Uniforms on Memorial Day services

[PWK-GT]

Now on e-services News:

MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, Ala.- Civil Air Patrol members are encouraged to wear their service dress or corporate uniform while attending worship services the Saturday or Sunday before Memorial Day.

CAP's National Executive Council has requested that the organization's region commanders encourage members to wear their uniform on their day of worship both before Memorial Day and on the first weekend in December. CAP will mark its 70th anniversary Dec. 1, and the organization plays a vital role in the Wreaths Across America campaign to honor American veterans throughout the nation and the world the second Saturday of every December.

"Wearing our uniforms in surroundings and circumstances that incorporate reverence and respect reflect some of Civil Air Patrol's deepest core values," said Maj. Gen. Amy S. Courter, CAP national commander. "We hope our members choose to represent our organization at this important time in our history – when the nation pays tribute to veterans who have served, fought and died to preserve America's freedoms."

Memorial Day this year is observed Monday, May 30.

****************************************************

If we're talking Seniors only here, I have to say that this actually makes some sense to me....a refreshing change :-)

Yes, I know RM....we are the CIVIL Air Patrol. But it's not so much about us, but rather a nod to those non-civilians who gave so much.

But this does appear to fly in the face of regs regarding cadet wear of the uniform without a senior present....

[davidsinn]

It's says members. That includes cadets. It's not without precedence though. On the first Saturday or Sunday of December, depending on your religion, you are encouraged to wear your uniform to church for CAP Sunday.

[Eclipse]

I'm not aware of any requirement that seniors "be around" when cadets are wearing the uniform, only that the wear be approved for
non-CAP activities.

[Cool Mace]

I'm not aware of any requirement that seniors "be around" when cadets are wearing the uniform, only that the wear be approved for
non-CAP activities.

I was thinking the same thing when I read this. I don't think I missed anything about that in the regs. I am human, just like everyone else on here and make mistakes. But I would like to see a cite of it, if that's the case.

[Hawk200]

I was thinking the same thing when I read this. I don't think I missed anything about that in the regs. I am human, just like everyone else on here and make mistakes. But I would like to see a cite of it, if that's the case.

What exactly in a "cite" are you looking for? Something that says "Senior members are not required to be present when a cadet wears a uniform"?

You have a message from National Headquarters encouraging the action. That's approval. From the top. Don't really need to go any higher.

[davidsinn]

I'm not aware of any requirement that seniors "be around" when cadets are wearing the uniform, only that the wear be approved for
non-CAP activities.

I was thinking the same thing when I read this. I don't think I missed anything about that in the regs. I am human, just like everyone else on here and make mistakes. But I would like to see a cite of it, if that's the case.

The logic I have seen: cadets must be supervised by a SM when at an official activity. Wearing uniforms makes it an official activity. Not saying I agree with it but that's what I've read.

[Spaceman3750]

I'm not aware of any requirement that seniors "be around" when cadets are wearing the uniform, only that the wear be approved for
non-CAP activities.

I was thinking the same thing when I read this. I don't think I missed anything about that in the regs. I am human, just like everyone else on here and make mistakes. But I would like to see a cite of it, if that's the case.

The logic I have seen: cadets must be supervised by a SM when at an official activity. Wearing uniforms makes it an official activity. Not saying I agree with it but that's what I've read.

So if I wear my uniform to church that makes the church service an official CAP activity?

[RiverAux]

Well, according to the regulations you can only wear your uniform for CAP activities of one kind or another.  This appears to now have been authorized so that issue is settled.  So, if you are in your uniform for this event you are therefore at a CAP activity and therefore any other regulations regarding CAP activities should apply.  For example, if the church collapses on you then CAP insurance would apply and in this case CAP cadets should be under proper supervision by CAP senior members.  Many wings require a safety briefing at any CAP activity....

Now, all of the above is based on a strict interpretation of the regulations.  What NHQ should do for situations like this is to make some clear exemptions in the regs.  For example, allow cadets to wear their uniforms for such events so long as they are under the direct supervision of their parent or guardian.  They should also make it clear any wear of the uniform in such situations is completely voluntary and done at the members own risk and does not constitute a CAP activity (to get out of the legal stuff). 

Should this fall under the rule of common sense?  Probably, but that isn't the CAP we're living in. 

[Ned]

The logic I have seen: cadets must be supervised by a SM when at an official activity. Wearing uniforms makes it an official activity. Not saying I agree with it but that's what I've read.

I'm pretty sure that the tailoring session at the uniform shop is not an official CAP activity; nor is hanging around at your house in uniform just prior to going to a meeting.

While I agree that uniforms are worn at (almost all) CAP activities, I'm not sure the reverse is always logically true.  IOW, it takes more than a uniform to create an official CAP activity.

[Eclipse]

The logic I have seen: cadets must be supervised by a SM when at an official activity. Wearing uniforms makes it an official activity. Not saying I agree with it but that's what I've read.

Wearing a uniform does not make something an official CAP activity. 

There's nothing wrong with cadets wearing the uniform to recruit at school, or other similar times when it is appropriate.  The wear has to be approved, but that doesn't turn the situation into a "CAP activity".

[davidsinn]

The logic I have seen: cadets must be supervised by a SM when at an official activity. Wearing uniforms makes it an official activity. Not saying I agree with it but that's what I've read.

Wearing a uniform does not make something an official CAP activity. 

There's nothing wrong with cadets wearing the uniform to recruit at school, or other similar times when it is appropriate.  The wear has to be approved, but that doesn't turn the situation into a "CAP activity".

Col. Lee, Eclipse

You're preaching to the choir here. I'm just repeating the arguments I've seen thrown out on here.

[RiverAux]

Wearing a uniform does not make something an official CAP activity. 

Of course not.  What allows you to wear the uniform is that you're attending a CAP activity.  No CAP activity = no uniform.

But that isn't the argument here.  This has been authorized as a CAP activity by NHQ.

[Eclipse]

Of course not.  What allows you to wear the uniform is that you're attending a CAP activity.  No CAP activity = no uniform.

But that isn't the argument here.  This has been authorized as a CAP activity by NHQ.

Incorrect, there are any number of circumstances where a uniform may be worn when it is not specifically a CAP activity per-se.

In all cases the member should be representing CAP, but that doesn't make it a CAP activity.

[Hawk200]

But that isn't the argument here.  This has been authorized as a CAP activity by NHQ.

Where exactly does it say that it's defined as a CAP activity in the first post? I'm not seeing it.

[Pylon]

CAPM 39-1 explicitly authorizes members to wear the CAP uniform anytime they travel by commercial means (i.e.: airlines).  Does every instance of a CAP member boarding a commercial flight or train become a CAP activity now, too?

There is nothing in any regulation that says "Wearing the CAP Uniform makes whatever you're doing a CAP activity."     As Ned aptly put it, CAP activities pretty much require wear of a CAP uniform, but that doesn't mean there aren't also other instances or times where uniform wear can be permitted.

[RiverAux]

But that isn't the argument here.  This has been authorized as a CAP activity by NHQ.

Where exactly does it say that it's defined as a CAP activity in the first post? I'm not seeing it.

By authorizing CAP members to wear their uniforms that means that the NEC is saying it is a CAP activity at which uniforms can be worn. 

CAPM 39-1 explicitly authorizes members to wear the CAP uniform anytime they travel by commercial means (i.e.: airlines).  Does every instance of a CAP member boarding a commercial flight or train become a CAP activity now, too?

Don't know about that.

But, take a look at Table 1.1 which lays out when you may and may not wear the uniform.  In order to wear the uniform for this event by definition it must be an occasion covered by this table.  There is only one situation that could possibly apply to wearing the uniform to church: 

when engaged in normal duties as a CAP member or attending local, wing/region, or national CAP functions (see note 1).

.  By authorizing uniforms to be worn for this event the NEC has to be saying that this is part of normal CAP duties (much as if the squadron commander authorizes the PAO to go give a CAP talk to the Kiwanis in uniform). 

So, if you're engaging in normal CAP duties, then all other CAP regulations should apply. 

[davidsinn]

But that isn't the argument here.  This has been authorized as a CAP activity by NHQ.

Where exactly does it say that it's defined as a CAP activity in the first post? I'm not seeing it.

By authorizing CAP members to wear their uniforms that means that the NEC is saying it is a CAP activity at which uniforms can be worn. 

CAPM 39-1 explicitly authorizes members to wear the CAP uniform anytime they travel by commercial means (i.e.: airlines).  Does every instance of a CAP member boarding a commercial flight or train become a CAP activity now, too?

Don't know about that.

But, take a look at Table 1.1 which lays out when you may and may not wear the uniform.  In order to wear the uniform for this event by definition it must be an occasion covered by this table.  There is only one situation that could possibly apply to wearing the uniform to church: 

when engaged in normal duties as a CAP member or attending local, wing/region, or national CAP functions (see note 1).

.  By authorizing uniforms to be worn for this event the NEC has to be saying that this is part of normal CAP duties (much as if the squadron commander authorizes the PAO to go give a CAP talk to the Kiwanis in uniform). 

So, if you're engaging in normal CAP duties, then all other CAP regulations should apply.

Since when does the uniform manual dictate what is and is not a CAP activity?

[RiverAux]

It certainly doesn't.  Anything someone in command wants could potentially be designated as a CAP activity.  The Wing Commander could authorize a unit to go to the county fair in uniform and go on the "airplane" rides as an AE activity. 

In this case the NEC has authorized uniform wear so logically this must be a CAP activity. 

But for a uniform to be worn it must be for one of the activities specified in 39-1 for which uniform wear has been authorized. 


 

[BuckeyeDEJ]

OK, time to weigh in with you barracks lawyers (and one real one, who I think I will generally be in agreement with)...

You are encouraged to wear your uniform to represent the organization to the outside world, sanctioned by the Powers That Be, as a way to honor the memory of those fallen in the line of military/CAP duty.

Civil Air Patrol Sunday has been going on for decades, and no one reads between the lines like you guys are on this. Church services are not CAP activities. Nor would be a CAP presentation to an outside organization -- it's that organization's activity -- but we as CAP representatives are there for a purpose, and we're in uniform as representatives of the organization.

Whenever you're in uniform, whether it's a CAP activity or someone else's and you're representing CAP, the same uniform and conduct standards apply. The presence of the uniform compels conformity.

And oh, yeah, CAPM 39-1 doesn't say that anytime you fly commercial or take a train or a taxi, that you wear a uniform. That's just plain silly. I'm not flying across country for WORK or for a VACATION (and not for CAP at all) in a CAP uniform just because I misread the intent of the uniform manual. Just like if I'm on vacation in Washington, D.C., I'm not wearing service dress in the middle of August. If I'm there for CAP, that's another thing, and I'll be ducking in for air conditioning like a Floridian every chance I get.

[Hawk200]

But that isn't the argument here.  This has been authorized as a CAP activity by NHQ.

Where exactly does it say that it's defined as a CAP activity in the first post? I'm not seeing it.

By authorizing CAP members to wear their uniforms that means that the NEC is saying it is a CAP activity at which uniforms can be worn.

I don't think that's what they're saying at all. You're welcome to believe that.

But, if you actually want me to even consider such a thing you will show me, in writing from a reliable source, that NEC is specifically saying "it is a CAP activity at which uniforms can be worn." I doubt you can, and this reads as something you want to believe rather than actually is.

Defining publication by applying any logic other than what is in black and white is not how it's done.

[RiverAux]

The NEC says uniforms can be worn to this event. 

39-1 says uniforms can only be worn for CAP activities.

Therefore this must either be a CAP activity or the authorization to wear uniforms is invalid because it attempts to authorize something that is prohibited by an existing regulation without going through an ICL or modifying the regulation as a whole. 

There are no other options. 

I believe that authorization to wear uniforms to this event was most certainly given by proper authority so therefore it must be a CAP activity because I tend to believe our leaders don't authorize things that would violate our regulations.  So, if it is a CAP activity, then all CAP rules apply. 

[Eclipse]

And oh, yeah, CAPM 39-1 doesn't say that anytime you fly commercial or take a train or a taxi, that you wear a uniform. That's just plain silly. I'm not flying across country for WORK or for a VACATION (and not for CAP at all) in a CAP uniform just because I misread the intent of the uniform manual. Just like if I'm on vacation in Washington, D.C., I'm not wearing service dress in the middle of August. If I'm there for CAP, that's another thing, and I'll be ducking in for air conditioning like a Floridian every chance I get.

It says you may, not that you must.

[Eclipse]

In this case the NEC has authorized uniform wear so logically this must be a CAP activity. 

But for a uniform to be worn it must be for one of the activities specified in 39-1 for which uniform wear has been authorized. 

Error 51 - logic failure...

[Major Carrales]

River, I agree with Eclipse, there is a logical fallacy in your argument.

Socrates has a beard,
Socrates is a man,
A goat has a beard,
A goat is a man.

Regulations, as all laws and rules, mandate normal activities and regulate the implementation of the program.  They exist to regulate normal activities.  Here, the NEC, an appropriate authority, made a judgement on the matter.  This is, in similar context, a kin to the judicial process of government.

A law is made, an alleged infraction occurs, the matter is taken before the judiciary...judgements are made and sometime exceptions.

Bottom line,
A uniform does not make an acticity official.

[ol'fido]

Wow, we're really splitting hairs on this one. So I am going to fall back on the reasonable man doctrine here and that's what most commanders that have a clue should do IMHO.

If I wear my uniform to a photographers to have a non-official photo taken of me in my uniform, it's not a CAP activity but it's entirely appropriate.

If I wear my uniform to a KKK/Neo-Nazi rally and have my picture taken there that's not appropriate.

If I wear my uniform at the tailor's to have it altered it's not a CAP activity but it's enitrely appropriate.

If I wear my service coat with all its insignia and ribbons as a jacket in cool weather with my jeans and t-shirt it's not a CAP activity and it's not appropriate.

If I wear my CAP uniform to a my aunt's birthday dinner before leaving directly for a unit meeting that's not a CAP activity but entirely appropriate.

If I wear my CAP uniform to the bar at the local VFW and sit around drinking and telling war stories about CAP, that's not appropriate.

We can all come up with anecdotal stories of people who have worn their CAP uniforms in places that were not appropriate,  but the majority of CAP members put it in the proper perspective and wear their uniform in respectful manner and in appropriate situations. The rest is as Eclipse  like to say "administrivia".

Let's turn this around. If the wear of uniforms makes it a CAP activity and wear of the uniform is absolutely required, then every encampment ever held is in violation of CAP regs. People have to change clothes, take showers, and sleep. So unless you are sleeping in your dress blues or BDU's you are technically in violation of 39-1.

This thread has inspired me to wear my uniform to Memorial Day services at my church.

[RiverAux]

Folks, there is a major difference between being out of uniform while you change during encampment or getting an official photo taken and putting on the uniform, driving to an event, staying there for an hour or two (or more depending on your church) and driving back.

And you say that I'm splitting hairs.   

And by the way, it isn't appropriate to wear your uniform to your aunt's birthday any more than it is for me to wear the uniform to work because I am going directly from work to a CAP meeting. 

This thread has inspired me to wear my uniform to Memorial Day services at my church.

Super.  Like I said, I have no problem at all with this being authorized just so everyone recognizes that this makes it a CAP activity with all the rules that apply. 

And like I said, with a few minor modifications of the regulations there would not be any question at all about what responsibility CAP is taking or is not taking for members that are out in CAP uniform and what other CAP regulations do or do not apply in such situations. 

The other similar situation that has come up on this board every now and again is cadets wearing their uniforms to school after being authorized to do so by their unit commander as part of a recruiting program.  I'm all for that being possible, but like with this don't see how it can be done in accordance with all our other regulations since there is no way to wear a CAP uniform without it being for a generic "CAP activity" or one of the few other situations explicitly detailed in the regulations. 

[Eclipse]

One of the problems with your argument(s) is that you are quoting a document that asserts to be exclusive in its authority in regards to the
wear of CAP uniforms, when in fact that is no longer the case, assuming it ever was.

[Grumpy]

Yee Gads!  What ever happened to common sense?

[Eclipse]

Yee Gads!  What ever happened to common sense?

Boredom and bandwidth killed that a long time ago.

[Major Carrales]

River, what point are you trying to make with all this?  Disregard the order, its against the regulation?  Church is a CAP activity? 

If there is no point, why bring it up?

If the point is the regulations need revising, we get it.  We also cannot do anything about it.

[a2capt]

"why bring it up?"

Post count. ;-)

[lordmonar]

But this does appear to fly in the face of regs regarding cadet wear of the uniform without a senior present....

What reg is that?

[titanII]

What I'm starting to wonder is who's actually gonna wear their uniform to religious services Memorial Weekend. Are you guys going to?

[ol'fido]

I am.

[lordmonar]

The FSM does not have regular worship services....so no.

[RADIOMAN015]

The NEC says uniforms can be worn to this event. 

39-1 says uniforms can only be worn for CAP activities.

Therefore this must either be a CAP activity or the authorization to wear uniforms is invalid because it attempts to authorize something that is prohibited by an existing regulation without going through an ICL or modifying the regulation as a whole. 

There are no other options. 

I believe that authorization to wear uniforms to this event was most certainly given by proper authority so therefore it must be a CAP activity because I tend to believe our leaders don't authorize things that would violate our regulations.  So, if it is a CAP activity, then all CAP rules apply.

Well one would definitely be representing Civil Air Patrol, perhaps in some churches as "an Army of one" so to speak.  I was thinking of wear my golf shirt to the Saturday evening Mass (my spouse tells me that the white aviator shirt won't meet any wear standards due to ink marks and other dirt that doesn't seem to want to come out of the uniform).  (That's why I really wish we had a darker shirt we could wear as an alternative uniform).  Maybe even the Blue BDU's would look better ).  :angel:

HOWEVER, I guess I would be violating the rules by not wearing the exact uniforms they've stated so I'll just wear my typical tee shirt, pants, and combat boots :angel:
RM 

[BuckeyeDEJ]

And oh, yeah, CAPM 39-1 doesn't say that anytime you fly commercial or take a train or a taxi, that you wear a uniform. That's just plain silly. I'm not flying across country for WORK or for a VACATION (and not for CAP at all) in a CAP uniform just because I misread the intent of the uniform manual. Just like if I'm on vacation in Washington, D.C., I'm not wearing service dress in the middle of August. If I'm there for CAP, that's another thing, and I'll be ducking in for air conditioning like a Floridian every chance I get.

It says you may, not that you must.

But if you're not inbound to or outbound from a CAP activity, what would make it appropriate to wear a CAP uniform on a large metal tube hurtling through the air at subsonic speeds, after going through the TSA molestation process?

[Major Lord]

The FSM does not have regular worship services....so no.

I suggest you contact your FSM Chaplain to find a meeting on Memorial Day. If none are available, there may be a Pastafarian observance. Careful not to stain your shirt. If there enough members in the South, I suggest a CAP-Uniformed "Flash Mob" at the church that does the funeral protests....I am sure they would love the company. Watch out for their rattlesnakes.

Major Lord

[JoeTomasone]

I was thinking the same thing when I read this. I don't think I missed anything about that in the regs. I am human, just like everyone else on here and make mistakes. But I would like to see a cite of it, if that's the case.

What exactly in a "cite" are you looking for? Something that says "Senior members are not required to be present when a cadet wears a uniform"?

You have a message from National Headquarters encouraging the action. That's approval. From the top. Don't really need to go any higher.

Except for the fact that it violates regulations.   But then, it seems like National doesn't always feel the need to follow them.

[JoeTomasone]

And oh, yeah, CAPM 39-1 doesn't say that anytime you fly commercial or take a train or a taxi, that you wear a uniform. That's just plain silly. I'm not flying across country for WORK or for a VACATION (and not for CAP at all) in a CAP uniform just because I misread the intent of the uniform manual. Just like if I'm on vacation in Washington, D.C., I'm not wearing service dress in the middle of August. If I'm there for CAP, that's another thing, and I'll be ducking in for air conditioning like a Floridian every chance I get.

It says you may, not that you must.

But 39-1 says that compliance with 39-1 is mandatory.

Oh, and ICLs cannot be issued for uniform changes as per CAPR 5-4. 

[JoeTomasone]

Here, the NEC, an appropriate authority, made a judgement on the matter.  This is, in similar context, a kin to the judicial process of government.

Except that the regulations that the NEC members themselves are required to follow (CAPR 5-4, specifically) specify how NEC polices become binding regulations for members.   In this case, the proper procedure would be to modify 39-1 to allow such uniform wear, which (per CAPR 5-4) CANNOT be done in an ICL, a policy letter, or a supplement (since compliance with 39-1 is mandatory). 

[ßτε]

Except CAPM 39-1 does not prohibit such an authorization for members to wear their uniforms for a special purpose.

[JoeTomasone]

Except CAPM 39-1 does not prohibit such an authorization for members to wear their uniforms for a special purpose.

Sure it does.

COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY. Any variation from this publication is not authorized.

Which means that if 39-1 does not permit it, it cannot be done.   Show me where it permits it.

[ßτε]

Show me where it prohibits it.

[RADIOMAN015]

Except CAPM 39-1 does not prohibit such an authorization for members to wear their uniforms for a special purpose.

Sure it does.

COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY. Any variation from this publication is not authorized.

Which means that if 39-1 does not permit it, it cannot be done.   Show me where it permits it.

I think this is a VERY good intention, BUT of course the question always comes up that IF a CAP member (not at the highest level) violates (even unknownly) the large array of mandatory CAP regulations, then punitive actions may be taken against them.   This is what can cause confusion to the membership when a regulation is modified by a "wish"/"encouragement" by higher authority.   

Perhaps a simple ICL change could be made that if authorized by competent authority CAP uniforms may be worn at special non CAP specific activities (and than list the activities) and who can authorize.

RM

[Eclipse]

But 39-1 says that compliance with 39-1 is mandatory.

39-1 is no longer the sole authority in regards to uniform.

Oh, and ICLs cannot be issued for uniform changes as per CAPR 5-4.

Reality conflicts with that statement.

[Major Lord]

If our uniforms are not fit to wear in tribute to fallen American service members, I submit the uniform means nothing, stands for nothing, and that CAP should be turned into a Cub Scouts program or flying club. ( Incidentally, Boy Scouts wear their Uniforms on this sacred day) The fact that we are privileged to wear a Uniform that others have paid a far greater price to wear is to me, evidence that we are at least a distant relative to the tribe of the American Military and Naval services. If you don't have it in you to wear it with pride, I suggest giving it to someone who will.

Major Lord

[JoeTomasone]

But 39-1 says that compliance with 39-1 is mandatory.

39-1 is no longer the sole authority in regards to uniform.

Oh, and ICLs cannot be issued for uniform changes as per CAPR 5-4.

Reality conflicts with that statement.

Ok, I'll bite.   What else is an authority per regulations?

I'm aware that reality is in conflict with that statement.  I'm also aware that it's still wrong and conflicts with the much-touted CAP Core Values.   

[JoeTomasone]

Show me where it prohibits it.

I don't have to - if CAPM 39-1 does not permit it, it's not authorized.   

[JoeTomasone]

Except CAPM 39-1 does not prohibit such an authorization for members to wear their uniforms for a special purpose.

Sure it does.

COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY. Any variation from this publication is not authorized.

Which means that if 39-1 does not permit it, it cannot be done.   Show me where it permits it.

I think this is a VERY good intention, BUT of course the question always comes up that IF a CAP member (not at the highest level) violates (even unknownly) the large array of mandatory CAP regulations, then punitive actions may be taken against them.   This is what can cause confusion to the membership when a regulation is modified by a "wish"/"encouragement" by higher authority.   

Perhaps a simple ICL change could be made that if authorized by competent authority CAP uniforms may be worn at special non CAP specific activities (and than list the activities) and who can authorize.

RM

(Sigh)

Again, uniform changes cannot be made via ICL as per CAPR 5-4.    Yes, I am aware that National has repeatedly violated it's own regulation.   Still doesn't make it right.

[Hawk200]

This is amusing. National says you can do something, there's approval in black and white, and people will still nit pick it to death.

To those who choose to believe that it's in violation, there's a real simple choice for you: Don't wear your uniform to church. Period. End of story.

I would however state that if you see someone do so, it is probably in your best interest to leave them alone. Between an authorization from National and someone's opinion, I know which I would choose. After all, this message is black and white.

Now, I'm sure someone will bring up an argument that the chain of command is not always right. I would agree. However, when it comes to any order or authorization, we pretty much apply some questions: Is it illegal? Is it immoral? Is is unethical? Is it inappropriate?

The above questions applied to the statement from National don't seem to produce any issues. It seems that people are arguing with false logic or vehemence when there really is no place or reason to do so.

If you don't like it, don't do it. It's as simple as that.

[ßτε]

In case you haven't noticed, CAPR 5-4 does not say that ICLs cannot be issued regarding uniform issues.

[JoeTomasone]

If you don't like it, don't do it. It's as simple as that.

Interesting logic.   So basically, you're saying that National can violate it's own regulations -- even though those regulations are binding on National as well.  At what echelon does this privilege stop?  Region?  Wing?  Group?

Now, I'm sure someone will bring up an argument that the chain of command is not always right. I would agree. However, when it comes to any order or authorization, we pretty much apply some questions: Is it illegal? Is it immoral? Is is unethical? Is it inappropriate?

I consider it inappropriate for our leadership to think that they can just do whatever they want but expect us to follow regulations to the letter.  That's a VERY slippery slope to go down.   

[JoeTomasone]

In case you haven't noticed, CAPR 5-4 does not say that ICLs cannot be issued regarding uniform issues.

You are 100% correct.  It does not say that.  However, what it does say is:

4. Interim Change Letters (ICL). Situations requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency, an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, or other contingencies that may require prompt action may result in an interim change letter being issued outlining immediate policies. ICLs may be issued by any level of command unless specifically limited or prohibited by the regulation or manual governing that subject matter. Issuance of policies by ICL is a temporary measure.

a. ICLs outlining immediate policies to be followed for a limited time will be issued with a stated expiration date. Such expiration dates shall not be more than 180 days from the date the letter was issued.

b. ICLs outlining immediate policies that are intended to become permanent shall be incorporated into an appropriate publication within 90 days of the date the letter was issued.

Now, explain to me how routine uniform issues are "Situations requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency, an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, or other contingencies that may require prompt action".    It doesn't pass the laugh test.  Consider also the fact that the uniform ICLs that were published contained no expiration date and were not incorporated into CAPM 39-1 within 90 days.   

[RiverAux]

If our uniforms are not fit to wear in tribute to fallen American service members, I submit the uniform means nothing, stands for nothing, and that CAP should be turned into a Cub Scouts program or flying club. ( Incidentally, Boy Scouts wear their Uniforms on this sacred day) The fact that we are privileged to wear a Uniform that others have paid a far greater price to wear is to me, evidence that we are at least a distant relative to the tribe of the American Military and Naval services. If you don't have it in you to wear it with pride, I suggest giving it to someone who will.

Major Lord

Absolutely no one has said that.  Everyone agrees that it is certainly ok for the proper authority to authorize uniforms to be worn in this situation. 

What we are arguing about is whether or not it can be done without the service being considered a CAP activity at which all CAP rules would apply. 

[Eclipse]

What we are arguing about is whether or not it can be done without the service being considered a CAP activity at which all CAP rules would apply.

Define "all rules"...

[Chappie]

No problem for me......I will be escorting cadets and senior members who are attending the CAWG Cadet Programs Conference to a Protestant service that Sunday  

[SARDOC]

In case you haven't noticed, CAPR 5-4 does not say that ICLs cannot be issued regarding uniform issues.

You are 100% correct.  It does not say that.  However, what it does say is:

4. Interim Change Letters (ICL). Situations requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency, an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, or other contingencies that may require prompt action may result in an interim change letter being issued outlining immediate policies. ICLs may be issued by any level of command unless specifically limited or prohibited by the regulation or manual governing that subject matter. Issuance of policies by ICL is a temporary measure.

a. ICLs outlining immediate policies to be followed for a limited time will be issued with a stated expiration date. Such expiration dates shall not be more than 180 days from the date the letter was issued.

b. ICLs outlining immediate policies that are intended to become permanent shall be incorporated into an appropriate publication within 90 days of the date the letter was issued.

Now, explain to me how routine uniform issues are "Situations requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency, an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, or other contingencies that may require prompt action".    It doesn't pass the laugh test.  Consider also the fact that the uniform ICLs that were published contained no expiration date and were not incorporated into CAPM 39-1 within 90 days.

So if an ICL is Over 180 days old does that make it technically invalid if it is not incorporated into the standing document?

[Hawk200]

If you don't like it, don't do it. It's as simple as that.

Interesting logic.   So basically, you're saying that National can violate it's own regulations -- even though those regulations are binding on National as well.  At what echelon does this privilege stop?  Region?  Wing?  Group?

Now, I'm sure someone will bring up an argument that the chain of command is not always right. I would agree. However, when it comes to any order or authorization, we pretty much apply some questions: Is it illegal? Is it immoral? Is is unethical? Is it inappropriate?

I consider it inappropriate for our leadership to think that they can just do whatever they want but expect us to follow regulations to the letter.  That's a VERY slippery slope to go down.   

OK, I'll explain a little something. Most of the folks with military time under their belt should recognize and understand this concept. For those who do not have that experience, this concept should be readily understandable.

The purpose of publications is for when guidance from higher headquarters is not available. Basically, if you can't ask the chain, then you reference the publication. The chain of command is not necessarily violating regulation if they are providing an authorization.

I posted some of the questions that one should ask if an authorization isn't covered in a pub. I'll be a little more clear this time.

Is it illegal to wear a uniform to church/mass/religious service/etc.? No, I don't think so. If anyone has proof that it is, please, provide it.

Is it immoral to wear a uniform to church/mass/religious service/etc.? I would say no. Once again, if someone has proof, please provide.

Is it unethical to wear a uniform to church/mass/religious service/etc.? No. I sure can't think of any reason why it would be. Same stipulation as above.

Is it innappropriate to wear a uniform to church/mass/religious service/etc.? No. The purpose of the message is to celebrate our heritage (on Dec 1), and to honor those who have served this country.

It is clear guidance from the chain of command, in this case the very top. Common sense applies. Arguing it for the sake of argument is a time waster.

There's a lot of folks in CAP that are very lucky to be in a "volunteer" organization. Pulling a stunt like "No General/Colonel, I'm not going to do that because because it's not in the regulations" would get you a very short trip out of the service with a less than stellar discharge characterization.

Still want to talk about a slippery slope? Questioning guidance from higher command is one. Since the authorization presents you with an option, you can make the decision to do or do not. Telling others that they cannot, or issuing orders contrary to the higher headquarters is insubordination. Period.

Doing so dishonors those in CAP before us, and the Veterans we seek to honor.

[Ned]

I consider it inappropriate for our leadership to think that they can just do whatever they want but expect us to follow regulations to the letter.  That's a VERY slippery slope to go down.   

My God, you are so right!

First they want us to wear our uniforms to church in clear violation of the regs, then who knows where it will end!

We must keep a close eye on these guys, for sure.

[BillB]

Hey Ned

Don't forget, YOU are one of "these guys."

[lordmonar]

Now we see the problem with barracks lawerying and reg dogs.

Following the regulations is very important.  But sometimes we encounter situations that our outside the regulations or even counter to the regulations.

That is why we have commanders and leaders placed in the chain of command.

Just  like we have judges to interpet laws...we have commanders and leaders who interpet regulations.

NHQ know the regulations and they have issued a one time (well two time actually) exception to the "wear CAP uniforms only on CAP time" rule.

It is clearly spelled out and no one is in danger of suddenly thinking that they can do loops in thier C-182 or start torturing cadets.
The slipper slope argument only goes so far.

[Grumpy]

I consider it inappropriate for our leadership to think that they can just do whatever they want but expect us to follow regulations to the letter.  That's a VERY slippery slope to go down.   

My God, you are so right!

First they want us to wear our uniforms to church in clear violation of the regs, then who knows where it will end!

We must keep a close eye on these guys, for sure.

[RiverAux]

I guess reading comprehension needs to be added to CAP's officer development program.  I'm out.

[ColonelJack]

Somehow, I'm reminded of the line that game show host Tom Kennedy used to say at the end of one of his programs ...

"Remember, it isn't what you say that counts, it's what You Don't Say."

Jack

[TCMajor]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this request from National.  Its no different that the Army Chief of Staff making the same request.  What I found interesting was the specific mention of uniform type to wear, or more specifically the absence of the Distinctive Uniform as an option.  Just something that struck me.

[Major Carrales]

I guess reading comprehension needs to be added to CAP's officer development program.  I'm out.

Did you ever think that, if your interpretation  of the world is different that everyone else's (including people in FULL AUTHORITY) that your interpenetration might be one that is less than correct?

CAP regulations and supplements are not like the US Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the Land, they are more like Federal Statues and State Laws.  Judicial functions in those governmental systems have an analogous concept in the CAP governing bodies.   Much as exceptions are made by judicial arbiters of the law and executive orders by the Chief Executive (I remind you it is an executive order that allowed CAP to continue and not suffer the same fate as Air Raid Wardens), such exception can be made. 

This was an official announcement that is a different animal that opportunistically asking the National Commander if you can wear item "X" and getting a "hand shake" undocumented affirmative.

[Major Lord]

I consider it inappropriate for our leadership to think that they can just do whatever they want but expect us to follow regulations to the letter.  That's a VERY slippery slope to go down.   

My God, you are so right!

First they want us to wear our uniforms to church in clear violation of the regs, then who knows where it will end!

We must keep a close eye on these guys, for sure.

Probably end  in death camps and genocide. That's how Mao, Lenin, and L. Ron Hubbard  started. Our otherwise saintly adherence to regulations will be stripped away in one fell swoop, and the fabric of the American way of life and the remnants of goodness in man will be abandoned in one moment in time. I will always try to remember where I was when life on this planet became unbearable due to directions contrary to moral and natural law being forced upon us by some guys from a small non-profit corporation in Alabama.

Major Lord
p.s. I think I will wear my BDU's to a Quaker meeting on Memorial day, or maybe a Wicca ceremony.....

[Major Lord]

I guess reading comprehension needs to be added to CAP's officer development program.  I'm out.

Did you ever think that, if your interpenetration of the world is different that everyone else's (including people in FULL AUTHORITY) that your interpenetration might be one that is less than correct?

CAP regulations and supplements are not like the US Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the Land, they are more like Federal Statues and State Laws.  Judicial functions in those governmental systems have an analogous concept in the CAP governing bodies.   Much as exceptions are made by judicial arbiters of the law and executive orders by the Chief Executive (I remind you it is an executive order that allowed CAP to continue and not suffer the same fate as Air Raid Wardens), such exception can be made. 

This was an official announcement that is a different animal that opportunistically asking the National Commander if you can wear item "X" and getting a "hand shake" undocumented affirmative.

"interpenetration" ? That sounds awful! I hope National does not pass any rules about that!

Major Lord

[titanII]

"interpenetration" ? That sounds awful! I hope National does not pass any rules about that!

Major Lord

I was waiting for someone to point that out... 

[JoeTomasone]

Now we see the problem with barracks lawerying and reg dogs.

Following the regulations is very important.  But sometimes we encounter situations that our outside the regulations or even counter to the regulations.

That is why we have commanders and leaders placed in the chain of command.

Just  like we have judges to interpet laws...we have commanders and leaders who interpet regulations.

NHQ know the regulations and they have issued a one time (well two time actually) exception to the "wear CAP uniforms only on CAP time" rule.

It is clearly spelled out and no one is in danger of suddenly thinking that they can do loops in thier C-182 or start torturing cadets.
The slipper slope argument only goes so far.

Ah, OK, I think I see your point now.

Regulations are binding on everyone except commanders and leaders, who interpret them for us - even when they are already black and white.

Thanks for straightening me out.   This opens up a whole new world of possibilities in CAP!    For example, I haven't been a Captain for 3 years yet, but if my Commander interprets that I had all of the qualifications for Major for long enough, I can get promoted now!    Or, maybe I can wear my uniform to work on meeting nights - I mean, hey, my commander could interpret that I *am* on my way to the meeting, right?  After all, I would go there right from work.    And hey - now I don't have to stow my BDU cap in my BDU trousers when I am indoors anymore - after all, it's always "in use" if I am in uniform, right?  I'm pretty sure that's how my commander would interpret that.     In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have demanded that the SM at Encampment get into uniform because he was "conducting in or participating in the cadet program" - after all, how could he be -- he's not a cadet!   I feel so embarrassed now.  Man, interpretation really is everything.

I can't believe I let those regulations cramp my style for so long.    A million thanks to you folks for clearing that all up for me.   

[Major Carrales]

I guess reading comprehension needs to be added to CAP's officer development program.  I'm out.

Did you ever think that, if your interpenetration of the world is different that everyone else's (including people in FULL AUTHORITY) that your interpenetration might be one that is less than correct?

CAP regulations and supplements are not like the US Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the Land, they are more like Federal Statues and State Laws.  Judicial functions in those governmental systems have an analogous concept in the CAP governing bodies.   Much as exceptions are made by judicial arbiters of the law and executive orders by the Chief Executive (I remind you it is an executive order that allowed CAP to continue and not suffer the same fate as Air Raid Wardens), such exception can be made. 

This was an official announcement that is a different animal that opportunistically asking the National Commander if you can wear item "X" and getting a "hand shake" undocumented affirmative.

"interpenetration" ? That sounds awful! I hope National does not pass any rules about that!

Major Lord

Fixed it...dang FireFox Spell corrector.   On, by the way, form the Cadet leadership lessons...focus more on the meaning of that is said (written) than on how it was said (written).  The meaning, despite the typo, was quite clear.

[Grumpy]

"Regulations are binding on everyone except commanders and leaders, who interpret them for us - even when they are already black and white."

Just like cadets being able to transfer out of a squadron to avoid discipline.

[RADIOMAN015]

I'm wondering why the same policy letter didn't specific to just wear your uniform to ANY Memorial Day observation event, whether it is a parade (some units don't participate in parades), cemeteries ceremony, etc 
RM 

[PHall]

"Regulations are binding on everyone except commanders and leaders, who interpret them for us - even when they are already black and white."

Just like cadets being able to transfer out of a squadron to avoid discipline.

[OFF TOPIC]

The losing unit can protest the transfer. If the cadet had pending "unfavorable personnel actions" pending and you didn't protest the transfer then it's your bad and no one else's.

[/OFF TOPIC]

[ol'fido]

Now we see the problem with barracks lawerying and reg dogs.

Following the regulations is very important.  But sometimes we encounter situations that our outside the regulations or even counter to the regulations.

That is why we have commanders and leaders placed in the chain of command.

Just  like we have judges to interpet laws...we have commanders and leaders who interpet regulations.

NHQ know the regulations and they have issued a one time (well two time actually) exception to the "wear CAP uniforms only on CAP time" rule.

It is clearly spelled out and no one is in danger of suddenly thinking that they can do loops in thier C-182 or start torturing cadets.
The slipper slope argument only goes so far.

Ah, OK, I think I see your point now.

Regulations are binding on everyone except commanders and leaders, who interpret them for us - even when they are already black and white.

Thanks for straightening me out.   This opens up a whole new world of possibilities in CAP!    For example, I haven't been a Captain for 3 years yet, but if my Commander interprets that I had all of the qualifications for Major for long enough, I can get promoted now!    Or, maybe I can wear my uniform to work on meeting nights - I mean, hey, my commander could interpret that I *am* on my way to the meeting, right?  After all, I would go there right from work.    And hey - now I don't have to stow my BDU cap in my BDU trousers when I am indoors anymore - after all, it's always "in use" if I am in uniform, right?  I'm pretty sure that's how my commander would interpret that.     In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have demanded that the SM at Encampment get into uniform because he was "conducting in or participating in the cadet program" - after all, how could he be -- he's not a cadet!   I feel so embarrassed now.  Man, interpretation really is everything.

I can't believe I let those regulations cramp my style for so long.    A million thanks to you folks for clearing that all up for me.

No problem. Anytime.

[Major Carrales]

Now we see the problem with barracks lawerying and reg dogs.

Following the regulations is very important.  But sometimes we encounter situations that our outside the regulations or even counter to the regulations.

That is why we have commanders and leaders placed in the chain of command.

Just  like we have judges to interpet laws...we have commanders and leaders who interpet regulations.

NHQ know the regulations and they have issued a one time (well two time actually) exception to the "wear CAP uniforms only on CAP time" rule.

It is clearly spelled out and no one is in danger of suddenly thinking that they can do loops in thier C-182 or start torturing cadets.
The slipper slope argument only goes so far.

Ah, OK, I think I see your point now.

Regulations are binding on everyone except commanders and leaders, who interpret them for us - even when they are already black and white.

Thanks for straightening me out.   This opens up a whole new world of possibilities in CAP!    For example, I haven't been a Captain for 3 years yet, but if my Commander interprets that I had all of the qualifications for Major for long enough, I can get promoted now!    Or, maybe I can wear my uniform to work on meeting nights - I mean, hey, my commander could interpret that I *am* on my way to the meeting, right?  After all, I would go there right from work.    And hey - now I don't have to stow my BDU cap in my BDU trousers when I am indoors anymore - after all, it's always "in use" if I am in uniform, right?  I'm pretty sure that's how my commander would interpret that.     In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have demanded that the SM at Encampment get into uniform because he was "conducting in or participating in the cadet program" - after all, how could he be -- he's not a cadet!   I feel so embarrassed now.  Man, interpretation really is everything.

I can't believe I let those regulations cramp my style for so long.    A million thanks to you folks for clearing that all up for me.

Anytime, and thanks for the trip down the path of the ridiculous.  In this case it wasn't a REGION, WING, GROUP or SQUADRON commander's decision on the matter it came from a CAP governing body. 

[JoeTomasone]

In this case it wasn't a REGION, WING, GROUP or SQUADRON commander's decision on the matter it came from a CAP governing body.

Right - one who issued clear regulations that spell out in detail how THEY and National HQ turn THEIR policies into regulations.   They made their own rules, don't follow them, and it's OK with everyone.   

They could easily issue policy (per the CAPR 5-4 reg, which, again, they caused to come into being), that changes CAPR 5-4 and permits them to issue memos like this that contradict regulations that (again) they devised - one which, in this case, states that deviations are not authorized.   

They could easily accomplish this the right way - they way that they themselves deemed that they should - yet they choose not to.   

Have you folks even read CAPR 5-4?   I really don't understand how you can defend this.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Right - one who issued clear regulations that spell out in detail how THEY and National HQ turn THEIR policies into regulations.   They made their own rules, don't follow them, and it's OK with everyone.   

They could easily issue policy (per the CAPR 5-4 reg, which, again, they caused to come into being), that changes CAPR 5-4 and permits them to issue memos like this that contradict regulations that (again) they devised - one which, in this case, states that deviations are not authorized.   

They could easily accomplish this the right way - they way that they themselves deemed that they should - yet they choose not to.   

Have you folks even read CAPR 5-4?   I really don't understand how you can defend this.

Your oath of membership clearly states that you will agree to abide by the decisions of those in authority within Civil Air Patrol. Although earlier in the oath, you agree to abide by the core values, regulations and policies of the organizations, the statement that you'll abide by decisions of those in authority could be taken to mean that when a capricious order is made, even if it violates regulation, common sense or safety, you must follow it. In other words: Regulation doesn't mean jack if a cult of personality exists. You could thank a certain former national commander for creating that environment, or maybe even a sitting president, but somehow we're moving from a culture of law and regulations to one of personality. That's dangerous. It also certainly doesn't help that a few of our core regulations are sorely lacking and out of date -- and they're being neglected, even if they're updated (like the new 10-1).

[lordmonar]

In this case it wasn't a REGION, WING, GROUP or SQUADRON commander's decision on the matter it came from a CAP governing body.

Right - one who issued clear regulations that spell out in detail how THEY and National HQ turn THEIR policies into regulations.   They made their own rules, don't follow them, and it's OK with everyone.

sure.  When I was a child my parents made rules....say bed time.....sometimes for exceptional reasons they made an exception...like Christmas.

They could easily issue policy (per the CAPR 5-4 reg, which, again, they caused to come into being), that changes CAPR 5-4 and permits them to issue memos like this that contradict regulations that (again) they devised - one which, in this case, states that deviations are not authorized. 

They could easily accomplish this the right way - they way that they themselves deemed that they should - yet they choose not to.   

Have you folks even read CAPR 5-4?   I really don't understand how you can defend this.

So quit.  It has always been like that....always will...both in CAP, USAF and most corporations that I know.

[Smokey]

OMG...... 4 pages of insanity.   

It's no wonder so many things don't get done in CAP.  If you can rag on for four pages about a simple invitation to honor our fallen heroes, then you are the problem in CAP.

Regulations cannot cover every situation. If you feel that wearing the uniform to honor those who have given the ultimate, and it causes you that much grief...DON'T WEAR THE UNIFORM.

The insanity (yes, insanity) of those who nit pick this simple directive need to get a grip on reality.  If those of you who want to have issue with this simple honor spent as much time whining about it here on doing something constructive for CAP it would be a much better organization.

I can't belive the childish behavior of some here.  Please, those of you with hearburn over honoring our war dead in this manner, take your ball and go home.

[Major Carrales]

What are the chances that some of the people making all the clamor about things on CAPTALK aren't in in the CIVIL AIR PATROL any longer?  That anonymity catch...that's some catch.

[JoeTomasone]

In this case it wasn't a REGION, WING, GROUP or SQUADRON commander's decision on the matter it came from a CAP governing body.

Right - one who issued clear regulations that spell out in detail how THEY and National HQ turn THEIR policies into regulations.   They made their own rules, don't follow them, and it's OK with everyone.

sure.  When I was a child my parents made rules....say bed time.....sometimes for exceptional reasons they made an exception...like Christmas.

They could easily issue policy (per the CAPR 5-4 reg, which, again, they caused to come into being), that changes CAPR 5-4 and permits them to issue memos like this that contradict regulations that (again) they devised - one which, in this case, states that deviations are not authorized. 

They could easily accomplish this the right way - they way that they themselves deemed that they should - yet they choose not to.   

Have you folks even read CAPR 5-4?   I really don't understand how you can defend this.

So quit.  It has always been like that....always will...both in CAP, USAF and most corporations that I know.

Wow.   Just...  Wow.   Good thing that our forefathers didn't have this attitude.   If they had just toed the line with lowered heads, we'd likely have a Queen today.

Ok, so you all don't care.   Fine.   Guess we will have to agree to disagree.   But perhaps your right, Major - maybe I should quit.   This certainly isn't the honorable organization I joined almost 30 years ago.   That one had integrity, pride in itself and its parent organization, and a sense of purpose and duty.  Now, we've trashed customs and courtesies, and apparently don't follow regulations or care when others do not.

Pretty disappointing, really.

So long, folks.

[Major Carrales]

In this case it wasn't a REGION, WING, GROUP or SQUADRON commander's decision on the matter it came from a CAP governing body.

Right - one who issued clear regulations that spell out in detail how THEY and National HQ turn THEIR policies into regulations.   They made their own rules, don't follow them, and it's OK with everyone.

sure.  When I was a child my parents made rules....say bed time.....sometimes for exceptional reasons they made an exception...like Christmas.

They could easily issue policy (per the CAPR 5-4 reg, which, again, they caused to come into being), that changes CAPR 5-4 and permits them to issue memos like this that contradict regulations that (again) they devised - one which, in this case, states that deviations are not authorized. 

They could easily accomplish this the right way - they way that they themselves deemed that they should - yet they choose not to.   

Have you folks even read CAPR 5-4?   I really don't understand how you can defend this.

So quit.  It has always been like that....always will...both in CAP, USAF and most corporations that I know.

Wow.   Just...  Wow.   Good thing that our forefathers didn't have this attitude.   If they had just toed the line with lowered heads, we'd likely have a Queen today.

Ok, so you all don't care.   Fine.   Guess we will have to agree to disagree.   But perhaps your right, Major - maybe I should quit.   This certainly isn't the honorable organization I joined almost 30 years ago.   That one had integrity, pride in itself and its parent organization, and a sense of purpose and duty.  Now, we've trashed customs and courtesies, and apparently don't follow regulations or care when others do not.

Pretty disappointing, really.

So long, folks.

I didn't tell you to quit.

The rest I have removed after rethinking the "drama" aspect of it.

[peter rabbit]

I have no problem wearing my uniform when requested to do so by the National Commander.

However, I have decided not to wear my uniform on that day for this one personal reason: I feel my wearing the uniform would draw attention to me and not to the people we are honoring.

[Major Carrales]

I have no problem wearing my uniform when requested to do so by the National Commander.

However, I have decided not to wear my uniform on that day for this one personal reason: I feel my wearing the uniform would draw attention to me and not to the people we are honoring.

Understandable...that is the sort of personal choice called for in the matter.

[Grumpy]

OMG...... 4 pages of insanity.   

It's no wonder so many things don't get done in CAP.  If you can rag on for four pages about a simple invitation to honor our fallen heroes, then you are the problem in CAP.

Regulations cannot cover every situation. If you feel that wearing the uniform to honor those who have given the ultimate, and it causes you that much grief...DON'T WEAR THE UNIFORM.

The insanity (yes, insanity) of those who nit pick this simple directive need to get a grip on reality.  If those of you who want to have issue with this simple honor spent as much time whining about it here on doing something constructive for CAP it would be a much better organization.

I can't believe the childish behavior of some here.  Please, those of you with hearburn over honoring our war dead in this manner, take your ball and go home.

Amen Brian!  May the good Lord bless you

[paladin82]

As a brand new member, I don't have a uniform yet.  And it's just as well.  I ran this directive by my pastor last week and received a very unexpected response.  I would likely not be allowed to wear the uniform on these days.  He said that since I am the minister of music, it would be too much of a distraction.

[RADIOMAN015]

As a brand new member, I don't have a uniform yet.  And it's just as well.  I ran this directive by my pastor last week and received a very unexpected response.  I would likely not be allowed to wear the uniform on these days.  He said that since I am the minister of music, it would be too much of a distraction.

Well I guess my questions is does your church allow anyone to wear uniforms to the service   Also IF you aren't getting paid by the church for your volunteer service, you can do what you want BUT IF you are getting paid than you are an employee and would have to abide by your employers rules.
RM

[JeffDG]

As a brand new member, I don't have a uniform yet.  And it's just as well.  I ran this directive by my pastor last week and received a very unexpected response.  I would likely not be allowed to wear the uniform on these days.  He said that since I am the minister of music, it would be too much of a distraction.

Well I guess my questions is does your church allow anyone to wear uniforms to the service   Also IF you aren't getting paid by the church for your volunteer service, you can do what you want BUT IF you are getting paid than you are an employee and would have to abide by your employers rules.
RM

So, then because CAP doesn't pay me for my voluntary service, I can do what I want?

[SarDragon]

As a brand new member, I don't have a uniform yet.  And it's just as well.  I ran this directive by my pastor last week and received a very unexpected response.  I would likely not be allowed to wear the uniform on these days.  He said that since I am the minister of music, it would be too much of a distraction.

Well I guess my questions is does your church allow anyone to wear uniforms to the service   Also IF you aren't getting paid by the church for your volunteer service, you can do what you want BUT IF you are getting paid than you are an employee and would have to abide by your employers rules.
RM

So, then because CAP doesn't pay me for my voluntary service, I can do what I want?

No. If you are there as a paid employee, you shouldn't be wearing your CAP uniform. If you are there as a CAP member, not getting paid by the church, then the uniform could, with permission, be worn.

[a2capt]

If you're sitting in the pews ... it's one thing, but participating in the production of the presentation in any way at all I would have to agree that it would be an a good idea to pass on it.

[JeffDG]

As a brand new member, I don't have a uniform yet.  And it's just as well.  I ran this directive by my pastor last week and received a very unexpected response.  I would likely not be allowed to wear the uniform on these days.  He said that since I am the minister of music, it would be too much of a distraction.

Well I guess my questions is does your church allow anyone to wear uniforms to the service   Also IF you aren't getting paid by the church for your volunteer service, you can do what you want BUT IF you are getting paid than you are an employee and would have to abide by your employers rules.
RM

So, then because CAP doesn't pay me for my voluntary service, I can do what I want?

No. If you are there as a paid employee, you shouldn't be wearing your CAP uniform. If you are there as a CAP member, not getting paid by the church, then the uniform could, with permission, be worn.

What the poster said was that he had a role in the service "minister of music".  Then RM made the distinction between if he was a paid employee (in which case he had to do as the pastor required) or an unpaid volunteer (in which case he could ignore the demands of the pastor).  I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of that.  Volunteers need to follow the dictates of their organizations just the same as paid employees, as we in CAP are well aware.

[ol'fido]

WOW!! This one just jumped the shark!

[a2capt]

Just the usual noise when the squelch is broken on the radio from that particular station ..

[SarDragon]

^^  ^^

[ol'fido]

Wore my uniform  to church today. Very good reception from everyone.