Uniforms for meetings

[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!"