Uniforms for meetings

[Chief2009]

What uniforms do you wear for meetings?

My squadron wears BDU's during our cadet meetings and blues on the one composite meeting.

Personally, I want to wear blues more often. In my opinion, it looks more professional. I understand wearing BDU's on testing night for PT, it makes sense. But for everyday squadron work (classes), I would prefer blues.

Just my opinion, trying to gauge reactions

DN

[Eclipse]

There's a lot of discussion about that here and no consensus.

Your experience is not atypical, though, especially for cadets.

[jimmydeanno]

Our squadron follows this schedule:

WEEK 1: PT & Testing, PT Clothes
WEEK 2: Aerospace, BDUs
WEEK 3: Emergency Services, BDUs
WEEK 4: CD & Leadership, Blues
WEEK 5: TBD

EDIT: Note this is the cadet schedule, however, the seniors follow the same pattern.  However, on PT nights, seniors wear the polo combo, including myself as DCC.

[Hawk200]

No uniform is any more professional than any other. A uniform might be more appropriate or more suitable, but not more professional.

Being the DCC for my unit, I hated wearing blues because I'm super picky about them, both on myself and someone else. We (meaning myself and cadets) only wear them once a month. Rest of the time, BDUs. I pretty much took a vote from my cadets, and their interests matched my own (and no, I didn't tell them beforehand).

Different units vary. Some you would never see in BDUs, others never in blues. All depends on the command environment, the local area, and the missions you cover.

[ol'fido]

I am going to wear my BDUs when I can get into the garage and figure out which box they are in. I HATE!!!!!!!! moving.

[Stonewall]

Nothing I can't stand more than cadets NOT being in the same uniform.  That's why I require BDUs be the uniform for grduation from T-Flight.

Across the board, IMHO, you can do more with BDUs than blues.  You can fly, launch rockets, air shows, ES, march in parades, tour military bases, etc.

My squadron, without my guidance, wears BDUs 3 meetings per month and blues once.

[MIKE]

If you go off the requirements of the Minimum Basic Service Uniform as per CAPM 39-1, it seems like the intent is for cadets to be in service uniforms for your typical cadet activities as outlined in CAPR 52-16. i.e. Not just once a month or less.  ...And even for seniors it's this, or the aviator shirt.  Not even the golf shirt.

[Stonewall]

If you go off the requirements of the Minimum Basic Service Uniform as per CAPM 39-1, it seems like the intent is for cadets to be in service uniforms for your typical cadet activities as outlined in CAPR 52-16. i.e. Not just once a month or less.  ...And even for seniors it's this, or the aviator shirt.  Not even the golf shirt.

Yep, minimum "required" uniform for cadets is short-sleeve blues (no tie).  That's great.  Hopefully CAP sends the cadet the free uniform.  Until then, we'll use BDUs as our primary uniform.

[MIKE]

^ Until you get an IG complaint for making the cadet purchase an optional uniform and accessories.

[Stonewall]

^ Until you get an IG complaint for making the cadet purchase an optional uniform and accessories.

I'll take the chance.  Plus, we don't make anyone purchase BDUs.  If they can't afford a set, we'll get a set for them.  Did it last week.  Luckily my wife wears small/shorts.

[swamprat86]

When I was at the unit, we did blues once a month except during the summer.  We didn't have AC and blues got to be a little too uncomfortable without the option of modifying the wear like with BDU's.

Our reasoning for wearing blues only once a month was the same as others mentioned but also the care of the uniform was a little more than BDU's.  BDU's hold up to cadet abuse better than blues and don't get dirty as quickly (or you can't see it as well).  Also because of the other BDU-oriented activities that we did, most had more than one set of BDU's but only one set of blues.

[wuzafuzz]

We are pretty informal on meeting nights, only designating a uniform for formal occasions (on the senior member side).  Most of our meetings there are a few polo shirt combos and a lot of street clothes.   Our cadets have a schedule that alternates BDU's (most common), PT clothes, or blues.

[SilverEagle2]

^^^^^ Unfortunate.

Seniors are the example and should be in a uniform when at a meeting. We are a uniformed organization, and should be in uniform when attending a meeting of that uniformed organization.

My 2 cents.

[jpizzo127]

The best and first thing I did when I took over my senior squadron was to slowly make uniforms mandatory. Though it's still difficult to enforce, at most squadron meetings, I've got 75% of my Seniors in uniform.

We are trying to get this to 100%.

One of the reasons I almost left CAP when I first joined was the lack of any professional appearance. The meetings were a rag tag looking group of people, and certainly not what I expected from the USAF/AUX. But over time, with gentle persuasion, and setting an example (I remember days being the only guy in uniform!), we've almost doubled our squadron's membership over the past 2 years.

And an informal poll of seniors indicates most want to be part of some type of uniformed group. (The one's that do not, usually wash out of CAP anyway, in my experience.)

[ZigZag911]

While I personally prefer blues, BDUs are more practical for most cadet or ES activities.

[Always Ready]

WIWAC (two years and two squadrons ago), ours went something like this:
Week One: Leadership, Testing - Blues
Week Two: PT -PTUs
Week Three: ES, Testing - BDUs
Week Four: AE, Moral Leadership - Blues
*Depending on the DCC and C/CC the schedule differed and often we wore BDUs more than Blues.
**The vast majority of the SMs followed the same UOD (+ corporate equivalents) as the cadets. If not they showed up with the uniform to best do their job.
This type of schedule works well, because you are wearing the uniform appropriate to what you are doing.

Here, very few of us SMs ever wear uniforms. Most wear the polo (including the DCC). I typically wear whatever the UOD (or the corporate equivalent) for the Cadets is, except on PT nights in which I wear BDUs, or the BBDU if I didn't shave that day. I personally don't see the need to wear a PT uniform as a SM unless they are actually participating (not just supervising or watching) in the PT. There is no set UOD for SMs.

Here, the Cadets are on some weird bi-monthly schedule...out of my control and it's very confusing (I'm the AEO so I don't have much of a say in anything)...
Week 1: PT -PTU
Weeks 2-7: BDUs, unless you are going to promotion board in which case you have to wear Blues
Week 8: Promotion Ceremony and Inspection (all night) - Blues (and some in Service Dress)
*My main complaints with this type of schedule is that:
  1. Not all of the Cadets are in the same uniform at the same time. *major pet peeve* On promotion board nights, half of the cadets could be in Blues (some in Service Dress, some not) and the other half are in BDUs.
  2. It's not the same every two months...it changes depending on when they do PT, etc. *another pet peeve*
  3. Not to mention the mandatory monthly briefings/classes/training does not get completed every month...

Sorry for the long post. I would like Blues to be worn more as most of the activities we do are not something that you need BDUs or PTUs for. Whatever you do, keep it simple stupid because there will always be someone who will screw it up.

[wuzafuzz]

^^^^^ Unfortunate.

Seniors are the example and should be in a uniform when at a meeting. We are a uniformed organization, and should be in uniform when attending a meeting of that uniformed organization.

My 2 cents.

I used to think that too.  Then I re-joined CAP and was surprised my new squadron had so few people in uniform at meetings.  However, the squadron is very active, with plenty of focus on our missions.  We conduct ourselves professionally, we get things done and done right.  We have over 100 members.  We wear our uniforms properly during non-meeting activities. 

Honestly, I just don't see the point in wearing uniforms to many of our business meetings.  Uniforms don't contribute to the accuracy of training or the conduct of routine squadron business.  Why do we wear uniforms anyway?  For the most part they are to identify us to other people.  In a group of people who already know each other, in a private setting, not a big issue.

FWIW, I spent plenty of years wearing uniforms.  I'm not sheepish about wearing them, but don't wear them for the simple sake of wearing them.

[RogueLeader]

Wear them because CAPM 39-1 directs us to.  Simple as that.  It's been posted many times.  While it is not the first line, its in the first page of text.

[Gunner C]

Wear them because CAPM 39-1 directs us to.  Simple as that.  It's been posted many times.  While it is not the first line, its in the first page of text.

:clap:

[SilverEagle2]

Agreed 100%  :clap: :clap:

[Chappie]

Wear them because CAPM 39-1 directs us to.  Simple as that.  It's been posted many times.  While it is not the first line, its in the first page of text.

I have no problem with at all  :clap:

[notaNCO forever]

Wear them because CAPM 39-1 directs us to.  Simple as that.  It's been posted many times.  While it is not the first line, its in the first page of text.

I agree completely.

[RogueLeader]

And another thing, if you get hurt on the wat to, during or from the meeting/activaty and you are not in uniform; you will not be covered by insurance, nor will you get benifits. 

[wuzafuzz]

And another thing, if you get hurt on the wat to, during or from the meeting/activaty and you are not in uniform; you will not be covered by insurance, nor will you get benifits. 

I've heard that before, but is there a regulation or policy stating as much?  CAP Regulation 900-5 "THE CAP INSURANCE/BENEFITS PROGRAM" makes no mention of that.  In fact, the word "uniform" appears nowhere in that regulation.  It's possible I missed something, or there is a specific mention in a different regulation.  Or is this one of those things we've all come to believe, sort of an urban legend?

Interestingly, section B. 10. b. specifically excludes coverage for member owned vehicles during travel to and from CAP activities. 
"The general rule is that travel to and from CAP meetings, conferences, encampments, and other CAP activities in CAP member owned/furnished vehicles is not considered a part of CAP official travel and, therefore, is performed at the risk of the member—not CAP.  CAP assumes absolutely no liability for such travel, which is known as the "home-to-work rule." "

There are exclusions for payment of FECA death benefits if the death was caused by "willful misconduct of the employee," among other things.  So if our failure to wear a uniform contributed to our own death, perhaps payment would be withheld.  Otherwise, our own policies don't seem to support that claim.

If 39-1 says we must wear our uniforms to meetings, then I will do so.  As far as it's impact on insurance coverage, I'm not yet convinced.

[RogueLeader]

Interestingly, section B. 10. b. specifically excludes coverage for member owned vehicles during travel to and from CAP activities. 
"The general rule is that travel to and from CAP meetings, conferences, encampments, and other CAP activities in CAP member owned/furnished vehicles is not considered a part of CAP official travel and, therefore, is performed at the risk of the member—not CAP.  CAP assumes absolutely no liability for such travel, which is known as the "home-to-work rule." "

There are exclusions for payment of FECA death benefits if the death was caused by "willful misconduct of the employee," among other things.  So if our failure to wear a uniform contributed to our own death, perhaps payment would be withheld.  Otherwise, our own policies don't seem to support that claim.

If 39-1 says we must wear our uniforms to meetings, then I will do so.  As far as it's impact on insurance coverage, I'm not yet convinced.

Ok, I was told that and I thought I read it, but you are correct on that part.

[bosshawk]

Aaron: you have fallen into the trap that seems to permiate CAP: you believe what others tell you.  I have found that the three most dangerous words in CAP are: "somebody told me."

If it is important, ask to see it in writing.

[RogueLeader]

Like i said, I thought I read it in a reg as well.  We all have the potential to miss information, or mis-interpret the information we have.

The Army has a saying: "tust but verify."  When it comes down to it, there is only one person responsible for you, YOU.  Shouldn't count on others to do it for you.

[Eclipse]

And another thing, if you get hurt on the wat to, during or from the meeting/activaty and you are not in uniform; you will not be covered by insurance, nor will you get benifits. 

I've heard that before, but is there a regulation or policy stating as much?  CAP Regulation 900-5 "THE CAP INSURANCE/BENEFITS PROGRAM" makes no mention of that.  In fact, the word "uniform" appears nowhere in that regulation.  It's possible I missed something, or there is a specific mention in a different regulation.  Or is this one of those things we've all come to believe, sort of an urban legend?

Interestingly, section B. 10. b. specifically excludes coverage for member owned vehicles during travel to and from CAP activities. 
"The general rule is that travel to and from CAP meetings, conferences, encampments, and other CAP activities in CAP member owned/furnished vehicles is not considered a part of CAP official travel and, therefore, is performed at the risk of the member—not CAP.  CAP assumes absolutely no liability for such travel, which is known as the "home-to-work rule." "

There are exclusions for payment of FECA death benefits if the death was caused by "willful misconduct of the employee," among other things.  So if our failure to wear a uniform contributed to our own death, perhaps payment would be withheld.  Otherwise, our own policies don't seem to support that claim.

If 39-1 says we must wear our uniforms to meetings, then I will do so.  As far as it's impact on insurance coverage, I'm not yet convinced.

This one is easy - unless you're in a CAP uniform and have your proper CAP credentials with you, etc., you're not even authorized to be there.

People not authorized to participate in CAP activities aren't covered by CAP insurance.

[wuzafuzz]

And another thing, if you get hurt on the wat to, during or from the meeting/activaty and you are not in uniform; you will not be covered by insurance, nor will you get benifits. 

I've heard that before, but is there a regulation or policy stating as much?  CAP Regulation 900-5 "THE CAP INSURANCE/BENEFITS PROGRAM" makes no mention of that.  In fact, the word "uniform" appears nowhere in that regulation.  It's possible I missed something, or there is a specific mention in a different regulation.  Or is this one of those things we've all come to believe, sort of an urban legend?

Interestingly, section B. 10. b. specifically excludes coverage for member owned vehicles during travel to and from CAP activities. 
"The general rule is that travel to and from CAP meetings, conferences, encampments, and other CAP activities in CAP member owned/furnished vehicles is not considered a part of CAP official travel and, therefore, is performed at the risk of the member—not CAP.  CAP assumes absolutely no liability for such travel, which is known as the "home-to-work rule." "

There are exclusions for payment of FECA death benefits if the death was caused by "willful misconduct of the employee," among other things.  So if our failure to wear a uniform contributed to our own death, perhaps payment would be withheld.  Otherwise, our own policies don't seem to support that claim.

If 39-1 says we must wear our uniforms to meetings, then I will do so.  As far as it's impact on insurance coverage, I'm not yet convinced.

This one is easy - unless you're in a CAP uniform and have your proper CAP credentials with you, etc., you're not even authorized to be there.

People not authorized to participate in CAP activities aren't covered by CAP insurance.

Not authorized to be at a meeting?  Come on.  Should we bar the doors to keep visitors out?     Barring people from even showing up at a business meeting without a uniform is a bit much. 

[RiverAux]

I know that even when I was a cadet in the mid 80s, we wore fatigues (yes, the OD ones) 3/4 meetings which seems to be standard for cadets and seniors at cadet meetings today as well. 

Senior meetings in my home unit are almost exclusively golf shirts now.   You never see one in blues (or equivalent) except on very special occassions.   

[IceNine]

And another thing, if you get hurt on the wat to, during or from the meeting/activaty and you are not in uniform; you will not be covered by insurance, nor will you get benifits. 

I've heard that before, but is there a regulation or policy stating as much?  CAP Regulation 900-5 "THE CAP INSURANCE/BENEFITS PROGRAM" makes no mention of that.  In fact, the word "uniform" appears nowhere in that regulation.  It's possible I missed something, or there is a specific mention in a different regulation.  Or is this one of those things we've all come to believe, sort of an urban legend?

Interestingly, section B. 10. b. specifically excludes coverage for member owned vehicles during travel to and from CAP activities. 
"The general rule is that travel to and from CAP meetings, conferences, encampments, and other CAP activities in CAP member owned/furnished vehicles is not considered a part of CAP official travel and, therefore, is performed at the risk of the member—not CAP.  CAP assumes absolutely no liability for such travel, which is known as the "home-to-work rule." "

There are exclusions for payment of FECA death benefits if the death was caused by "willful misconduct of the employee," among other things.  So if our failure to wear a uniform contributed to our own death, perhaps payment would be withheld.  Otherwise, our own policies don't seem to support that claim.

If 39-1 says we must wear our uniforms to meetings, then I will do so.  As far as it's impact on insurance coverage, I'm not yet convinced.

This one is easy - unless you're in a CAP uniform and have your proper CAP credentials with you, etc., you're not even authorized to be there.

People not authorized to participate in CAP activities aren't covered by CAP insurance.

Not authorized to be at a meeting?  Come on.  Should we bar the doors to keep visitors out?     Barring people from even showing up at a business meeting without a uniform is a bit much. 

CAP isn't covering visitors they are covering members.  If you aren't in a uniform with appropriate credentials you are a visitor....

Cover yourself and as I've said a few thousand times here before make your people wear uniforms or send them home.

We beat this to death somewhere else, I can't find it now though

[EMT-83]

I delivered a van once, in civilian clothes. Got reamed for not being in uniform, because "I wouldn't be covered by insurance" if something happened.

I can't find, nor has anyone ever been able to show me, any regulation stating this.

[Eclipse]

I delivered a van once, in civilian clothes. Got reamed for not being in uniform, because "I wouldn't be covered by insurance" if something happened.

I can't find, nor has anyone ever been able to show me, any regulation stating this.

That's because in that case a uniform is not required.  However had you had a cadet in the car, it would have been.

[EMT-83]

I delivered a van once, in civilian clothes. Got reamed for not being in uniform, because "I wouldn't be covered by insurance" if something happened.

I can't find, nor has anyone ever been able to show me, any regulation stating this.

That's because in that case a uniform is not required.  However had you had a cadet in the car, it would have been.

Agreed, but not because of insurance.

[jimmydeanno]

Unless the deemed uniform was civilian clothing

There are a lot of field trips and such we go on where that is the UOD.  We go hiking quite a bit and I'm not going to have my cadets climbing mountains and such wearing improper footwear.  Not wearing combat boots would make BDUs not.

[notaNCO forever]

Unless the deemed uniform was civilian clothing

There are a lot of field trips and such we go on where that is the UOD.  We go hiking quite a bit and I'm not going to have my cadets climbing mountains and such wearing improper footwear.  Not wearing combat boots would make BDUs not.

My squadron does the same. I don't  want to be carrying cadets down a mountain because there feet are covered in blisters. Most cadets don't have good enough boots to go hiking in them.

[sardak]

At one of the National Board or NEC meetings, I believe it was Winter 2008, someone made the statement about not being covered by insurance when not in uniform. Then-CAP General Counsel Odell responded to the statement by saying that CAP insurance coverage eligibilty does not require a member to be in uniform. He added something to the effect that being in uniform helps determine if the person was participating as a CAP member. He actually was more blunt than that but I won't repeat it.

Mike

[RiverAux]

Hmm, I seem to recall the last time I did the CD briefing that they mentioned uniforms being an issue for benefits relating to a crash of a CAP CD mission a while back.  Maybe it was the time before that. 

[heliodoc]

Somebody "gotta" copy of the wonderful CAP insurance policy so ALL could read and understand the when and when not about coverage

I seem to recall CD wasn't required for the nature of the mission

Doesn't our 501 (c) 3 cover us in and out of uniform??? Or am I the only one misinformed by listening to CAP outhouse lawyers???

But that is CAP    "Confusion Amongst People"  when it come to all the regs always seeming to contradict each other

[Ned]

The "must be in uniform to receive benefits" is just another of our famous CAP Urban Legends, along the the "real reason(s)" the Air Force made us change the color of our shoulder marks, exactly why HWSNBN was canned, the notion that one can never, ever raise one's voice when speaking to a cadet, and a host of others.

As has been pointed out, uniforms - or lack thereof - are just one factor among many to help determine if a given member was acting in the course and scope of their duties at a given time and place.


I know a couple of people who slipped in the shower at encampment, and received benefits despite the fact that they were most decidedly NOT in uniform at the time of the mishap.   

The reason our Urban Legends persist is that they are just so much more fun to talk about than the actual  dull regulations.  "Hey, I heard about this guy who crashed on a mission, but the lawyers at NHQ denied benefits to the widow and 12 kids because the member had his ribbons in the wrong order . . . . It's true, I swear it!"   

[RiverAux]

NOT entirely an urban legend.  I got the incidents mixed up.

I'm not going to give details here, but a CD mission was decertified and the AF wouldn't pay expenses for a mission because there was photographic evidence that a member was not in a CAP uniform while performing the mission.

Take the refresher if you don't believe me. 

And if the AF is going to weasel out of paying a few hundred dollars for gas because a member wasn't in a uniform, you can bet your airplane that they're going to weasel out of hospital bills and death benefits if they can.

[heliodoc]

^^^^^^^

More reason to clear up urban legends....OR is it still an urban legend that CD missions require a uniform??

More reasons for GAO study to clear all the mess up. 

Maybe the CD missions should be left to the days of yore when OV10's were floating around 15 years ago

[heliodoc]

^^^^^

READ my favorite, 60-6.  Answered my ??....Unless LE asks us not to wear a uni

Uall can start flaming

[Gunner C]

^^^^^

READ my favorite, 60-6.  Answered my ??....Unless LE asks us not to wear a uni

Uall can start flaming

I always thought that was stupid.  "Don't wear a uniform while flying your red, white, and blue airplane with CAP markings all over it."  Boy, that really throws off the bad guys.

[heliodoc]

As ONE of my supervisors says:


You are preachin to the choir, my boy

Yep  another in the uniform, not to be identified, OPSEC'd, you can't tell it's from some agency, kind of stuff