accomplished the mission,
therefore I was and I did".

When my members tell me they could not change for a meeting due to occasional work considerations, or made a mistake
regarding the UOD, that's one thing, the latter may well be my poor or non-existent communication, assuming they normally comply.

But we have far too many members who feel free to say "meh, not my bag", with no CC who is properly enforcing the expectations
and requirements.  In many cases these are the same members who get indignant when a CC or activity POC simply enforces the
regulations, or they exhibit a "aw shucks, I'm just here for the kids" attitude as if that is justification.

Neither of those is acceptable.

it's also somewhat amazing and gratifying how people step up when expectations are properly provided and enforced evenly.

[Eclipse]

There are also patterns which emerge which people who have been around for a while see.

Those who don't show up for regular training but say "I'll be there in a real-world." Either
don't, or are nearly useless if they do.

Those who think uniform regulations are "for those kids playing Army", are also, remarkably,
more likely to take off with a tow-bar attached, incur hangar rash, seem unable to process
paperwork properly, or exhibit other "mission first, regulations later" behaviors.

Best quote ever:  "I don't read regulations, I read FARs."

[Damron]

If the UoD is 'X',  and you show up wearing something else, and I'm the Project Officer, I will send you home. It's not a comfort issue, it's not a financial issue, it's an integrity issue. You took that oath when you signed up, and this is one of those situations it applies to. In the end, you will be the one missing out, not me, or the event.

If my deputy commander sent a member  home from a weekly meeting for a uniform issue, he wouldn't be my deputy commander any longer. 

[Майор Хаткевич]

If the UoD is 'X',  and you show up wearing something else, and I'm the Project Officer, I will send you home. It's not a comfort issue, it's not a financial issue, it's an integrity issue. You took that oath when you signed up, and this is one of those situations it applies to. In the end, you will be the one missing out, not me, or the event.

If my deputy commander sent a member  home from a weekly meeting for a uniform issue, he wouldn't be my deputy commander any longer.

Ok, so how do you deal with a member who consistently doesn't get it right, after repeat corrections?