Loss of USAF uniforms

[Ned]

Ned, I would agree with you that missions should dictate uniform policy, and in doing so, can lower the number of uniforms significantly

CP-  AF Blues or Corporate equivalent, just like now.

ES (Field) - BBDU, the woodland BDUs are no longer an Air Force Uniform, and that way everyone would be wearing the same thing.  The importance is mission functionality

Flight - Blue Flight Suit - fulfills mission functionality

ES (Mission Base) - Polo Shirt/Grey Slacks, like most volunteer SAR/ES organizations

AE- Either the dress uniform or the Polo Shirt depending on the activity

Do away with Mess Dress and its Corporate Equivalent as they have no mission functionality

Reduced the number of Uniforms from 8 to 4

Hmmm.  I'm not sure how doing away with optional uniforms worn by less than 5% of the members (mess dress) and reducing choices for other members really addresses the problem.

But maybe that's because we haven't been able to agree on just what the problem is.

For example, some people would state the problem as "large members have to wear a different uniform than other members and that is demeaning."  If that's the problem, your solution does not even address it in CAP's largest mission, Cadet Programs.  (And CP also goes to the field, BTW, in non-ES situations.)

Some people believe the problem is "large members cannot wear their earned military awards and decorations."  Your solution would not allow them to do so.

And of course, there is the issue that members can already do exactly what you have described, and many / most choose not to.  There is probably a reason for that.  (Actually there almost certainly many reasons for that.)  Imposing your solution will be removing choices from our members.  Tell me again, why we should do that, please.

[Alaric]

Ned, I would agree with you that missions should dictate uniform policy, and in doing so, can lower the number of uniforms significantly

CP-  AF Blues or Corporate equivalent, just like now.

ES (Field) - BBDU, the woodland BDUs are no longer an Air Force Uniform, and that way everyone would be wearing the same thing.  The importance is mission functionality

Flight - Blue Flight Suit - fulfills mission functionality

ES (Mission Base) - Polo Shirt/Grey Slacks, like most volunteer SAR/ES organizations

AE- Either the dress uniform or the Polo Shirt depending on the activity

Do away with Mess Dress and its Corporate Equivalent as they have no mission functionality

Reduced the number of Uniforms from 8 to 4

Hmmm.  I'm not sure how doing away with optional uniforms worn by less than 5% of the members (mess dress) and reducing choices for other members really addresses the problem.

But maybe that's because we haven't been able to agree on just what the problem is.

For example, some people would state the problem as "large members have to wear a different uniform than other members and that is demeaning."  If that's the problem, your solution does not even address it in CAP's largest mission, Cadet Programs.  (And CP also goes to the field, BTW, in non-ES situations.)

Some people believe the problem is "large members cannot wear their earned military awards and decorations."  Your solution would not allow them to do so.

And of course, there is the issue that members can already do exactly what you have described, and many / most choose not to.  There is probably a reason for that.  (Actually there almost certainly many reasons for that.)  Imposing your solution will be removing choices from our members.  Tell me again, why we should do that, please.

If the argument in favor of the AF/Corporate uniforms is that we want to keep to the extent possible our connection with the AF, and since the Cadet Regulations specifically call out the AF Blue uniforms, this allows for that mission to continue in the current compromise.

For all the other 2 missions ES/AE there is no reason to wear an AF-style uniform, as a point of fact none of the uniforms worn for ES (with the exception of the Green Flight suit) are AF style uniforms.  So ground teams would be in one uniform.  There is no reason to wear an AF color flight suit since we are not flying AF planes (yes I know they pay for them), therefore the flight crews would be wearing a uniform. 

The issue with not being able to wear military awards on the CAP uniform is more a matter of whether you can wear military awards on civilian clothing and I was under the impression only during military themed events

http://www.military.com/benefits/resources/wearing-medals-awards-and-decorations

For AE missions, which are usually lecture style events, rocketry or model building, or airshow type events, the event coordinator would determine the UOD, whether that be blue/corporate; field, or for the seniors (and 18+ cadets out of Ht/Wt/grooming) polo shirt

[goblin]

If CAP is staying afloat only due to those folks who are staying in to wear the AF uniform, and if forced to switch to a corporate style uniform would quit, what does that say about the status of our program?

That's the argument, right? Let's not change things because we don't know how many people we'd lose.

Sidebar: came across this photo on the Internet the other day. Don't know the person/don't care to; brown A2 in civilian clothes, CAP patches and nametag with a callsign and USAF AUX instead of CAP. 



If these are the folks that would leave because they can't play AF, maybe that's for the better?

[Ned]

If the argument in favor of the AF/Corporate uniforms is that we want to keep to the extent possible our connection with the AF, and since the Cadet Regulations specifically call out the AF Blue uniforms, this allows for that mission to continue in the current compromise.

For all the other 2 missions ES/AE there is no reason to wear an AF-style uniform, as a point of fact none of the uniforms worn for ES (with the exception of the Green Flight suit) are AF style uniforms.  So ground teams would be in one uniform.  There is no reason to wear an AF color flight suit since we are not flying AF planes (yes I know they pay for them), therefore the flight crews would be wearing a uniform. 


The issue with not being able to wear military awards on the CAP uniform is more a matter of whether you can wear military awards on civilian clothing and I was under the impression only during military themed events

http://www.military.com/benefits/resources/wearing-medals-awards-and-decorations

For AE missions, which are usually lecture style events, rocketry or model building, or airshow type events, the event coordinator would determine the UOD, whether that be blue/corporate; field, or for the seniors (and 18+ cadets out of Ht/Wt/grooming) polo shirt

Thank you.

This is a pretty good illustration of why the problem is insoluble.

Your proposal is certainly reasonable, but it will not make the issues go away anymore than leaving the status quo.  Restated, if you became the National Commander and implemented your strategy, you would still have disgruntled members and countless pages here on CAPTalk decrying your "unfair and divisive" rules.

Members could and undoubtedly would continue to point out that large members working on our largest mission - CP --  would continue to be required to wear a different uniform that they perceive to be demeaning, solely because of their weight.  (Some might even call for a class action lawsuit, which would cost countless thousands of dollars in dues money to defend even if it failed to change the AF mandates.)

Other members would continue to correctly point out that they cannot wear their earned military awards and decorations on the corporate uniforms while members in the AF-style may optionally do so.

Restated, there are no apparent changes that will maintain or improve mission performance while simultaneously reducing some of the sincerely held unhappiness of the members who cannot wear the AF-style uniforms.

And to those who would say "well, if the only reason someone stays in CAP is to wear the AF uniform, then we are better off without them," remember that the counter "argument" is "If someone cannot maintain a healthy lifestyle and reduce their weight below 'obesity' levels, we are better off without them."

That kind of war of words is destructive, and violates our Core Value of Respect.  All of our members are valuable.  Indeed, our members are our most important asset.  We must work together to perform our Congressionally imposed missions.  We cannot and should not fling arrows across this divide.

Let us focus on what we do, rather than what we wear while doing it.

[Edit - unscrewed quote tags]

[Brit_in_CAP]

Let us focus on what we do, rather than what we wear while doing it.

:clap: :clap:

[Brit_in_CAP]

Actually, Sikh's serving in the military are allowed to keep their beards and turbans for religious reasons...

Correct; I served with one such.  Fitting his gas mask was interesting but not a CAP problem

[arajca]

You know, we DID have a uniform that could have lead to far fewer seniors wearing the AF service uniform. Not through orders from on high, or the AF, but by members deciding to wear it. However, the high muckity-mucks decided to take it away for no apparent reason. Unless that was the reason.

Based ONLY ON MY OWN OBSERVATIONS, some members who could wear the AF service uniform were deciding to wear the blue CSU without official encouragement or directive. True, the grooming standards  needed to be tweaked, but that was fixable by the PTBs.

[PHall]

You know, we DID have a uniform that could have lead to far fewer seniors wearing the AF service uniform. Not through orders from on high, or the AF, but by members deciding to wear it. However, the high muckity-mucks decided to take it away for no apparent reason. Unless that was the reason.

Based ONLY ON MY OWN OBSERVATIONS, some members who could wear the AF service uniform were deciding to wear the blue CSU without official encouragement or directive. True, the grooming standards  needed to be tweaked, but that was fixable by the PTBs.

Your "beloved" CSU was doomed because of the way it was "authorized". If it had gone through the normal uniform authorization process, you'd probably still be wearing it today.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

And the current "dual-track" uniform constellation is one such coping strategy, and represents the best compromise our leaders could find to balance the directly competing positions.

Is it really the best compromise? Many who are forced to wear the corporate uniform because of weight and height restrictions (I'm not one of them) would disagree. Wouldn't a better compromise be approving a gray flight cap and corporate service dress jacket for those who can't wear the Air Force Class A and B uniforms? If those are made optional, it wouldn't affect anyone but those who would like to have a true equivalent to the AF-style service uniforms. Wouldn't that be a better compromise?

Maybe.....but like Ned keeps saying....all compromises are at some level a lose-lose scenerio.

Could we adopt a real non USAF uniform?  Sure we could. 

We would be making the new basic service uniform go to around $120....Slacks, Shoes, Shirt, Hat, Belt.   And around another $200 for coat, tie, longsleeve shirt.

Then of course a gray service CAP, a great coat/over coat for those Northern Tier units.

And then some sort of Mess Dress Equivalent.

We will be handing Vanguard another monopoly because we will never be able to get multiple sources.

And of those who are perfectly happy with the current corporate they will all be butt hurt about it.

The corporate serves a second purpose other then just allowing those outside USAF Standards to wear a uniform.  It is also for those people who don't have a cool $300 sitting around to get into a uniform on the cheap.

Gray Slacks $20 from Wal Mart.
White shirt $20 from pilot mall.com
Rank and Badges $20 from Vanguard.
any black shoe, any black belt.....free from your closets (most people have them already).

So that's the compromise.   We can't get everyone into USAF uniforms with out kicking out the Fat and Fuzzies.  If we pushed everyone into corporates we will piss off a lot of people....how many?  Don't know...but a significant number in my opinion....maybe enough to actually hurt our ability to do missions.

We will piss off all those who have invested a significant amount of money in the USAF uniforms and they would have to change.
We would piss off all those who would see this a just one more attempt to push us farther away from the USAF.
We would piss off all those who would see it as another "all NHQ thinks about is uniforms no missions" argument.

And that is just talking about perceptions.
So...the current uniform committee focus most of the uniform decisions from a mission focus and not a perception focus.   Just because unless they see clear evidence that the focus is wrong...they are going to try to do least harm as the move forward.

So what if we standardized the pants only. The $60 combo would likely become $100. ($60 for single sourced pants available in the upper reaches of waistband, maybe high but makes a round number)

Now a row of corporate uniform wearing SMs actually looks uniform. The belts would be slightly different as would the shoes, but the glaring "rainbow of grey" would be gone.

Now if you can't wear the AF Blue but want to look better you could add an optional grey flight cap that matches the pants. Perhaps (gasp!) a service cap in grey as well
Now to get really crazy a jacket in the same color. If you choose to go this route you must wear the same shoes as the the AF blues and perhaps we standardize the belt.

If you want to keep the ultra low cost option make the polo an option for the minimum basic uniform with the "medium grey pants". The silk screened logo polo is currently 25.90. The $60 above is now $65.

If you don't mandate the "Class A Grey" TM uniform the member cost does not change.

I'm open to hearing the down side of this idea.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

Ah, but there is a solution.  Ned, as you probably know, I am a seasoned lawyer (well seasoned if you count the salt, pepper, garlic, cumin, that I love, but I digress).  You, Sir, are also a seasoned lawyer.  Since you know we are 24/7 people, you can see what time I am posting this.  If not, it is 3:10 A. M.  Obviously I had an epiphany.  The solution is a class action suit against Civil Air Patrol and bringing in the Air Force as a co-defendant, as CAP's fall back position will be that Ma Blue controls the uniform Reg's.  The action will be for discrimination against obese members.  Obesity has been classified by the A.M.A. as a disease.  The A.M.A. contends that obesity is not necessarily controllable as previously thought and has genetic and medical components involving the endocrine system.  Obesity has been classified as an impairment by the Social Security Administration.  Other than perceived image the Air Force has no reason to deny CAP members from wearing the military uniform.  Unfortunately that was also a consideration regarding gays being allowed to wear the uniform or even join the Air Force.  That has been rectified and so will this uniform issue in the same manner, by the Court.  One way or the other, we will become uniform and remove the stigma of obesity from our rank and file.  The ACLU loves these cases and makes their living off of them.  This action will not cost our obese members one penny as legal fees will be covered under the EAJA.  There will probably be a claim for damages in that the routine and continual stigma suffered by our obese members is self evident, or will be attested to in Court.  Further, as part of any settlement or award, CAP/USAF, may be required to furnish, pay for, or reimburse all current members if a separate uniform is required to right the wrong of this egregious treatment of the offended parties.  See, I knew there was a solution.  I just forgot that we do not have to always approach the beast with our hat in our hand but may drop back on logic and utilize the argumentum ad baculum.  So, I must leave you with one of my favorite closings, "Govern thyself accordingly".  Of course, Ned, I don't mean you specifically, but you might wish to convey the message to the powers that be.

I actually considered going thru our (and possibly the USAF) channel(s) for EO complaints on that concept within the 60 days after the new 39-1 dropped. Part of my argument was that forcing 18 to 20 year old cadets into an different uniform based solely weight violated our own CPP rules on hazing.

[Holding Pattern]

If CAP is staying afloat only due to those folks who are staying in to wear the AF uniform, and if forced to switch to a corporate style uniform would quit, what does that say about the status of our program?

That's the argument, right? Let's not change things because we don't know how many people we'd lose.

No, because people like me who aren't in the AF uniform will also quit because of the clear message it will be sending to CAP volunteers that NO, you are as AUX OFF as we can possibly make you, except when we grudgingly hit the ON button.

This may not be the intent, but it is how I'll read the message, barring an equally strong message from CAP-USAF that YES, YOU ARE OUR AUXILIARY.

Remember, many of us have plenty of non-profits to choose from to volunteer our time with. Many of us volunteer our time with CAP because of the AF affiliation.

[AirAux]

The problem with the current situation regarding uniforms is that CAP and USAF have a declared zero tolerance on discrimination, however they have created second class members of those that are obese, by denying them the right to wear the prestigious, honorable Air Force uniform while allowing other members to do so.  The discrimination is so glaring that CAP and USAF will have to prove they are not discriminating and looking at the lay of the land in this day and age they will not be able to do so.

[SarDragon]

OK, you've solved the problem for our more rotund members. How about the barbate segment? They do not share the same protected status.

With the exception of some religious restrictions, hair length and facial hair are a matter of choice, obesity is (sometimes) not

OK, you've pointed out the obvious. Now, do you have a proposed solution? Any ideas at all?

[goblin]

No, because people like me who aren't in the AF uniform will also quit because of the clear message it will be sending to CAP volunteers that NO, you are as AUX OFF as we can possibly make you, except when we grudgingly hit the ON button.

This may not be the intent, but it is how I'll read the message, barring an equally strong message from CAP-USAF that YES, YOU ARE OUR AUXILIARY.

Remember, many of us have plenty of non-profits to choose from to volunteer our time with. Many of us volunteer our time with CAP because of the AF affiliation.

So, with that argument, are you suggesting that USAF Civilians should wear the USAF uniform as well?  They are more affiliated with the Air Force in day-to-day operations than CAP, yet they don't have an identity issue.

Why is it that the only way people view an affiliation to the Air Force is by trying to look like them, instead of being proud that when certain stuff goes down, they're the ones who the AF will be calling?  Isn't the name and mission set enough to make you proud to be affiliated with the program?

You should volunteer in CAP for the cadets, for the mission, and for its support of the AF.  None of those involve wearing the USAF uniform.

[Holding Pattern]

No, because people like me who aren't in the AF uniform will also quit because of the clear message it will be sending to CAP volunteers that NO, you are as AUX OFF as we can possibly make you, except when we grudgingly hit the ON button.

This may not be the intent, but it is how I'll read the message, barring an equally strong message from CAP-USAF that YES, YOU ARE OUR AUXILIARY.

Remember, many of us have plenty of non-profits to choose from to volunteer our time with. Many of us volunteer our time with CAP because of the AF affiliation.

So, with that argument, are you suggesting that USAF Civilians should wear the USAF uniform as well?  They are more affiliated with the Air Force in day-to-day operations than CAP, yet they don't have an identity issue.

No, that isn't my argument. Reread my posts where I outlined why we wear uniforms per the regulations, and the justification in the regulations. I also made clear the reasons why there would be a strong perception of the AF distancing CAP from the AF even more should the uniforms be removed.

Why is it that the only way people view an affiliation to the Air Force is by trying to look like them, instead of being proud that when certain stuff goes down, they're the ones who the AF will be calling?  Isn't the name and mission set enough to make you proud to be affiliated with the program?

You should volunteer in CAP for the cadets, for the mission, and for its support of the AF.  None of those involve wearing the USAF uniform.

Why is it that people are so hung up on getting people out of the uniform instead of being proud that when certain stuff goes down, they're the ones who the AF will be calling?

[PHall]

Ah, but there is a solution.  Ned, as you probably know, I am a seasoned lawyer (well seasoned if you count the salt, pepper, garlic, cumin, that I love, but I digress).  You, Sir, are also a seasoned lawyer.  Since you know we are 24/7 people, you can see what time I am posting this.  If not, it is 3:10 A. M.  Obviously I had an epiphany.  The solution is a class action suit against Civil Air Patrol and bringing in the Air Force as a co-defendant, as CAP's fall back position will be that Ma Blue controls the uniform Reg's.  The action will be for discrimination against obese members.  Obesity has been classified by the A.M.A. as a disease.  The A.M.A. contends that obesity is not necessarily controllable as previously thought and has genetic and medical components involving the endocrine system.  Obesity has been classified as an impairment by the Social Security Administration.  Other than perceived image the Air Force has no reason to deny CAP members from wearing the military uniform.  Unfortunately that was also a consideration regarding gays being allowed to wear the uniform or even join the Air Force.  That has been rectified and so will this uniform issue in the same manner, by the Court.  One way or the other, we will become uniform and remove the stigma of obesity from our rank and file.  The ACLU loves these cases and makes their living off of them.  This action will not cost our obese members one penny as legal fees will be covered under the EAJA.  There will probably be a claim for damages in that the routine and continual stigma suffered by our obese members is self evident, or will be attested to in Court.  Further, as part of any settlement or award, CAP/USAF, may be required to furnish, pay for, or reimburse all current members if a separate uniform is required to right the wrong of this egregious treatment of the offended parties.  See, I knew there was a solution.  I just forgot that we do not have to always approach the beast with our hat in our hand but may drop back on logic and utilize the argumentum ad baculum.  So, I must leave you with one of my favorite closings, "Govern thyself accordingly".  Of course, Ned, I don't mean you specifically, but you might wish to convey the message to the powers that be.

I actually considered going thru our (and possibly the USAF) channel(s) for EO complaints on that concept within the 60 days after the new 39-1 dropped. Part of my argument was that forcing 18 to 20 year old cadets into an different uniform based solely weight violated our own CPP rules on hazing.

Wasn't that requirement in the previous edition too?

[Ned]

The problem with the current situation regarding uniforms is that CAP and USAF have a declared zero tolerance on discrimination, [. . .]

Sigh.  I thought we were trying to be constructive here.  But this doesn't help, because it is a pretty good example of a Strawman Argument.  CAP has not and cannot declare a simple "zero tolerance on discrimination" for the obvious reason that we (like every other organization on the planet) discriminate all the time.  We don't treat cadets and seniors the same.  We require different uniforms for men and women.  We don't let most convicted felons join.  (You get the idea.)

Perhaps you meant "CAP and USAF have declared a zero tolerance on unlawful discrimination."  While not technically true (mostly because we didn't need to make such a declaration - we just need to comply with the law like everyone else), it is not a bad basis for a discussion.

[ . . .] however they have created second class members of those that are obese, by denying them the right to wear the prestigious, honorable Air Force uniform while allowing other members to do so.

It bears repeating that the AF does not have a special rule for CAP that prohibits large members from wearing the uniform; they are simply - in essence -- applying the same rule to us that they apply to themselves.  The key difference is that the AF discharges its overweight members (after a process), while CAP members can continue to serve regardless of their size.  You'd think that would be a Good Thing.  Another way to look at it is that the dual-track uniform system is a "reasonable accommodation" for folks with a particular disability that allows them to remain active, contributing members.

The discrimination is so glaring that CAP and USAF will have to prove they are not discriminating and looking at the lay of the land in this day and age they will not be able to do so.

While I think I can agree that the dual track uniform system, in some respects, can be viewed as discriminatory, I'm not sure why either CAP or the USAF would have to prove anything to anyone.  I'm not aware of any law that would begin to approach the situation. 

Take a look at CAP's Nondiscrimination Program in CAPR 36-1 and I think you will find that the applicable directive appears to be DOD Directive 1020.1 (which requires all "programs and activities" that receive DoD funding to not discriminate on the basis of handicap / disability.)  But it's not like you can go down to the courthouse and sue anyone for violating a DoD directive.  Further guidance can be found in AFI 36-207 which implements DOD Directive 1020.1 for the AF.

But you can always start with our own CAP Constitution, Article VII, which reads:

Membership in Civil Air Patrol is a privilege and not a right. Qualifications and conditions for membership shall be established in the Bylaws and regulations. Discrimination based on age, disability or the provisions of Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is prohibited.

So, if you think that CAP has violated its own Constitution by following AF rules on wear of the AF uniform, there are appropriate actions you can take.  But in the meantime this particular discussion will continue to circle.  As it has for years, and will do so for the foreseeable future.

[Brad]

Will play catch-up on this thread in detail later, just wanted to make it known that I hope I'm not the only one recalling Radioman's repeated infamous posts of "CIVIL Air Patrol", and how he would get rid of the USAF-style uniforms if he could, lol. 

[Alaric]

If the argument in favor of the AF/Corporate uniforms is that we want to keep to the extent possible our connection with the AF, and since the Cadet Regulations specifically call out the AF Blue uniforms, this allows for that mission to continue in the current compromise.

For all the other 2 missions ES/AE there is no reason to wear an AF-style uniform, as a point of fact none of the uniforms worn for ES (with the exception of the Green Flight suit) are AF style uniforms.  So ground teams would be in one uniform.  There is no reason to wear an AF color flight suit since we are not flying AF planes (yes I know they pay for them), therefore the flight crews would be wearing a uniform. 


The issue with not being able to wear military awards on the CAP uniform is more a matter of whether you can wear military awards on civilian clothing and I was under the impression only during military themed events

http://www.military.com/benefits/resources/wearing-medals-awards-and-decorations

For AE missions, which are usually lecture style events, rocketry or model building, or airshow type events, the event coordinator would determine the UOD, whether that be blue/corporate; field, or for the seniors (and 18+ cadets out of Ht/Wt/grooming) polo shirt

Thank you.

This is a pretty good illustration of why the problem is insoluble.

Your proposal is certainly reasonable, but it will not make the issues go away anymore than leaving the status quo.  Restated, if you became the National Commander and implemented your strategy, you would still have disgruntled members and countless pages here on CAPTalk decrying your "unfair and divisive" rules.

Members could and undoubtedly would continue to point out that large members working on our largest mission - CP --  would continue to be required to wear a different uniform that they perceive to be demeaning, solely because of their weight.  (Some might even call for a class action lawsuit, which would cost countless thousands of dollars in dues money to defend even if it failed to change the AF mandates.)

Other members would continue to correctly point out that they cannot wear their earned military awards and decorations on the corporate uniforms while members in the AF-style may optionally do so.

Restated, there are no apparent changes that will maintain or improve mission performance while simultaneously reducing some of the sincerely held unhappiness of the members who cannot wear the AF-style uniforms.

And to those who would say "well, if the only reason someone stays in CAP is to wear the AF uniform, then we are better off without them," remember that the counter "argument" is "If someone cannot maintain a healthy lifestyle and reduce their weight below 'obesity' levels, we are better off without them."

That kind of war of words is destructive, and violates our Core Value of Respect.  All of our members are valuable.  Indeed, our members are our most important asset.  We must work together to perform our Congressionally imposed missions.  We cannot and should not fling arrows across this divide.

Let us focus on what we do, rather than what we wear while doing it.

[Edit - unscrewed quote tags]

If we were actually concerned about mission instead of what people could wear, than there would be no arguments we would just wear what other ES service agencies wear Khakis and a polo shirt.

[Ned]

Perhaps, if ES was our only mission.  But our largest mission absolutely requires wear of the AF style uniforms.