CAP Talk

This isn't gonna win me many friends, but - why allow beards in CAP?

I fully get the weight issues - our members are often older than USAF folks, plus the general U.S. population is a little thick around the middle, and weight is hard to lose.  If we demanded skinny seniors, we'd have a very small Civil Air Patrol.

But losing a beard takes 15 minutes with a razor.  No big deal.

I understand people like their beards.  And others like their body piecings, and others like their green hair.  It's individual expression.

But would it kill us to enforce USAF grooming standards across the board?

(please note, even in USAF there are some waivers for medical/religious stuff.  But I'm talking about the vast majority of fuzzies who wear a beard because, well, they think it looks good.)

I had one for a few years while in grad school, and only wore the blazer.  Thought that beard made me kinda distinguished looking.  Chicks dug it.    But if the rule had been "smooth faced or quit," I'd have shaved in a heartbeat.

If we have ties to the uniformed USAF, why not emulate them as close as we practically can?

Hummmm....interesting.

While I do not wear a beard, I have nothing to lose.  But I know we have many here that re-enact the War between the States and, I should say, that they are good at it. 

To lobby for these people, I guess the best reply would be...the USAF gets paid and CAP does not.  Therefore, for most CAP Officers, CAP is a lifestyle...not a livelihood.

I choose "not to wear a beard" specifically for CAP, but to each their own.

I do not mind shaving, it's just that I tend to be lazy about it when I don't need to be clean shaved.  I also think that if beards are allowed, they need to be well groomed.  Being allowed a beard in Corporates is one thing, but make them look nice.  Not saying near to the face, but not looking like Z Z Top.

The military has equipment that requires a clean shaven face (which mustaches don't affect). I can't think of anything that CAP has requiring one to shave. There is no need in CAP for a person to not have a beard.

Which is a reason I don't see why the corporate service dress restricts it.

A line has to be drawn between the need for a professional appearance and the need to recruit people
who have long hair, beards, etc.

The line was drawn at allowing them in most of the distinctive uniforms.

I don't see why anyone should care.  Its a personal choice and allowed by the program.  Roll on.

I'll turn the question around, Why should we have to be clean shaven?  There is no practical reason, unlike the military which has the requirement because of the protective masks.

Quote from: davedove on June 08, 2007, 04:55:42 PM
I'll turn the question around, Why should we have to be clean shaven?  There is no practical reason, unlike the military which has the requirement because of the protective masks.

Sure there is, it has a distinctively professional look.  Look at most companies around the country, most have policies that state clean shaven- including mustaches. Most of the companies that do not mandate clean shaved also have very tight rules on beards and goatees.  It's all about the image.

Quote from: RogueLeader on June 08, 2007, 05:00:07 PM

Quote from: davedove on June 08, 2007, 04:55:42 PM
I'll turn the question around, Why should we have to be clean shaven?  There is no practical reason, unlike the military which has the requirement because of the protective masks.

Sure there is, it has a distinctively professional look.  Look at most companies around the country, most have policies that state clean shaven- including mustaches. Most of the companies that do not mandate clean shaved also have very tight rules on beards and goatees.  It's all about the image.

That's a very subjective reason though.  I work for DoD, which has no restriction on facial hair.  Many do not wear beards, but that is more current societal fashion than anything.  Are those of us who have beards any less professional?

I'm not completely discounting appearance.  I do keep mine closely trimmed.  I just have a hard time considering it a "deal breaker" without some objective reason, like the aforementioned protective masks.

I also find it ironic that a 450 lb. member who can barely walk across the room without collapsing, but happens to be clean shaven, can wear the Corporate uniform, but a lean and mean gent who happens to have a well trimmed beard cannot.  (Note, this isn't me, I haven't been lean and mean for a while ::))

CAP is... say it with me... "not the military"

CAP's close ties to its parent service are a big selling point for many people, as is wearing the military-style uniform.  For those that want to contribute to the organization, but don't want to wear a military uniform, there are suitable alternatives.

Why change that?

CAP is more than just a bunch of people running around trying to be in the USAF.  There are professional educators, pilots, youth mentors, aviation enthusiasts, radio geeks, etc.  Why force all those people to bend to the culture you arbitrarily think should be applied across the organization?

Here's why I asked the question

I believe we are hurt by a schizophrenic culture.  We don't agree on what CAP is (USAF? Corporate?), how it operates (autocratic? democratic?) or any one of a million other things.

Most successful organizations I know of have a single culture, which helps foster a single vision.  One of the most visible signs of this culture is the dress code.

A uniform dress code can bind a team together.  Coaches know it, school principals know it, generals know it. 

I think some of us believing we are kind of like the National Guard while others believing we are closer to Red Cross or Boy Scout volunteers is not good for us.

We'd be better off deciding what we are, and what we're not.

So...if we're gonna ape USAF officer titles and structure, would it not make sense to ape their appearance, within reason.

After all, losing weight can take years.  You can knock off a beard in 15 minutes.  From an effort standpoint, these things simple aren't equal.


Now, there is another way to go.  Allow beards, green hair, whatever floats our collective boat, and jettison the USAF suits.  Wear blazers.  Proclaim our civilian-ness.

I'm fine either way - both have advantages.

But being kinda half and half is at best confusing, and at worst divisive.

Quote from: Hawk200 on June 08, 2007, 04:16:13 PM
Which is a reason I don't see why the corporate service dress restricts it.

Probably because the TPU bears sufficient resemblance to USAF dress uniform to confuse the general public.

Quote from: RogueLeader on June 08, 2007, 05:00:07 PM
  It's all about the image.

Which is a major problem in modern society -- we put far more emphasis on image than substance -- to our great detriment!!!

Quote from: ZigZag911 on June 08, 2007, 05:54:19 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on June 08, 2007, 05:00:07 PM
  It's all about the image.

Which is a major problem in modern society -- we put far more emphasis on image than substance -- to our great detriment!!!

First impressions are the lasting ones.

There are other reasons to wear a beard that you all are forgetting, one is religious; there are some religions that prohibit men from shaving and even cutting their hair.  Another may be cosmetic, some people may have scars from acne, auto accidents etc that are covered up by a neatly trimmed beard.  Also there may be medical reasons.  Many black males and others with tight curly facial hair have problems with painful ingrown hairs that become infected.  This problem is exacerbated by shaving, this was the most common reason for "no shave" chits when I was in the Navy.

Quote from: Al Sayre on June 08, 2007, 06:05:52 PM
There are other reasons to wear a beard that you all are forgetting, one is religious; there are some religions that prohibit men from shaving and even cutting their hair.  Another may be cosmetic, some people may have scars from acne, auto accidents etc that are covered up by a neatly trimmed beard.  Also there may be medical reasons.  Many black males and others with tight curly facial hair have problems with painful ingrown hairs that become infected.  This problem is exacerbated by shaving, this was the most common reason for "no shave" chits when I was in the Navy.

I think that those reasons are fine, just make an amendment that allows those people have a waiver on  shaving.  All else, clean shaved.

Quote from: RogueLeader on June 08, 2007, 06:09:45 PM
I think that those reasons are fine, just make an amendment that allows those people have a waiver on  shaving.  All else, clean shaved.

Who's going to issue waivers?  Who is going to check that appropriate people actually have them?  Where will they be filed - Personnel files?  E-Services?  Who's going to do the extra filing?

Who is going to decide who is legitimately waiverable and who doesn't get a waiver?  Who is the appeal authority to that?  Will everyone who requests one end up getting one, once it's in practice? 

You guys are creating a ton of extra "busy" work (work that doesn't get any of our missions accomplished) for something a simple as a beard.  Simple -- keep it neat.  A beard can be professional-looking, in my opinion.  I echo what was stated above, we're not the real military. 

There are a variety of reasons the military doesn't allow full-on beards.  One of the reasons is occupational hazards/requirements.  Using the argument that we should eliminate them just so we can look closer to the real Air Force could also be used to legitimize removing rings including wedding bands when on-duty, requiring line badges be worn at the local, uncontrolled, county airport ramp, and other ridiculous, unnecessary parallels.  The fact is we perform different types of jobs than the Air Force, we're a different type of force than the Air Force, and we have a different type of personnel.  I just don't see the need to create yet another change to uniforms, create additional busy work, potentially alienate great volunteers who happen to have a beard, and just add to the headache of our organizational identity crisis.

Leave it the way it is and let's stop looking for more solutions in search of a problem.

Dragoon,

You say schizophrenic, I say diverse.  With the diversity of the three missions we're Congressionally chartered with, you're not going to have a unified culture.  It just ain't gonna happen.

What you end up with are subcultures, sometimes centered around our missions, sometimes not.  For example:

• Former cadets
  
• Prior service
  
• Radio geeks
  
• Ground team folks
  
• Pilots and aircrew
  
• Teachers
  
• Military wannabes
  
• CP moms/dads
  
• Power grabbers
  
• etc.
  

And those are just the senior members!  I'm sure I left some out, too.

Now, if you're, say, prior service and a former cadet, you probably feel CAP needs to be more closely aligned with its parent service, to include some of the same restrictions on our adult membership.

What about if you're a radio geek?  Or a CP mom?  Well, you're in CAP for different reasons, and may think it's silly to have to shave one's beard (although, if you're a mom, hopefully you don't have a beard!)

See what I mean?  When you say things like "We'd be better off deciding what we are, and what we're not." what you're ultimately, perhaps inadvertently, doing is creating division where it doesn't need to be.

Put another way: in order to fulfill its missions, CAP needs the radio geeks, the prior service, and the CP moms.  Even if that means we have corporate uniforms and military uniforms, and we don't apologize for it, because that's what it takes to get the people to make the missions happen.

Quote from: RogueLeader on June 08, 2007, 05:00:07 PM

Quote from: davedove on June 08, 2007, 04:55:42 PM
I'll turn the question around, Why should we have to be clean shaven?  There is no practical reason, unlike the military which has the requirement because of the protective masks.

Sure there is, it has a distinctively professional look.  Look at most companies around the country, most have policies that state clean shaven- including mustaches. Most of the companies that do not mandate clean shaved also have very tight rules on beards and goatees.  It's all about the image.

I agree with the sentiment here, but in my 15+ years in the workplace, I have never been anywhere that had a beard / hair policy. 

Quote from: RogueLeader on June 08, 2007, 06:09:45 PM

Quote from: Al Sayre on June 08, 2007, 06:05:52 PM
There are other reasons to wear a beard that you all are forgetting, one is religious; there are some religions that prohibit men from shaving and even cutting their hair.  Another may be cosmetic, some people may have scars from acne, auto accidents etc that are covered up by a neatly trimmed beard.  Also there may be medical reasons.  Many black males and others with tight curly facial hair have problems with painful ingrown hairs that become infected.  This problem is exacerbated by shaving, this was the most common reason for "no shave" chits when I was in the Navy.

I think that those reasons are fine, just make an amendment that allows those people have a waiver on  shaving.  All else, clean shaved.

We don't allow for religious waivers today on beards, and I don't think the active components do either, so why should we?

So we're back to weight and facial hair with uniforms...

For weight, I am within the actual AF guidelines for wearing the blues but not everyone has the same genetics.  If my shirt garters aren't quite cutting it, then I'll put down the cheeseburgers and eat chicken and fruit for the week, cut out the cokes, and not eat after 7.  Weight isn't as easy for everyone though, and there are lots of really good people in the organization who are overweight.  Because of our volunteer nature, I completely agree with the two separate sets of uniforms based on that.

For facial hair, also since we are volunteer, we can't require the razors be used.  I do think though that we should allow set guidelines for beards and goatees in the corporate uniform and phase out the grays.  We have too many uniforms and that would be a compromise I could live with.  

As always, anyone who chooses and is within guidelines to wear the blues are encouraged to do so.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 08, 2007, 06:33:45 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on June 08, 2007, 05:00:07 PM

Quote from: davedove on June 08, 2007, 04:55:42 PM
I'll turn the question around, Why should we have to be clean shaven?  There is no practical reason, unlike the military which has the requirement because of the protective masks.

Sure there is, it has a distinctively professional look.  Look at most companies around the country, most have policies that state clean shaven- including mustaches. Most of the companies that do not mandate clean shaved also have very tight rules on beards and goatees.  It's all about the image.

I agree with the sentiment here, but in my 15+ years in the workplace, I have never been anywhere that had a beard / hair policy. 

I have worked at numerous jobs, and applied at many more that have restrictive hair/grooming standards.  They aren't high-end places, but the standards are national through some of the corporations.

Quote from: RogueLeader on June 08, 2007, 06:47:57 PMI have worked at numerous jobs, and applied at many more that have restrictive hair/grooming standards.  They aren't high-end places, but the standards are national through some of the corporations.

Would it be safe to guess that most of these jobs had some involvement with food? Now you are in a very specialized arena.

With regard to the broad job market, I've seen very few restrictions on hair and beards unless there are safety issues involved. Some companies want a "professional" appearance, but that can certainly be achieved wearing a beard, and a reasonably short haircut.

Quote from: SarDragon on June 08, 2007, 07:08:46 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on June 08, 2007, 06:47:57 PMI have worked at numerous jobs, and applied at many more that have restrictive hair/grooming standards.  They aren't high-end places, but the standards are national through some of the corporations.

Would it be safe to guess that most of these jobs had some involvement with food? Now you are in a very specialized arena.

With regard to the broad job market, I've seen very few restrictions on hair and beards unless there are safety issues involved. Some companies want a "professional" appearance, but that can certainly be achieved wearing a beard, and a reasonably short haircut.

Only about 25 to 40 %

Quote from: RogueLeader on June 08, 2007, 07:15:04 PM

Quote from: SarDragon on June 08, 2007, 07:08:46 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on June 08, 2007, 06:47:57 PMI have worked at numerous jobs, and applied at many more that have restrictive hair/grooming standards.  They aren't high-end places, but the standards are national through some of the corporations.

Would it be safe to guess that most of these jobs had some involvement with food? Now you are in a very specialized arena.

With regard to the broad job market, I've seen very few restrictions on hair and beards unless there are safety issues involved. Some companies want a "professional" appearance, but that can certainly be achieved wearing a beard, and a reasonably short haircut.

Only about 25 to 40 %

And what were the others, in general? No company names needed.

My comany is very lax...right now I am barefoot (in my cube) wearing cargo shorts and a CAP T-Shirt, no belt, unshaven and bedhead...welcome to the world of computer network hardware engineering...

Quote from: SarDragon on June 08, 2007, 07:25:26 PM
And what were the others, in general? No company names needed.

I work for 'the world's biggest soft-drink bottler' and they do not restrict hair or beard wear on the production floor. Granted you have to wear hair and beard nets, but there are no restrictions on clean shaven or not.

I had a goatee before I started working here and I opted to shave it off just so I don't have to fuss with a beard net on the rare occasion's that I had to work or pass through the production floor.

Did I like my goatee? and not shaving around my mouth and chin? Sure...but for me it wasn't a big deal to shave it off. I do have to admit to a more 'professional' looking appearance being clean shaven, but you can look 'professional' with a beard too.

I don't have an issue with someone wanting to wear a neatly trimmed beard or goatee with the new Corporate Service Dress if it helps narrow down the uniform choices we have.

I shave off my goatee when I feel like it.  No one tells me to.

I keep it really neat and trim, I actually look more professional with it than without.

If I want to wear blues or TPU, then I will shave.  I choose not to anymore.  I wear greys.

Leave things as is, or you will have a mass exodus, I for one am very tired of this type of stuff..

Quote from: jimmydeanno on June 08, 2007, 07:49:18 PM
My comany is very lax...right now I am barefoot (in my cube) wearing cargo shorts and a CAP T-Shirt, no belt, unshaven and bedhead...welcome to the world of computer network hardware engineering...

When I worked in IT, the ISP I worked for had to politely ask folks to wear shoes when clients came to tour the facility. The sales force had a dress code; we techies had one that said 'please wear underwear, please don't wear ties'.

I had a full beard for 24 years before I joined CAP.  I knew that I could opt out for the Blazer combo for dressier occasions, the white aviator shirt-blue polo shirt/grey slacks for meetings, and the smurf suit for missions....but I felt since a majority of the work I would be doing was with cadets, the beard went so I could wear the USAF-style uniforms and BDUs -- which I felt would be more appropriate in the settings where I would be participating with cadets.  Figured, if they take great pride in wearing the uniform....why shouldn't I?

Quote from: SarDragon on June 08, 2007, 07:25:26 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on June 08, 2007, 07:15:04 PM

Quote from: SarDragon on June 08, 2007, 07:08:46 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on June 08, 2007, 06:47:57 PMI have worked at numerous jobs, and applied at many more that have restrictive hair/grooming standards.  They aren't high-end places, but the standards are national through some of the corporations.

Would it be safe to guess that most of these jobs had some involvement with food? Now you are in a very specialized arena.

With regard to the broad job market, I've seen very few restrictions on hair and beards unless there are safety issues involved. Some companies want a "professional" appearance, but that can certainly be achieved wearing a beard, and a reasonably short haircut.

Only about 25 to 40 %

And what were the others, in general? No company names needed.

Merchandise outlets, and sales stores, where personnel are in the public viewpoint for a good portion of the time.

Quote from: RogueLeader on June 08, 2007, 10:06:04 PMMerchandise outlets, and sales stores, where personnel are in the public viewpoint for a good portion of the time.

Mostly staffed by folks 25 or under?

BTW, I'm going somewhere with this once I get all the info. This should be the last piece.

Quote from: Al Sayre on June 08, 2007, 06:05:52 PM
There are other reasons to wear a beard ...

I find that my beard hides the scars from PH#2 quite well - guess I'll keep it.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 08, 2007, 06:33:45 PM


I agree with the sentiment here, but in my 15+ years in the workplace, I have never been anywhere that had a beard / hair policy. 

My work has a strict facial hair policy, they will send you home or make yuo shave if you come in with facial hair.

Back in the 60's-70's, didn't the Navy have real lax regulations concerning beards, hair and side burns?  When did they change back and does anyone know why?  I personally feel that if a person works with cadets, they should keep their beards neat, especially the women.. I guess with the  various uniforms we have and the current regulations, CAP has deemed personnel with beards are as valuable as personnel without beards.  I personally don't like the TPU as I think double breasted jackets make "portly" gentlemen look "wider".  Didn't Jackie Gleason use to wear one similar to our TPU?

I agree with Dragoon in concept.  CAP does not actually have a uniform since it lets anyone wear almost any uniform they want at almost any time.  I really am starting to wonder why we even bother anymore.  When you're at the point where on almost any occassion there are anywhere from 3-8 (and I'm only guessing at the top number) potential uniforms that can be worn generally at the individual's discretion, it just doesn't make any sense. 

CAP needs to pick a side, any side, and go for it. 

Quote from: capchiro on June 09, 2007, 02:29:14 AM
Back in the 60's-70's, didn't the Navy have real lax regulations concerning beards, hair and side burns?  When did they change back and does anyone know why?  I personally feel that if a person works with cadets, they should keep their beards neat, especially the women.. I guess with the  various uniforms we have and the current regulations, CAP has deemed personnel with beards are as valuable as personnel without beards.  I personally don't like the TPU as I think double breasted jackets make "portly" gentlemen look "wider".  Didn't Jackie Gleason use to wear one similar to our TPU?

As one of the Canoe Club experts here, and a beard wearer while on AD, here's my knowledge.

The Navy, to the best of my knowledge and research, did not specifically prohibit beards at any time from 1969 (when I enlisted) until 1 Jan 1985, when they went away forever. Prior to Adm. Zumwalt's term as CNO, beards were generally discouraged on shore, and required to be grown. At sea, the rules were significantly relaxed, but the big shave was expected prior to pulling into port.

Zumwalt pretty much opened the door for wear by anyone, anytime. The reg was then enforced at its face value. After his departure, there were various attempts to discourage beards, but they were largely unsuccessful, and enforcement was inconsistent.

All that ended on 1 Jan 1985. The "official" reason was stated as safety concern associated with personal protective equipment. Most breathing apparatus will not properly seal on a bearded face. I have that knowledge empirically.

Another reason, IMHO, was the appearance factor presented by the under 25 guys who had shaggy, poorly trimmed beards they had no business growing. Call it a form of age discrimination if you will, but most guys under 25 can't grow good looking beards. My first attempt at 21 or 22 looked bad, so it went away quickly. My next effort at 24 was well accepted by my superiors, so I kept it. I had a beard off and on from '73 to '85, and full time since I retired from the Navy in '89.

Quote from: justin_bailey on June 08, 2007, 05:27:15 PM
CAP is... say it with me... "not the military"

Thank you Justin.  I like hearing that coming from someone else....

-SeattleSarge

I know the Navy did away with them but there is still one Uniformed Service which allows them....the United States Public Health Service....In fact 2 of the recent Surgeons General have had beards....Vice Adm Charles Everett Koop (1981 - 1989) and Vice Adm David Satcher (1998 - 2002)

Quote from: SarDragon on June 09, 2007, 12:50:36 AM

Quote from: RogueLeader on June 08, 2007, 10:06:04 PMMerchandise outlets, and sales stores, where personnel are in the public viewpoint for a good portion of the time.

Mostly staffed by folks 25 or under?

BTW, I'm going somewhere with this once I get all the info. This should be the last piece.

about 1/2 and 1/2. Depending on the time of day.  some more, some less.

My reason for asking should be obvious from my last post. It's all an image thing, and, sadly, the younger folks need all the help they can get to fit in.

I know very few folks in CAP under 30 with beards, and none of them looked all that good, mostly due to the patchiness. I have only seen one member over 30 that had a beard that need some serious attention, and he got some one-on-one counselling about it. It quickly ceased to be a problem.

Quote from: John Bryan on June 09, 2007, 05:07:27 AM
I know the Navy did away with them but there is still one Uniformed Service which allows them....the United States Public Health Service....In fact 2 of the recent Surgeons General have had beards....Vice Adm Charles Everett Koop (1981 - 1989) and Vice Adm David Satcher (1998 - 2002)

AND the NOAA Commissioned Corps. 

^^ NOAA and USPHS get all the same military benefits as the military (aafes/commissary/tri-care...etc) without being military.  We need a third uniformed service, USCAP!

Quote from: justin_bailey on June 08, 2007, 05:27:15 PM
CAP is... say it with me... "not the military"

CAP's close ties to its parent service are a big selling point for many people, as is wearing the military-style uniform.  For those that want to contribute to the organization, but don't want to wear a military uniform, there are suitable alternatives.

No, it's a paramilitary organization. Primarily in it's organizational structure, and somewhat in it's operations.

That being said, professional appearance and military behaviour can still be continued even if a person has a beard. Professional appearance is important, but whether a person is clean shaven or has a neat beard really has no effect on their job performance. At least it shouldn't. I think any person in CAP that can't do their job because they have a beard is probably not someone we'd want. All the CAP personnel I've known with beards were just as efficient as the ones without them.

I know this almost always results in cries of "The Coast Guard is different than the Air Force", but CG Auxies can have "well groomed and neatly trimmed" beards.  For the kids, "patches and spotty clumps of facial hair are not considered beards and are not authorized."  However, if the Auxie is working a job where a beard might interfere, he can't have it.  And, the CG Aux rules are very unspecific as to weight. 

And despite all this the CG Aux has uniforms virtually identical to the CG and doesn't have dozens of Aux variants AND they work side by side with the CG all the time.  Hmmmm.....

Quote from: mikeylikey on June 09, 2007, 01:08:13 PM
^^ NOAA and USPHS get all the same military benefits as the military (aafes/commissary/tri-care...etc) without being military.  We need a third uniformed service, USCAP!

No, they do not receive military benefits, they receive uniformed services benefits. All military services are uniformed, but not vice versa. All uniformed services use the same pay scales, personnel are posted according to the needs of that service, and have similar requirements for enlistment (to include commissioning).

Second, if CAP were to be designated as a uniformed service, it would be an eighth one, not a third.

Third, with such a designation, CAP would have to fall under the Uniformed Services codes, which include medical, age, physical, and educational requirements. There would also be posting requirements, you wouldn't be able to just pick a local unit. And except for a few rare instances, the age cutoff would most likely be no higher than age 42 (which allows a member to complete 20 years of eligibility for retirement). Not to mention, you'd lose any member that is currently serving in any other branch of service component (you can't enlist in two services simultaneously.)

Does it still sound like a good idea?

Quote from: RiverAux on June 09, 2007, 01:36:44 PM
I know this almost always results in cries of "The Coast Guard is different than the Air Force", but CG Auxies can have "well groomed and neatly trimmed" beards.  For the kids, "patches and spotty clumps of facial hair are not considered beards and are not authorized."  However, if the Auxie is working a job where a beard might interfere, he can't have it.   And, the CG Aux rules are very unspecific as to weight. 

And despite all this the CG Aux has uniforms virtually identical to the CG and doesn't have dozens of Aux variants AND they work side by side with the CG all the time.  Hmmmm.....

I'm usually not agreable to the idea of comparing the CG Aux to CAP, but this is a case where the reasoning is perfectly applicable.

Also as noted (and bold added for emphasis), beards would not be an issue for a CAP member. I don't know of any job in CAP that would have such a requirement. Does anyone? (And it must be a legitimate function of CAP, not some off-the-wall one-off type of function.)

I hear all this stuff about "beards are OK with the corporate service uniform, as long as they are well groomed."

I wonder, who decides what is and is not "well groomed."

Is 2 inches too long?  What about down to my belly as long as I trim it up nice?

And while we're at it, what about purple hair in uniform? Or multiple earrings for men?  After all, we are becoming a high tech organization, and we could attract a lot more high tech young 'uns if we embraced current fashion trends.....and their skills would be valuable.

Heck, we'd probably attract even more folks if we made uniforms completely optional - just wear a CAP ballcap and you're good to go!   ;)

I really don't think anybody would hve a problem with NEAT and TRIMMED beards.  But that becomes difficult to regulate.  There will always be a group of folks who think Charlie Manson is the pinnacle of gentlemanly hirsuite fashion.

It is simply easier to ban the beard than to try to regulate trimming and neat appearance.

Ah yes, the oft-used slippery slope argument.  Since we have uniforms that allow for beards, we should allow blue hair and pierced eyeballs.

Except that we don't.

I have yet to see a compelling argument that the rules as they exist today should be changed.  I'm not arguing for blue hair, I'm arguing that the rules today provide a system that accommodates the folks that want to wear the military uniforms, and the folks that don't.

Unless someone can come up with a really good reason, I don't think those rules should change.  Wanting to look more like the USAF isn't a really good reason, because as we've already seen, there are plenty of folks who contribute to the organization that don't want to look like the USAF.

Quote from: justin_bailey on June 11, 2007, 03:29:37 PM
Ah yes, the oft-used slippery slope argument.  Since we have uniforms that allow for beards, we should allow blue hair and pierced eyeballs.

Except that we don't.

Eh hem...there are a few members of my squadron that have 'blue' hair. ;)

Quote from: justin_bailey on June 11, 2007, 03:29:37 PM
Ah yes, the oft-used slippery slope argument.  Since we have uniforms that allow for beards, we should allow blue hair and pierced eyeballs.

Except that we don't.

Sure we do - at least as far as the piercings go.  You can wear as many visible piercings as you want with the  in the blazer, golf shirt, blue utility, blue field, and aviator shirt/grey slacks.  Men can't wear earrings, but any other peircing is fair game.

In those same suits, men can wear hair down to their butt, and a handlebar moustache as well.  Ditto a 24 inch Santa Claus beard.  Or just a Don Johnson 5 o'clock shadow (seen it).

Men can wear rings on every finger of both hands (while women can only wear 3 rings total!)

If we simply apply the current blazer grooming standards to the Corporate Service Dress, all of the above could occur.

And that's kind of the point - if someone wants to make the argument towards relaxing military grooming standards in the interest of "diversity" or to attract more members, who's to say where to draw the line?  Who will be the grooming police?  Who's individual fashion whims do we allow, and who to exclude.

Good for the goose, good for the gander.



Or perhaps, by having a single uniform and grooming standard, whatever that may be, we keep things simple, create a sense of unity amongst the membership, and promote member buy-in (individual sacrifice for the group tends to increase a sense of belonging to the group)

Quote from: Dragoon on June 11, 2007, 05:13:48 PM
Or perhaps, by having a single uniform and grooming standard, whatever that may be, we keep things simple, create a sense of unity amongst the membership, and promote member buy-in (individual sacrifice for the group tends to increase a sense of belonging to the group)

...and lose 25+% of our membership, many of the more engaged, over an issue already accounted for in the program...

Quote from: Eclipse on June 11, 2007, 07:49:54 PM

Quote from: Dragoon on June 11, 2007, 05:13:48 PM
Or perhaps, by having a single uniform and grooming standard, whatever that may be, we keep things simple, create a sense of unity amongst the membership, and promote member buy-in (individual sacrifice for the group tends to increase a sense of belonging to the group)

...and lose 25+% of our membership, many of the more engaged, over an issue already accounted for in the program...

Hmmm...so you are stating that over one quarter of our membership, and a predominate number of the active membership, have beards?

I doubt that's anywhere NEAR accurate.

Care to cite your data source? 

Quote from: Dragoon on June 11, 2007, 07:59:08 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on June 11, 2007, 07:49:54 PM

Quote from: Dragoon on June 11, 2007, 05:13:48 PM
Or perhaps, by having a single uniform and grooming standard, whatever that may be, we keep things simple, create a sense of unity amongst the membership, and promote member buy-in (individual sacrifice for the group tends to increase a sense of belonging to the group)

...and lose 25+% of our membership, many of the more engaged, over an issue already accounted for in the program...

Hmmm...so you are stating that over one quarter of our membership, and a predominate number of the active membership, have beards?

I doubt that's anywhere NEAR accurate.

Care to cite your data source? 

No, re-read, please.  I am stating that a single uniform and grooming standard will cost us 25% of our membership.  I am assuming, of course, that the standard and uniform is leaning towards the USAF side of the house.

Again, state the case for change.

What you're trying to do is make the subculture(s) of CAP you belong to the only one there is.  That's not unity.  People from all walks of life join CAP for many different reasons and participate actively and honorably in all the little corners of CAP's missions.

I'll ask again: Why should a mission radio operator, an aviation enthusiast, a teacher, a pilot, a youth mentor, and an accountant all have to comply to your idea of an ideal CAP volunteer?

I have a beard. I've had this particular one since Aug 1989, when I retired from the Navy. Before that I had one while in the Navy until they were banned. I wear it for personal image, and personal comfort (it hurts my face to shave more than about twice a week).

I have discontinued participation in CAP twice in the past because of issues about my beard. I have always kept it within the limits established by the Navy from back when they were allowed, and have had no recent problems with it.

If it ever comes down to CAP or the beard, it's CAP's loss.

I too am now refusing to shave. 

I would shave my goatee when we had SAREX's and I would be in the green flight suit.  Maybe I'll wear the green suit with all insignia and CAP markings off of it and maybe just put my employer patch on since we do Helo's.

The attitude of those who are looking down on those of us who choose facial hair is amazingly discusting...  Talk about bigoted comments.

It seems to some in CAP, that my worth and my ability is based on my weight and facial hair.. Yeah the longer my goatee grows the less skills and abilities I have.

So tell me, will my facial hair effect me when I go to Kuwait in the next month and work instructing Apache Helicopter Pilots?  Please, all of you in the know about facial hair should inform me before I waste my time and the Army's money...

Gee maybe when the Army sees my well trimmed goatee they'll say.. nope you won't do, you are not qualified to teach because of your well trimmed goatee.  We believe like those in CAP.. Be skinny and have no facial hair!

BIGOTS!

All this makes me want to grow a beard...

Quote from: shorning on June 12, 2007, 03:19:56 AM
All this makes me want to grow a beard...

Me too, unfortunatly I'm one of those people whose employer says no facial except a mustache within certain guidelines.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 11, 2007, 08:42:57 PM

Quote from: Dragoon on June 11, 2007, 07:59:08 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on June 11, 2007, 07:49:54 PM

Quote from: Dragoon on June 11, 2007, 05:13:48 PM
Or perhaps, by having a single uniform and grooming standard, whatever that may be, we keep things simple, create a sense of unity amongst the membership, and promote member buy-in (individual sacrifice for the group tends to increase a sense of belonging to the group)

...and lose 25+% of our membership, many of the more engaged, over an issue already accounted for in the program...

Hmmm...so you are stating that over one quarter of our membership, and a predominate number of the active membership, have beards?

I doubt that's anywhere NEAR accurate.

Care to cite your data source? 

No, re-read, please.  I am stating that a single uniform and grooming standard will cost us 25% of our membership.  I am assuming, of course, that the standard and uniform is leaning towards the USAF side of the house.

Bad assumption - we're talking beards here, not weight.  Hence the title of the thread.

Quote from: justin_bailey on June 11, 2007, 08:45:49 PM
Again, state the case for change.

What you're trying to do is make the subculture(s) of CAP you belong to the only one there is.  That's not unity.  People from all walks of life join CAP for many different reasons and participate actively and honorably in all the little corners of CAP's missions.

I'll ask again: Why should a mission radio operator, an aviation enthusiast, a teacher, a pilot, a youth mentor, and an accountant all have to comply to your idea of an ideal CAP volunteer?

Based on that on that theory, let me turn this around and ask you "Why should any CAP member wear any uniform at all?  Why not wear whatever the individual feels is most comfortable and most appropriate for whatever thay are doing?

I don't think the question should be "are people with beards 2nd class," but instead, "does it serve us to have so many uniforms?"

If we can't have everyone in AF uniforms, we should all be in something else or we should get rid of those who can't wear AF (personally, I think the first option is much better).  While there are many orgs, like the AF, who have a slew of uniforms, there are few that make uniform decisions based on the members height/weight/grooming instead of duties.

If we went the non-AF way, we could adopt a grooming standard based on police/fire/EMS guidelines.  Would there be people that need correcting and judgment calls?  Sure, but we have them now.

The goal is to have the uniform enhance our professionalism, which should feed into the mission.  How is the mission served by having members we exclude from some of our uniforms?

As long as there is a cadet program (and as a former cadet, I hope that is as long as there is CAP!), the cadets will be in AF type uniforms, at the insistence of USAF. They view it as a recruiting incentive for the cadets, as well as live advertising.

There have been many proposals on this forum for revision & consolidation of senior uniforms, many of them good ideas (I've even proposed a few myself).

The problem is that current members have invested personal funds in the present spectrum of uniforms.

CAP should probably enact a 5 to 10 year moratorium on uniform changes (leaving the issues of awards, patches, insignia and so forth aside -- we're talking uniform combinations here).

Early in that period there should be an in-depth study of the situation, including a broad-based survey of members, former members, AF personnel familiar with CAP, regarding the long term direction for CAP senior member uniforms.

I do not subscribe to the notion that adult members ("officers") need to wear the identical uniform as the cadets to lead them effectively.

Both the US Navy and Royal Navy have had pretty effective leadership for a long time even though the senior leadership (officers and chief petty officers) wore an entirely different uniform than the enlisted personnel.

The issue is proper wear of the assigned uniform to set the right example -- leading by personal example.

I think you're right - any attempt to standardize back to a single set of uniforms would take a while, as there would have to be a rather long phase-in period so folks aren't unhappy about all that they've spent on "obsolete" stuff.

But there is hardly that level of investment in grooming standards - at least in terms of money.


Compare the following statements from prospective male members

1.  "If I can't wear my earring(s), I'm not joining."

2.  "If I can't wear a beard, I'm not joining."

3.  "If I can't wear my hair down to my waist, I'm not joining."

4.   "If I can't keep my mohawk, I'm not joining."


Do these hit everyone in the gut the same way?  Or are some variations from USAF standards more "okay" than others.  And if so, why?  Personal preference?  How come some grooming choices are fine, while others just make your stomach churn?  It it truly fair to indulge one set of fashion statements and exclude others?

It seems to me that a single grooming standard is the first, low cost, step to greater uniformity. You decide what the standard should be, and then apply it uniformly to all corporate uniforms.

Then, you can whittle down the number of corporate uniforms until you only have one equivalent for each USAF suit.

And then, if someone wants to go the last huge step, you could either eliminate one set of uniforms or the other.

Quote from: Dragoon on June 13, 2007, 04:57:50 PMCompare the following statements from prospective male members

1.  "If I can't wear my earring(s), I'm not joining."

2.  "If I can't wear a beard, I'm not joining."

3.  "If I can't wear my hair down to my waist, I'm not joining."

4.   "If I can't keep my mohawk, I'm not joining."


Do these hit everyone in the gut the same way?  Or are some variations from USAF standards more "okay" than others.  And if so, why?  Personal preference?  How come some grooming choices are fine, while others just make your stomach churn?  It it truly fair to indulge one set of fashion statements and exclude others?

It seems to me that a single grooming standard is the first, low cost, step to greater uniformity. You decide what the standard should be, and then apply it uniformly to all corporate uniforms.

I can pretty much answer all of those with rather reasonable answers:

1. You're not allowed ear jewely while in uniform. So you've got to take them out for a few hours a week. What's so hard about that? And there are companies that prohibit males from wearing earrings for males, too. If you won't take a job because they won't let you wear earrings, that's your choice too.

2. I don't see a problem with beards in the first place. There's a lot of places that will hire a guy with a beard before they hire a guy with earrings. They(earrings) aren't allowed for guys where I work, and I deliver pizza for a living.

3. Potential safety issue. And how hard is it to get a haircut? What kind of fashion statement are you trying to make with hair down to your waist that hair to your collar doesn't? And isn't it harder to care for that when it's that long?

4. I know a lot of places that wouldn't hire a guy with a mohawk. For the simple fact that it's just not professional in appearance. And sometimes it scares little kids. And big ones. And little old ladies. And probably a few others that I haven't even thought about yet.

From that list, I see one apple, and three oranges. One, there's really no issues of professional appearance, the others are. Besides, I think that anyone with a mohawk that says if they can't keep they won't join, probably doesn't really want to join anyway. They just present that as an excuse.

Wearing a uniform requires certain conformities. Noone would be able to walk into a recruiters office with mohawk and say that they would want to keep it, they be laughed out of there. Beards are not an issue for CAP, because a uniform is available that permits it.

Overall, I think some diversity is a good thing. But extremes aren't appropriate. There can be professional appearance with a beard just as much as without one. Mohawks, waist-long hair, and earrings don't lend themselves to that.

Quote from: Hawk200 on June 13, 2007, 10:20:57 PM

Overall, I think some diversity is a good thing. But extremes aren't appropriate. There can be professional appearance with a beard just as much as without one. Mohawks, waist-long hair, and earrings don't lend themselves to that.

I agree.  Although Earings, long hair and mowhawks are inappropriate, I see nothing wrong with a well-trimmed beard.  I include trimmed goatees in this category as well, so long as it's neatly trimmed. 

Not this...
(http://www.soccerphile.com/soccerphile/wc2006/culture/im/beard-man-3.jpg)

More this:
(http://img.search.com/thumb/0/0c/Jonathan_Frakes1.jpg/225px-Jonathan_Frakes1.jpg)
See....isn't that professional looking?

Quote from: thefischNX01 on June 14, 2007, 02:31:55 AMI include trimmed goatees in this category as well, so long as it's neatly trimmed. 

More this:
(http://img.search.com/thumb/0/0c/Jonathan_Frakes1.jpg/225px-Jonathan_Frakes1.jpg)
See....isn't that professional looking?

Yes, and I am so there when Starfleet finally starts accepting applications, because any long time fan will tell you Starfleet has never had an issue with tubbies in their standard uniform.

However, since I'm in CAP right now, define, in an objective way, "neatly trimmed".  (and for the record, before my CAP days, I wore a beard nearly identical to Herr Rikers, and have always preferred him that way).

Just in case you were wondering..  >:D  It also helps that Herr Rikers is a good looking guy too!

Unlike some of us who have a different type of Hollywood look....

(http://capcadet.com/fatandfuzzy.jpg)

And just in case you were wondering, I have shaved, but I look a lot better with my goatee...

(http://capcadet.com/raf-cap.jpg)

Quote from: Hawk200 on June 13, 2007, 10:20:57 PM
I can pretty much answer all of those with rather reasonable answers:

1. You're not allowed ear jewely while in uniform. So you've got to take them out for a few hours a week. What's so hard about that? And there are companies that prohibit males from wearing earrings for males, too. If you won't take a job because they won't let you wear earrings, that's your choice too.

But why NOT allow jewelry in uniform?  There are big companies that allow male jewelry.  There are also companies that don't allow beards....

Point is, it's just another personal fashion statement - why are some personal fashion statements allowed and others aren't? [/quote]

Quote from: Hawk200 on June 13, 2007, 10:20:57 PM
3. Potential safety issue. And how hard is it to get a haircut? What kind of fashion statement are you trying to make with hair down to your waist that hair to your collar doesn't? And isn't it harder to care for that when it's that long?

Safety issue for who?  For an AE officer?  Or a PAO?  Or even a comms guy?  And whether it's hard to care for is irrelevant - it's just another personal fashion statement - like a beard.

Quote from: Hawk200 on June 13, 2007, 10:20:57 PM
4. I know a lot of places that wouldn't hire a guy with a mohawk. For the simple fact that it's just not professional in appearance. And sometimes it scares little kids. And big ones. And little old ladies. And probably a few others that I haven't even thought about yet.

But to take Mr. Mohawk's side, so what?  What if he's a super talented radion guy who wants to join CAP just to do comms in a back room?  Or a softwear engineer willing to handle Wing's website?  Surely his mohawk won't get in the way of his duties, and he won't be seen by the public during his duties, so it seems silly to turn away his talent.

Quote from: Hawk200 on June 13, 2007, 10:20:57 PM
Wearing a uniform requires certain conformities. Noone would be able to walk into a recruiters office with mohawk and say that they would want to keep it, they be laughed out of there. Beards are not an issue for CAP, because a uniform is available that permits it.

Overall, I think some diversity is a good thing. But extremes aren't appropriate. There can be professional appearance with a beard just as much as without one. Mohawks, waist-long hair, and earrings don't lend themselves to that.

You're right, it's all about professional appearance.  Through your responses, you've made it clear that regardless of someone's talents, if they won't meet certain appearance standards, you're willing to deny them membership.

So, it seems there is some value in appearance standards.

Now we come to the fun part - what should those standard be?

We can try to take a tips from private industry, but if so, where to chose from?  Disney doesn't allow beards.  Google allows pretty much anything.  Lots of "standards" out there.

We could go the public service route, where the vast majority of Police and EMS folks are clean shaven with short hair.  (there are some interesting court cases out there trying to get firefighters to have hair as long as the women).

It seems the most logical choice to get our appearance standard from is USAF.  The guys who pay us.  The guys whose uniform we wear.  The guys whose uniform we are trying to emulate as close as possible with the Corporate Service Dress.

And USAF doesn't allow beards with its unifoms.

So we're back to - if Mr Long Hair can't play, why can Mr. Beard? They are both valid, talented potential members, and they both look unprofessional from a USAF point of view. 

If we truly want to play the "we're not USAF" card, why play it all the way, ditch the military grade structure and put everyone in gold shirts and blazers?

And who knows, maybe that the right way to go.  Most of our members don't have a military background - they come from civilian/corporate America.  That's what they are most comfortable with.

I will define "Neatly Trimmed" as: close to the skin with clear 'borders'.  "The beard will not continue down the front of the neck, and the hair will not be longer than 1/4 of an inch."

Borders are a clear line where facial hair stops and begins.  It should follow the natural contours of the face, and there should be no patches of hair beyond these borders. 

Quote from: thefischNX01 on June 16, 2007, 12:36:49 AM
I will define "Neatly Trimmed" as: close to the skin with clear 'boarders'.  "The beard will not continue down the front of the neck, and the hair will not be longer than 1/4 of an inch."

Boarders are a clear line where facial hair stops and begins.  It should follow the natural contours of the face, and there should be no patches of hair beyond these boarders. 

A quarter of an inch is hard to maintain. One-half to three-quarters of an inch would be a better standard. Mine is currently about an inch long, a length that was permissible WIWOAD, and presents a well-groomed appearance.

Quote from: COMDTINST M16790.1FC.3.n. Hair/Facial Hair The goal is for men's hair to be neat and clean, not touch the collar, and be away
from the ears. Beards, sideburns, or mustaches if worn, shall be well groomed and
neatly trimmed at all times in order not to present a ragged appearance. No portion
of a mustache will extend below the lipline of the upper lip. Handlebar mustaches
or other eccentric styles are not appropriate while in uniform. Full and partial
beards, van dykes, and goatees are authorized. In uniform, patches and spotty
clumps of facial hair are not considered beards and are not authorized. The bulk of
the beard (distance that the mass of facial hair protrudes from the skin on the face)
shall not exceed 1 inch. The length of individual hair shall be limited to 1½ inches.
The wearing of beards and mustaches shall not interfere with the operation of
oxygen masks, gas masks, or other safety/survival gear. As such, the wearing of
beards and moustaches may be prohibited for those participating in certain
operational missions as deemed necessary by the Director or a Coast Guard
Commanding officer supervising that mission. For uniformity during public
appearances as a distinctive element of the Auxiliary, personnel assigned to a
Ceremonial Honor Guard shall be clean-shaven. Women's hair should not be below
the collar or extend below the eyebrows when the hat is removed.

Quote from: SarDragon on June 16, 2007, 12:54:22 AM

Quote from: thefischNX01 on June 16, 2007, 12:36:49 AM
I will define "Neatly Trimmed" as: close to the skin with clear 'boarders'.  "The beard will not continue down the front of the neck, and the hair will not be longer than 1/4 of an inch."

Boarders are a clear line where facial hair stops and begins.  It should follow the natural contours of the face, and there should be no patches of hair beyond these boarders. 

A quarter of an inch is hard to maintain. One-half to three-quarters of an inch would be a better standard. Mine is currently about an inch long, a length that was permissible WIWOAD, and presents a well-groomed appearance.

I think you see my point - all or none is easy.  "neat" is a subjective term open to causing fights we don't need.

Quote from: thefischNX01 on June 16, 2007, 12:36:49 AM
I will define "Neatly Trimmed" as: close to the skin with clear 'boarders'.  "The beard will not continue down the front of the neck, and the hair will not be longer than 1/4 of an inch."

Boarders are a clear line where facial hair stops and begins.  It should follow the natural contours of the face, and there should be no patches of hair beyond these boarders. 

"Boarders" are people who pay to live and eat in your house. Do you mean "borders"? ;D >:D


Sorry, it's late, I'm tired and being taken over by the sarcasm demon. Help me Linda Blair!!!!

Quote from: MIKE on June 16, 2007, 01:22:13 AM

Quote from: COMDTINST M16790.1F[redacted; you already read it once]

IIRC, that closely resembles the last guidance from the Navy, and is even more liberal that what I posted above. It is a fair standard, and one that is easy to meet full time. My current 'stache probably violates that guidance a little, but no one has complained yet. I'll fix it up before I teach SLS next month.

Quote from: PhotogPilot on June 16, 2007, 02:36:43 AM

Quote from: thefischNX01 on June 16, 2007, 12:36:49 AM
I will define "Neatly Trimmed" as: close to the skin with clear 'boarders'.  "The beard will not continue down the front of the neck, and the hair will not be longer than 1/4 of an inch."

Boarders are a clear line where facial hair stops and begins.  It should follow the natural contours of the face, and there should be no patches of hair beyond these boarders. 

"Boarders" are people who pay to live and eat in your house. Do you mean "borders"? ;D >:D


Sorry, it's late, I'm tired and being taken over by the sarcasm demon. Help me Linda Blair!!!!

Nice guys woulda just sent a PM!  ;D

Quote from: SarDragon on June 16, 2007, 07:24:54 AM

Quote from: PhotogPilot on June 16, 2007, 02:36:43 AM

Quote from: thefischNX01 on June 16, 2007, 12:36:49 AM
I will define "Neatly Trimmed" as: close to the skin with clear 'boarders'.  "The beard will not continue down the front of the neck, and the hair will not be longer than 1/4 of an inch."

Boarders are a clear line where facial hair stops and begins.  It should follow the natural contours of the face, and there should be no patches of hair beyond these boarders. 

"Boarders" are people who pay to live and eat in your house. Do you mean "borders"? ;D >:D


Sorry, it's late, I'm tired and being taken over by the sarcasm demon. Help me Linda Blair!!!!

Nice guys woulda just sent a PM!  ;D

But that wouldn't have had the comedic effect.

I didnt read all four pages of posts.....

But could we stay away from the beards and goatees.  They look terrible in uniform. Thats my former Marine-self talking.

Quote from: Flying Pig on June 16, 2007, 04:14:13 PM
I didnt read all four pages of posts.....

But could we stay away from the beards and goatees.  They look terrible in uniform. Thats my former Marine-self talking.

Okay...and now you get to go back and read the conversation.  Having skipped the rest of the commentary, you can't just through a statement like that out there.

I don't see a problem when worn in the uniforms for which they are allowed.  Mountain out of a mole hill people...  ::)

No Sir, I dont think I need to go back and read it all.  I am responding to the origional post.  I dont think beards belong in CAP.   You have to draw the line somewhere and that line may as well be the military line.  CAP already make numerous uniform exceptions as it is.

Quote from: Flying Pig on June 16, 2007, 07:12:25 PM
No Sir, I dont think I need to go back and read it all.  I am responding to the origional post.  I dont think beards belong in CAP.   You have to draw the line somewhere and that line may as well be the military line.  CAP already make numerous uniform exceptions as it is.

IMHO, that attitude belongs back in the 70s. The military folks don't get to wear beards because they interfere with how Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines can do their jobs. They can quickly become a safety hazard in any number of situations. I was in the Navy, with a beard, when they went away. I shaved, although not too willingly.

On my last day on active duty, I started growing my beard again, and have had it since then, less a week, when I took it off for a Halloween party, and decided that it was a long-term bad idea.

The CAP doesn't have any of those safety considerations to worry about, so that's not an issue. As for appearance, a commander can strongly suggest that a bearded member get his act together, or form 17/31 signatures for outside activities will not be forthcoming. Most folks who wear beards keep them looking good, so appearance isn't really an issue either.

I guess you would advocate forcing all of us with beards to shave or leave, removing us from the talent pool.

Quote from: Flying Pig on June 16, 2007, 07:12:25 PM
No Sir, I dont think I need to go back and read it all.  I am responding to the origional post.  I dont think beards belong in CAP.   You have to draw the line somewhere and that line may as well be the military line.  CAP already make numerous uniform exceptions as it is.

Just to give you a heads-up, you're setting yourself up for a barbecue. If you decide to read all the posts in the thread, you'll understand why.

And actually, there are no uniform exceptions. A beard is permitted with certain uniforms. That constitues authorization, not exception. Big difference.

OK.   Like I said, I dont think CAP needs to allow beards.  Just giving my opinion, just like those who are for beards.  Ive read all the posts since.  And guess what?  I still dont think beards should be allowed. 

Quote from: Flying Pig on June 16, 2007, 09:13:12 PM
OK.   Like I said, I dont think CAP needs to allow beards.  Just giving my opinion, just like those who are for beards.  Ive read all the posts since.  And guess what?  I still dont think beards should be allowed. 

Well, it's a good start. At least now you understand the reason you should have read the whole thread.

So do you have an actual reason for disliking beards in CAP? Or is it just a knee jerk reaction of a former Marine?(BTW, that's not a challenge, it's just a question. Many people don't even think about their own opinions sometime. It happens.) If someone in your unit has a beard, how will you treat them? Would you refuse to work with them?

Around here, people like to see your reasoning. They may not agree with your reasoning, and you can rest assured that they will let you know. But if you explain why, you may change someone's mind on something. It's happened to me a number of times here.

Quote from: Flying Pig on June 16, 2007, 07:12:25 PM
No Sir, I dont think I need to go back and read it all.  I am responding to the origional post.  I dont think beards belong in CAP.   You have to draw the line somewhere and that line may as well be the military line.  CAP already make numerous uniform exceptions as it is.

Then let us follow the current Air Force model and not take any "prior service" either.  Does that work?  That would be a "military line" as well. 




Honestly, why do people insist on limiting our pool of resources?  Unless you're in an area that has so many people beating down your doors that you can afford to turn people away by the droves.

Bottom line is that it takes all kinds to make CAP run.

Quote from: RogueLeader on June 08, 2007, 04:13:15 PM
I do not mind shaving, it's just that I tend to be lazy about it when I don't need to be clean shaved.  I also think that if beards are allowed, they need to be well groomed.  Being allowed a beard in Corporates is one thing, but make them look nice.  Not saying near to the face, but not looking like Z Z Top.

Who or what is a "Z Z Top"?

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on June 17, 2007, 09:53:44 PM
Who or what is a "Z Z Top"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZZ_Top

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on June 17, 2007, 09:53:44 PMWho or what is a "Z Z Top"?

Whaaa?  Get off this forum right now!!!

'cause every girl's crazy 'bout a sharp dressed man.

...anyone think it's a coincidence that one of them has the last name "Beard?"

Quote from: SarDragon on June 16, 2007, 08:16:54 PM
IMHO, that attitude belongs back in the 70s. The military folks don't get to wear beards because they interfere with how Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines can do their jobs. They can quickly become a safety hazard in any number of situations.   

I really doubt that's the case.  The only pragmatic reasons for being clean shaven are hygiene and getting a better seal on a mask, and perhaps in the case of HUGE beards, getting them caught in machinery.

Most folks in the military don't have a mask handy.  I didn't wear one in Iraq.  Unless you work with oxygen or expect a chemical attack, masks aren't an issue.

And military office workers here in the states don't have masks or hygiene issues - washing regularly isn't a problem.

In fact, many in the military (especially USAF types not in a combat zone) are exposed to an extremely similar environment as CAP members are.  Some time outdoors, some time inside.  Some machines (airplanes and vehicles), but no need for masks.

If the  reason the U.S. military didn't have beards was  job performance...then many many in the military would be allowed beards.

And, there wouldn't be medical waivers that allow beards - which there are.

Nope, it's about appearance.  For better or worse, there's a view of what a modern military man looks looks like - and he ain't fuzzy.  And that's today - not back in the 70s.

Missed this one from last week (and two pages ago):

Quote from: Dragoon on June 12, 2007, 01:57:26 PMBased on that on that theory, let me turn this around and ask you "Why should any CAP member wear any uniform at all?  Why not wear whatever the individual feels is most comfortable and most appropriate for whatever thay are doing?

Well, for one, senior members don't really have to wear uniforms at all CAP activities, only certain ones (like flying).

Second, I'm advocating the status quo (military uniforms with suitable corporate alternatives).  So I would answer your second question same as the first: the policy we have now, warts and all, basically works.

Quote from: justin_bailey on June 18, 2007, 07:43:43 PM


Well, for one, senior members don't really have to wear uniforms at all CAP activities, only certain ones (like flying).

Wrong, they DO.  whether it is a meeting, flying, encampment, etc. Uniforms will be worn IAW 39-1, Table 1-1.

I don't have anything against beards, I have worn one off and one since collage.  Since joining CAP about 9 years ago, I have limited my beard growing to periods I wouldn't need to be at a meeting or activity in uniform, basically summer vacation and most of December.  I work with cadets, so it's just my preference to wear the same uniform they do.  My personal feeling is, I can't correct their uniform mistakes if I am not setting an example by having mine squared away.  Likewise, I don't feel I can tell them not to wear their hair long or have a beard if I can elect to have one.  It was also a personal decision to lose about 40 pounds when I joined CAP so I could wear the USAF uniforms.  I was 34 then, and losing weight was a lot easier.

I can see the argument on both sides.  Besides the personal reasons I stated earlier, I also feel that if you are in any of the BDU, flight suit or any of the class "A" or "B"(before everyone starts posting telling me there is no such thing in CAP, save it.  I am just using the terminology to get the point across) USAF or Corporate variations that have military style grade insignia (pretty much anything except the golf shirt and slacks or blazer combo), people look at our members and associate them with the USAF.  Because if this, I think it presents a better image if one is clean shaven.  That isn't to say that we should ban members with beards, or that they are any less effective at their jobs.

Just as the military has no grooming standards for civilian contractors and employees who do not wear uniforms or insignia, perhaps senior members who elect to have a beard should not be allowed to wear any type of military style grade insignia.

Quote from: Dragoon on June 18, 2007, 06:41:03 PM

Quote from: SarDragon on June 16, 2007, 08:16:54 PM
IMHO, that attitude belongs back in the 70s. The military folks don't get to wear beards because they interfere with how Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines can do their jobs. They can quickly become a safety hazard in any number of situations.   

I really doubt that's the case.  The only pragmatic reasons for being clean shaven are hygiene and getting a better seal on a mask, and perhaps in the case of HUGE beards, getting them caught in machinery.

Most folks in the military don't have a mask handy.  I didn't wear one in Iraq.  Unless you work with oxygen or expect a chemical attack, masks aren't an issue.

And military office workers here in the states don't have masks or hygiene issues - washing regularly isn't a problem.

In fact, many in the military (especially USAF types not in a combat zone) are exposed to an extremely similar environment as CAP members are.  Some time outdoors, some time inside.  Some machines (airplanes and vehicles), but no need for masks.

If the  reason the U.S. military didn't have beards was  job performance...then many many in the military would be allowed beards.

And, there wouldn't be medical waivers that allow beards - which there are.

Nope, it's about appearance.  For better or worse, there's a view of what a modern military man looks looks like - and he ain't fuzzy.  And that's today - not back in the 70s.

Yes, appearance was/is an issue. And hygiene. and safety. Another factor was the double standard involved - some folks were precluded from wearing them because of their jobs (more than you think when you consider shipboard conditions), and others had no such restrictions. It was better to just ban them entirely and move on.

Quote from: ELTHunterJust as the military has no grooming standards for civilian contractors and employees who do not wear uniforms or insignia, perhaps senior members who elect to have a beard should not be allowed to wear any type of military style grade insignia.

Whyzat? They have already taken away our military badges and ribbons. What would you suggest it its place?

Its a bit off the subject, but still to do with "military style" grooming. I was watching a documentary the other night about spec ops folks in Iraq. Can anyone tell me why all of them were wearing beards and most of them had long-ish, very shaggy hair. They seemed to be having alot of interaction with Iraqi civilians and I wondered if it was because a beard is the "sign of a man" in many Arabic countries.

Thanks to anyone who can answer this one for me.

Quote from: SARMedTech on June 19, 2007, 06:24:08 AM
Can anyone tell me why all of them were wearing beards and most of them had long-ish, very shaggy hair.

Are you going to tell them that they don't meet dress and appearance standards? ;)

Quote from: SARMedTech on June 19, 2007, 06:24:08 AM
Its a bit off the subject, but still to do with "military style" grooming. I was watching a documentary the other night about spec ops folks in Iraq. Can anyone tell me why all of them were wearing beards and most of them had long-ish, very shaggy hair. They seemed to be having alot of interaction with Iraqi civilians and I wondered if it was because a beard is the "sign of a man" in many Arabic countries.

Thanks to anyone who can answer this one for me.

That might be part of it.  Spec Ops folks often are allowed relaxed grooming standards to better fit in with the locals.

Quote from: ELTHunter on June 19, 2007, 01:02:32 AM
Just as the military has no grooming standards for civilian contractors and employees who do not wear uniforms or insignia, perhaps senior members who elect to have a beard should not be allowed to wear any type of military style grade insignia.

I can think of one uniformed service member whose most prominent assignment wore a beard for many years. I'd have to dig to see if it would be permitted now, but the person was highly respected, and I don't think anyone ever challenged his beard.

Wearing rank insignia shouldn't preclude facial hair. Neatness is a serious issue, and the reference above kind of shows my point. Having a scaggly beard with stubble all over your neck isn't neat, or professional, most people probably consider it lazy. Even a person with a neatly maintained beard still uses a razor or trimmer on a regular basis, they still have the same morning ritual I do. And as it has been pointed out in the past, there is probably a medical reason or three that doesn't really permit regular shaving.

And for the record, I don't wear a beard. Being in the Guard precludes that option for me. But I don't have any issues with an individual that has one in CAP. Doesn't affect their job performance.

If you want to draw the military line, you have to go all the way with it, if you have any conviction. Picking one military standard and dispensing with another lacks conviction to me. Personally, I think drawing the whole line would eliminate many of our current members, and bar many others from serving their community in many ways that they can only do in CAP. And that will reduce the concept of a Civil Air Patrol.

Quote from: RogueLeader on June 18, 2007, 08:18:02 PMWrong, they DO.  whether it is a meeting, flying, encampment, etc. Uniforms will be worn IAW 39-1, Table 1-1.

Ah, I stand corrected.  Previous versions of the uniform manual didn't include such strong language regarding uniform wear.

Quote from: ELTHunter on June 19, 2007, 01:02:32 AM
Just as the military has no grooming standards for civilian contractors and employees who do not wear uniforms or insignia, perhaps senior members who elect to have a beard should not be allowed to wear any type of military style grade insignia.

We used to do something like that - I know that big guys could wear BDUs and flight suits without rank, and I believe it applied to beards as well.

Of course, the weird thing was that these folks were still CAP officers, still had rank titles, but just couldn't wear the grade.  Which made little sense.

In the real military, there is a difference in role - the contractor is not interchangeable with the military.  So seperate standards don't cause issues.  CAP doesn't work that way. And I can't imagine coming up with a CAP where you can wear a beard as long as you hold no grade and are never put in command...

I really like the idea of a single CAP, with a single set of standards and a single set of uniforms.

Or as close to that as we can get.  In other words, we may have to have two service dress uniforms, but making them as alike as possible makes sense.

This one's gonna sound harsh, and I apologize, but it seems to me we need to focus on the team and not the individual.  If someone refuses to do something as simple as shave for CAP, what else might they be unwilling to do?

It's kind of an old fashioned view, I know, but how's about we all give up a little individuality and focus on the team identity?  Work on simplifying and improving the CAP "Brand" by giving the public a single image of what a CAP officer is.

Quote from: Dragoon on June 18, 2007, 06:41:03 PM

Quote from: SarDragon on June 16, 2007, 08:16:54 PM
IMHO, that attitude belongs back in the 70s. The military folks don't get to wear beards because they interfere with how Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines can do their jobs. They can quickly become a safety hazard in any number of situations.   

I really doubt that's the case.  The only pragmatic reasons for being clean shaven are hygiene and getting a better seal on a mask, and perhaps in the case of HUGE beards, getting them caught in machinery.

Most folks in the military don't have a mask handy.  I didn't wear one in Iraq.  Unless you work with oxygen or expect a chemical attack, masks aren't an issue.

And military office workers here in the states don't have masks or hygiene issues - washing regularly isn't a problem.

In fact, many in the military (especially USAF types not in a combat zone) are exposed to an extremely similar environment as CAP members are.  Some time outdoors, some time inside.  Some machines (airplanes and vehicles), but no need for masks.

If the  reason the U.S. military didn't have beards was  job performance...then many many in the military would be allowed beards.

And, there wouldn't be medical waivers that allow beards - which there are.

Nope, it's about appearance.  For better or worse, there's a view of what a modern military man looks looks like - and he ain't fuzzy.  And that's today - not back in the 70s.

There's a bit of a fallacy to that argument.  Granted, most of the folks in the military don't have to deal with the protective masks everyday.  However, any particular day they may have to, so they are required to be clean shaven.  "Needs of the service" and all that.

I'm not going to discuss the waivers.  When I was in the Army, some men did have a waiver, but even those who did had to keep the whiskers real short, not neatly trimmed, but barely there.

In CAP there are no instances where we will need the protective masks, or any similar equipment.  Our mission simply doesn't require it.

I understand the arguments about uniformity, but that can be taken to extremes.  Some people are blond and some brunette.  Should we make one group color their hair to match the others.  What about the bald guys?  Maybe everyone should shave their heads so we all look alike.  These are things everyone can easily do to maintain a uniform appearance, but even the military doesn't go this far.

If there was an operational requirement for members to be clean shaven, then I'm all for it.  But why should we impose the requirement otherwise.

I still say a fit man with a neatly trimmed beard looks more professional than someone who is drastically overweight.  CAP allows both in their ranks, as they can all contribute.

If I am wrong TODAY, please correct me, however, as recently as 2002, the uniformed United Stated Public Health Service (HHS) has allowed its personnel to wear USN-like military-esque uniforms with a neatly trimmed beard.

Surgeon Generals (Admirals?) C. Everett Koop and David Satcher for example (see: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/history/sglist.htm) seem quite professional-looking with theirs.

The Uniformed part of NOAA may allow this as well.

I, for one, (although clean-shaven, by personal choice) see no contraindication for beards in military uniforms whatsoever, especially with the Corporate Service Uniform, BBDU, BUU, Blue Flight Suit.

The USAF may not like it, but, when it's our CORPORATE duds not up to them, it's not their uniform. Well they might refuse to salute us even more ... zero minus ...

Quote from: Dragoon on June 19, 2007, 01:17:57 PMThis one's gonna sound harsh, and I apologize, but it seems to me we need to focus on the team and not the individual.  If someone refuses to do something as simple as shave for CAP, what else might they be unwilling to do?

I've worked with a lot of people in CAP, and I can tell you that the vast majority of them took their commitment to CAP very seriously.  Long-time volunteers have spent countless hours, dollars, and brain cycles for the good of the organization.

Some of those people are overweight.

Some have beards.

Some look like they belong on the front page of the Air Force Times.

Frankly, the "one image" thing is a specious argument.  Sounds good on the surface, but when you start to look at the people you're going to exclude, it maybe doesn't sound so great.

A sharp uniform is a sharp uniform.  I happen to think the corporate uniforms we have today provide a professional alternative to the military uniforms, and for the variety of missions CAP has, we need the variety of people we've got.  If that means making some concessions and not looking as much like our parent service, then so be it.

I've stated my case numerous times, and you yours, and I don't think we're going to be able to bridge the fundamental gap we've got going on here.

Quote from: davedove on June 19, 2007, 02:43:56 PM
There's a bit of a fallacy to that argument.  Granted, most of the folks in the military don't have to deal with the protective masks everyday.  However, any particular day they may have to, so they are required to be clean shaven.  "Needs of the service" and all that.

You're in Frederick MD, right?  Go over to Ft. Dietrich and look around - which soldiers on that base have any chance of using a protective mask that day?

Zero.  In fact, I'd bet the vast majority aren't even ISSUED masks.

Same for most folks in the military outside of an NBC threat area - no mask and no need for one.

Quote from: davedove on June 19, 2007, 02:43:56 PM
I understand the arguments about uniformity, but that can be taken to extremes.  Some people are blond and some brunette.  Should we make one group color their hair to match the others.  What about the bald guys?  Maybe everyone should shave their heads so we all look alike.  These are things everyone can easily do to maintain a uniform appearance, but even the military doesn't go this far.

Right.  Those things would be unreasonable.  Too hard to change.  Much like weight for CAP.  But shaving takes 5 minutes a day (after you hack the beard off).  Not hard to do. 

Quote from: davedove on June 19, 2007, 02:43:56 PM
If there was an operational requirement for members to be clean shaven, then I'm all for it.  But why should we impose the requirement otherwise.

Based on that, there should be no need to wear uniforms at all.  There is no operational requirement for them. A baseball cap would do just fine.

Quote from: davedove on June 19, 2007, 02:43:56 PM
I still say a fit man with a neatly trimmed beard looks more professional than someone who is drastically overweight.  CAP allows both in their ranks, as they can all contribute.

Actually, I agree.  USAF doesn't.  If you're fat, they give you time to fix it.  If you have a beard without a waiver, you're disobeying orders and get a rather quick ticket to civilian-ville.

If we were designing from scratch, we could ditch the Air Force duds and everything that goes with them, therefore allowing for a uniform and professional appearance by all our members.  Since hell ain't planning on freezing over any time soon, the other approach to improve the corporate brand is to mimic, as closely as practical, USAF uniform and grooming standards for all members.

Quote from: Chaplaindon on June 19, 2007, 03:47:29 PM
If I am wrong TODAY, please correct me, however, as recently as 2002, the uniformed United Stated Public Health Service (HHS) has allowed its personnel to wear USN-like military-esque uniforms with a neatly trimmed beard.

Surgeon Generals (Admirals?) C. Everett Koop and David Satcher for example (see: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/history/sglist.htm) seem quite professional-looking with theirs.

The Uniformed part of NOAA may allow this as well.

I, for one, (although clean-shaven, by personal choice) see no contraindication for beards in military uniforms whatsoever, especially with the Corporate Service Uniform, BBDU, BUU, Blue Flight Suit.

The USAF may not like it, but, when it's our CORPORATE duds not up to them, it's not their uniform. Well they might refuse to salute us even more ... zero minus ...

Nope you're not wrong at all.  And if we where the USPHS auxiliary, we'd allow beards and put our folks in Navy Blues.

But as long as we've got the USAF affiliation, it seems to make sense to get our appearance guidance from them - not some other agency that we have no connection to.

Quote from: justin_bailey on June 19, 2007, 03:54:23 PM

Quote from: Dragoon on June 19, 2007, 01:17:57 PMThis one's gonna sound harsh, and I apologize, but it seems to me we need to focus on the team and not the individual.  If someone refuses to do something as simple as shave for CAP, what else might they be unwilling to do?

I've worked with a lot of people in CAP, and I can tell you that the vast majority of them took their commitment to CAP very seriously.  Long-time volunteers have spent countless hours, dollars, and brain cycles for the good of the organization.

Some of those people are overweight.

Some have beards.

Some look like they belong on the front page of the Air Force Times.

Frankly, the "one image" thing is a specious argument.  Sounds good on the surface, but when you start to look at the people you're going to exclude, it maybe doesn't sound so great.

A sharp uniform is a sharp uniform.  I happen to think the corporate uniforms we have today provide a professional alternative to the military uniforms, and for the variety of missions CAP has, we need the variety of people we've got.  If that means making some concessions and not looking as much like our parent service, then so be it.

I've stated my case numerous times, and you yours, and I don't think we're going to be able to bridge the fundamental gap we've got going on here.

Yeah, we're definitely on opposite sides of a fence.  The value of the conformity to the group over individual expression, I'd wager.

I would disagree that the vast majority of CAP members take their commitment seriously.  In fact, I'd wager that over half of our seniors don't do anything but pay dues.  And then there is the "I'm just here to put hours on the plane" or "I'm just here because my kid is a cadet" contingent.

In fact, I'd wager that it's less than 20% of our seniors doing the heavy lifting, and making the long term commitment.

Out of that fraction of our population:

Many are overweight.  Makes sense, as most of America is overweight, plus our folks tend to be older than the average airman. 

A few have beards.  I'm guessing less than one in 10.  And some percentage of that bunch would not quit if forced to shave. 

I'd agree we are on different ground - I've got too many years in too many leadership positions to be particularly sensitive to the "I'll do it my way or I'll quit"  or the "Appearance doesn't matter as long as you can do the job."  In my experience, both of those trains of thought lead to trouble later.

You don't exclude anyone by setting high, but achievable standards.  5 minutes with a razor is definitely achievable.

I think a single, uniform appearance fosters a "one team" mentality, presents a more professional image of the organization to the public, and simplifies the rules the members must follow.  And emulating, as closely as possible, the USAF model keeps us closer to our heritage and the folks paying the bills.  All worthy goals.

Quote from: justin_bailey on June 19, 2007, 12:11:43 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on June 18, 2007, 08:18:02 PMWrong, they DO.  whether it is a meeting, flying, encampment, etc. Uniforms will be worn IAW 39-1, Table 1-1.

Ah, I stand corrected.  Previous versions of the uniform manual didn't include such strong language regarding uniform wear.

The previous versions of 39-1 actually stated that a uniform wasn't mandatory unless conducting the cadet program, flying, driving vehicles (I think), and a few other conditions.

That statement was removed from the current 39-1. Which means it is now a requirement. I knew of a few units where the members didn't wear uniforms at all, unless they were flying, which means most of them only owned a flightsuit. I'm curious if the the ommitted statement has even been noticed by some of those units.

How many members do you think have actaully read or are current on a CAPR or CAPM?

"Nope you're not wrong at all.  And if we where the USPHS auxiliary, we'd allow beards and put our folks in Navy Blues.

But as long as we've got the USAF affiliation, it seems to make sense to get our appearance guidance from them - not some other agency that we have no connection to."

That would be true and show consistent logic, save for the fact that our CORPORATE uniforms bear little resemblance to those of the USAF (undoubtedly on purpose).

Hence my repeated assertion that IF:

   --- Our Corporate uniforms are NOT USAF uniforms nor under their aegis ... and ...
   --- If other uniformed federal services can wear trimmed beards and still look professional and, dare I say, MILITARY, while wearing a military uniform ... and ...
   --- If until the 1980's the USN could wear neatly trimmed beards and the solidarity of our armed forces didn't evaporate ... and ...
   ---Since we do NOT get our CORPORATE UNIFORM "appearance guidance" from the USAF but from our NB and NEC ... then ...

IMHO CAP should reconsider allowing neatly trimmed beards (they already allow trimmed mustaches) with the COPORATE uniforms.

I, frankly, don't care if we have an occasional/inconsistent (e.g. "AUX ON/AUX OFF") "USAF affiliation" it isn't their uniform.

IF everyone in CAP wore the USAF uniform (e.g. like the CGAUX) and/or IF we were ALWAYS the USAF Auxiliary then you'd be right it WOULD, "make sense to get our appearance guidance from them." As it is I hope MG Pineda makes this the next uniform change in CORORATE kit.

Quote from: Chaplaindon on June 19, 2007, 07:33:17 PM
"Nope you're not wrong at all.  And if we where the USPHS auxiliary, we'd allow beards and put our folks in Navy Blues.

But as long as we've got the USAF affiliation, it seems to make sense to get our appearance guidance from them - not some other agency that we have no connection to."

That would be true and show consistent logic, save for the fact that our CORPORATE uniforms bear little resemblance to those of the USAF (undoubtedly on purpose).

Hence my repeated assertion that IF:

   --- Our Corporate uniforms are NOT USAF uniforms nor under their aegis ... and ...
   --- If other uniformed federal services can wear trimmed beards and still look professional and, dare I say, MILITARY, while wearing a military uniform ... and ...
   --- If until the 1980's the USN could wear neatly trimmed beards and the solidarity of our armed forces didn't evaporate ... and ...
   ---Since we do NOT get our CORPORATE UNIFORM "appearance guidance" from the USAF but from our NB and NEC ... then ...

IMHO CAP should reconsider allowing neatly trimmed beards (they already allow trimmed mustaches) with the COPORATE uniforms.

I, frankly, don't care if we have an occasional/inconsistent (e.g. "AUX ON/AUX OFF") "USAF affiliation" it isn't their uniform.

IF everyone in CAP wore the USAF uniform (e.g. like the CGAUX) and/or IF we were ALWAYS the USAF Auxiliary then you'd be right it WOULD, "make sense to get our appearance guidance from them." As it is I hope MG Pineda makes this the next uniform change in CORORATE kit.

An understandable position, but I believe  we're much closer tied to USAF than you think.


1.  They provide a large amount of money in the USAF budget.  USPHS doesn't do this.

2.  They provide the oversight.  They inspect us.  USPHS doesn't

3.  They let our cadets wear their uniform, and even provide some of them.  Not USPHS

4.  They provide paid personnel to support us in the form of the Liaison Regions.  USPHS doesn't.

5.  They make up a full one third of our Board of Governers.  Plus, they have half the say in choosing another third of that body.  No other military entity has a single vote!

6.  They represent our heritage for well over 50 years.  Our heirarchy, rank titles, customs and courtesies, all come from USAF.   


So yeah, we aren't IN the Air Force.  But we are a lot more connected to them than any other federal organization.  Not something to be discounted. 

Also, there's the matter of public expectation - ask the average joe off the street if military people can wear beards.  He'll say no. 

I too would prefer everyone wear the Air Force uniform regardless of weight.  If that's not allowed, then personally I'd rather NOBODY wear it.  But since that ain't gonna happen either, I think the best compromise is to get everyone looking as close to the Air Force as they'll let us get.

Quote from: MIKE on June 19, 2007, 06:34:23 PM
How many members do you think have actaully read or are current on a CAPR or CAPM?

Wouldn't even want to hazard a guess. I download all the pubs once a month and dump them on the computers we have at the squadron. When someone has a question, I show them where to find it. A lot of our unit members are becoming a little more familiar with them.

Quote from: Dragoon on June 19, 2007, 05:52:53 PMRight.  Those things would be unreasonable.  Too hard to change.  Much like weight for CAP.  But shaving takes 5 minutes a day (after you hack the beard off).  Not hard to do.

Maybe not hard for you. Different stroke for different folks. I have a tough beard and tender skin. No barber that has ever shaved my face would ever do it again. Most change razors at the midway point. When I was shaving my whole face on a regular basis, my face would constantly hurt and look raw. I avoided shaving on the weekends to attempt some degree of recovery, but it was never enough. Ususlly, I cheated and skipped a day in the middle of the week, and because of the red beard and red, irritated skin, it wasn't noticeable.

On a lark, about eight years ago, I shaved it all off, moustache and beard. It lasted for a week. My sweetie didn't like it that way, and most of my friends agreed that I looked better with than without. So now it remains as a long-term fixture. Beard vs. CAP? CAP's loss, not mine.

Quote from: SarDragon on June 19, 2007, 10:07:18 PM

Quote from: Dragoon on June 19, 2007, 05:52:53 PMRight.  Those things would be unreasonable.  Too hard to change.  Much like weight for CAP.  But shaving takes 5 minutes a day (after you hack the beard off).  Not hard to do.

Maybe not hard for you. Different stroke for different folks. I have a tough beard and tender skin. No barber that has ever shaved my face would ever do it again. Most change razors at the midway point. When I was shaving my whole face on a regular basis, my face would constantly hurt and look raw. I avoided shaving on the weekends to attempt some degree of recovery, but it was never enough. Ususlly, I cheated and skipped a day in the middle of the week, and because of the red beard and red, irritated skin, it wasn't noticeable.

On a lark, about eight years ago, I shaved it all off, moustache and beard. It lasted for a week. My sweetie didn't like it that way, and most of my friends agreed that I looked better with than without. So now it remains as a long-term fixture. Beard vs. CAP? CAP's loss, not mine.

If there's a medical problem, sounds like grounds for a medical waiver. 

Quote from: Dragoon on June 20, 2007, 01:20:19 PM
If there's a medical problem, sounds like grounds for a medical waiver. 

Medical waivers aren't available in CAP, because members are not required to wear the AF-style uniform.  There's a uniform for those with beards (aviation grays) and thus, no need for a waiver.

Jack

Quote from: ColonelJack on June 20, 2007, 01:27:01 PM

Quote from: Dragoon on June 20, 2007, 01:20:19 PM
If there's a medical problem, sounds like grounds for a medical waiver. 

Medical waivers aren't available in CAP, because members are not required to wear the AF-style uniform.  There's a uniform for those with beards (aviation grays) and thus, no need for a waiver.

Jack

So we change the rules.  If we move away from beards, I could see rules for medical exemptions similar to AFI 36-2903.  I think we should also add a religious exemption as well.

I can wear the AF suit, but I would be willing to blow the bucks on the TPU if it meant we were all uniform.

I can sort of see this from both points of view. I sometimes have a beard, and sometimes dont. Im willing to be clean-shaven so that I can wear the USAF uniforms, except,wait, I cant, because I am slightly overweight after an auto accident that Im still recovering from. So I wear corporates. Which, for the most part Im fine with. But, do I wear the aviator shirt and grey trousers, aviator shirts and blue trousers, golf shirt, blazer...oh and if I do wear the trousers and aviator shirt and grey trousers, which grey?  And if we agree on a grey, are they to be pleated, flat fronted, have cargo pockets since I tend to lean toward EMT gear because professionally I do EMS, SAR, Tracking, etc. Same goes with the blue trousers. If we were able to settle that then what about shoes..the regulations are open enough that there will be a variety of shoes as long as they are black. And what about the now being tested USAF service dress uniform with the stand up collar..will we where those? Ive heard that the AF is transitioning to the Marine style BDU cover. If they do, who gets to where those: only the guys in the new digitals or do those of us who are overweight get to wear them in blue. And since we are talking covers, lets talk about my personal favorite, the boonie. I wojuld like to hear some reason for why we cant wear them when every other branch of the service has a variety of them, including the USAF. And when I ask about wearing my ribbons on my white aviator, I was told no, even though regs say Yep sure ya can. I was out and out told it looks stupid. Are you going to walk up to an USAF Major and tell him his look stupid, because I have seen them wear them with the blue service uniform at Kirtland when the SAR group I was with in NM operated out of there. I say we go to one service uniform, one service dress uniform, one mess dress, one BDU and for God's sake lets get rid of the stinking polo shirts. Theres a line from a play that I used to utter every night when I was working in Chicago as an actor: A little consistancy is all I ask.  Thank you. Carry on.

Quote from: SARMedTech on June 20, 2007, 02:22:21 PMI say we go to one service uniform, one service dress uniform, one mess dress, one BDU and for God's sake lets get rid of the stinking polo shirts. Theres a line from a play that I used to utter every night when I was working in Chicago as an actor: A little consistancy is all I ask.  Thank you. Carry on.

Yup, that's pretty much the way to go.  And if we can't have a single version of each, let's at least make sure that the variations look as similar as possible (style, color, insignia, grooming standards, etc.).

Nice and simple.

Quote from: ddelaney103 on June 20, 2007, 01:43:37 PM

Quote from: ColonelJack on June 20, 2007, 01:27:01 PM

Quote from: Dragoon on June 20, 2007, 01:20:19 PM
If there's a medical problem, sounds like grounds for a medical waiver. 

Medical waivers aren't available in CAP, because members are not required to wear the AF-style uniform.  There's a uniform for those with beards (aviation grays) and thus, no need for a waiver.

Jack

So we change the rules.  If we move away from beards, I could see rules for medical exemptions similar to AFI 36-2903.  I think we should also add a religious exemption as well.

I can wear the AF suit, but I would be willing to blow the bucks on the TPU if it meant we were all uniform.

What he said.  If we changed the rules to require shaving, we'd have to have a loophole for folks who can't.   The key would be to separate the "can't" from the "don't wanna."  I've got oodles of respect for the former, and very little for the latter.

Quote from: SARMedTech on June 20, 2007, 02:22:21 PM
I can sort of see this from both points of view. I sometimes have a beard, and sometimes dont. Im willing to be clean-shaven so that I can wear the USAF uniforms, except,wait, I cant, because I am slightly overweight after an auto accident that Im still recovering from. So I wear corporates. Which, for the most part Im fine with. But, do I wear the aviator shirt and grey trousers, aviator shirts and blue trousers, golf shirt, blazer...oh and if I do wear the trousers and aviator shirt and grey trousers, which grey?  And if we agree on a grey, are they to be pleated, flat fronted, have cargo pockets since I tend to lean toward EMT gear because professionally I do EMS, SAR, Tracking, etc. Same goes with the blue trousers. If we were able to settle that then what about shoes..the regulations are open enough that there will be a variety of shoes as long as they are black. And what about the now being tested USAF service dress uniform with the stand up collar..will we where those? Ive heard that the AF is transitioning to the Marine style BDU cover. If they do, who gets to where those: only the guys in the new digitals or do those of us who are overweight get to wear them in blue. And since we are talking covers, lets talk about my personal favorite, the boonie. I wojuld like to hear some reason for why we cant wear them when every other branch of the service has a variety of them, including the USAF. And when I ask about wearing my ribbons on my white aviator, I was told no, even though regs say Yep sure ya can. I was out and out told it looks stupid. Are you going to walk up to an USAF Major and tell him his look stupid, because I have seen them wear them with the blue service uniform at Kirtland when the SAR group I was with in NM operated out of there. I say we go to one service uniform, one service dress uniform, one mess dress, one BDU and for God's sake lets get rid of the stinking polo shirts. Theres a line from a play that I used to utter every night when I was working in Chicago as an actor: A little consistancy is all I ask.  Thank you. Carry on.

Dang, SAR - cut a guy some slack and throw in a carriage return once in a while...

A couple of comments:

Boonies are not standard issue in the military.  Except for a few exceptions (deployments, certain duties) most people don't get a choice in headgear.  My first SWA deployment I had to hang up my boonie and wear a mesh-backed DCU ballcap.

As to ribbons, there is a difference b/w reg and custom.  Many of the wannabe's get really cranked about not looking like "Big AF," but in truth that custom is not universal either in AF or CAP.  In the end, if you follow the regs you can do what you want.

As to the gray slacks, for the aviator shirt they shouldn't have cargo pockets, which I suspect would be hard to find for wool slacks.  Since it's supposed to be the equiv of the service uniform, work pants are out.  The golf shirt is a different story as it is a work uniform.  Same with the shoes - dress for aviator, more relaxed for golf shirt.  You get a lot of choices for shoes in the AF service as well, BTW.

I would restrict the golf shirt to limited use and not allow it to be the "go anywhere" suit.

As to choker service dress and 8 point caps, all I can say is don't sweat the future - it's not set in stone.

The 8 point hat was a CENTAF thing that didn't survive. Most of the Air Force was against it. The friends I have in the Air Force couldn't stand it.

The choker uniform was deemed impractical as a standard service dress, although it is still being considered as a mess or formal dress uniform. One concept permitted the wear of fullsize medals, and it looked pretty good. It may still survive, but not as a general wear item, and would probably only be optional, not clothing bag issue.

The Air Force denied boonies with the reasoning that it was a combat related uniform item. Which is pretty groundless as an explanation, since anyone in a combat theater is only really going to wear a Kevlar for protection. There will be instances where the patrol cap (or whatever the Air Force calls it offically) will be worn, but it won't be a common thing. Personally, I would rather have had them just say no, and not explain, than to make a statement that wasn't really realistic.

Quote from: Dragoon on June 20, 2007, 01:20:19 PMIf there's a medical problem, sounds like grounds for a medical waiver. 

I explored that briefly, with support from my E-8. I was basically told to suck it up and drive on. They could not determine any medical contraindication for shaving for my situation. I usually got by with shaving Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, unless there was a reason to be max spiffy on the other days, then I adjusted accordingly.

These days, I scrape off the excess about once a week, usually Thursday to coincide with my CAP meetings.

Quote from: Hawk200 on June 20, 2007, 05:52:00 PM
The 8 point hat was a CENTAF thing that didn't survive. Most of the Air Force was against it. The friends I have in the Air Force couldn't stand it.

The choker uniform was deemed impractical as a standard service dress, although it is still being considered as a mess or formal dress uniform. One concept permitted the wear of fullsize medals, and it looked pretty good. It may still survive, but not as a general wear item, and would probably only be optional, not clothing bag issue.

The Air Force denied boonies with the reasoning that it was a combat related uniform item. Which is pretty groundless as an explanation, since anyone in a combat theater is only really going to wear a Kevlar for protection. There will be instances where the patrol cap (or whatever the Air Force calls it offically) will be worn, but it won't be a common thing. Personally, I would rather have had them just say no, and not explain, than to make a statement that wasn't really realistic.

Hmmm...arent camoflauge BDUs (or BDUs at all for that matter) a combat related item? What about combat and jungle boots? CFP-90s? Air Force Survival knives? Military issue first aide kits? I mean if we want to follow that rational, just about everything we use could be seen as a combat item: web gear, pistol belts, berets (for those who wear them as authorized). CAP is awash with military items and last time I checked, the main point of the military was...hmmm...combat. You're right. It would have been less insulting to our collective intelligence to just issue a letter saying "Not Authorized" instead of trying to justify it with what ends up being a total non-justification and if they are truly going o use it, would eliminate alot of gear from our kits. I mean if its anything combat related....Dont they use radios in combat? Cyalume sticks? Smoke cannisters?

Quote from: SARMedTech on June 21, 2007, 05:14:31 AM
Hmmm...arent camoflauge BDUs (or BDUs at all for that matter) a combat related item? What about combat and jungle boots? CFP-90s? Air Force Survival knives? Military issue first aide kits? I mean if we want to follow that rational, just about everything we use could be seen as a combat item: web gear, pistol belts, berets (for those who wear them as authorized). CAP is awash with military items and last time I checked, the main point of the military was...hmmm...combat. You're right. It would have been less insulting to our collective intelligence to just issue a letter saying "Not Authorized" instead of trying to justify it with what ends up being a total non-justification and if they are truly going o use it, would eliminate alot of gear from our kits. I mean if its anything combat related....Dont they use radios in combat? Cyalume sticks? Smoke cannisters?

Hit the nail on the head. Just say no, don't insult the intelligence of our members. For many in the know, it doesn't fly.

Personally, I am a fan of boonies. Always have been. But I think the thing that cranks me off the most is that on the surface, this may seem like a uniform issue, but it actually also has health ramifications. As an EMT with 160+ hours of medical school level life sciences under my belt and currently working on a medical related MS degree, and having paid attention to what groups like the NIH and the American Cancer Society and other public health organizations have to say, I know that the best way to prevent skin cancer of the face/neck is high SPF sunscreen/chapstick and clothing which protects the body from the sun. When we have been in the field for 72 hours in July or August with the sun beating down on us, those boonies could do a lot to protect face and neck from UV. Furthermore, since most body heat is lost through the top and sides of the head, the looser fit of the boonie allows for more efficient cooling, thus reducing the risk of heat cramps, heat exhaustion and heat stroke, which is, I believe, why this particular cover was issued at hot weather gear in the first place. I guess its another example of being good enough to volunteer our time and effort and spend a great deal to do it, but not to have some cheap, basic items available to us to help protect our health. Ive been told that the boonies are in USAF survival kits (perhaps also CAP pilots kits?) for exactly the reasons I mentioned. Not only is there no logical reason to deny us the wear this cover, there is no reason at all. I look at a pistol belt as more of a combat item than a boonie.

Quote from: Dragoon on June 19, 2007, 05:52:53 PM

Quote from: davedove on June 19, 2007, 02:43:56 PM
There's a bit of a fallacy to that argument.  Granted, most of the folks in the military don't have to deal with the protective masks everyday.  However, any particular day they may have to, so they are required to be clean shaven.  "Needs of the service" and all that.

You're in Frederick MD, right?  Go over to Ft. Dietrich and look around - which soldiers on that base have any chance of using a protective mask that day?

Zero.  In fact, I'd bet the vast majority aren't even ISSUED masks.

Same for most folks in the military outside of an NBC threat area - no mask and no need for one.

Actually, I work on Ft. Detrick.  Just by chance this morning, I passed a group of soldiers in formation.  They were all decked out in combat gear, and they had their masks strapped on.  So, they do have them here, and since the masks are controlled items, they have to be issued.

Now, I'll agree that most are not issued masks, because they don't need them for day to day.  But every soldier knows the possibility exists that they may be issued one tomorrow, or if the unthinkable happens, in a few minutes.  The standards aren't put in place for those who have the need most of the time.  Some of the troops have the need for the masks, so they must be clean shaven.  The military, in it's "everyone is the same" mentality, says that everyone must follow this standard.

I think the problem most of us have is that the standard does not currently exist for CAP.  If it has always been there, we wouldn't think about it.  Once a privilege exists, it's real hard to take it away.

Quote from: davedove on June 21, 2007, 11:34:07 AMNow, I'll agree that most are not issued masks, because they don't need them for day to day.  But every soldier knows the possibility exists that they may be issued one tomorrow, or if the unthinkable happens, in a few minutes.  The standards aren't put in place for those who have the need most of the time. 

Training, probably using training masks that aren't permanently issued to the individual, and probably not outfitted with actual filters.  Since it was training, odds are no need to shave. 

If civilians, co located with those soldiers (and therefore under the same threat) don't need to shave, neither do the soldiers.  After all, the threat is the same to all, as is the work environment.

Quote from: davedove on June 21, 2007, 11:34:07 AM
The military, in it's "everyone is the same" mentality, says that everyone must follow this standard.

That, without the utility argument, is the true heart of the matter.  Everyone is the same - uniform.  So everyone shaves.  USAF is the same way.  IMHO, we should be the same way, if we want to have things like USAF officer grade, titles like "squadron commander", customs and courtesies. . etc.   Or we could ditch the USAF trappings entirely, declare ourselves a civilian force, get rid of officer grades, and adopt an appropriate civilian appearance.  I think that would work fine as well. 

Quote from: davedove on June 21, 2007, 11:34:07 AM
I think the problem most of us have is that the standard does not currently exist for CAP.  If it has always been there, we wouldn't think about it.  Once a privilege exists, it's real hard to take it away.

Bingo.   This is why real substantive change in CAP, be it about uniforms, operations, admin procedures, cadet program implementation, IT implementation, etc.  is so hard - almost any change involves someone losing something they like. To keep the peace, CAP tends to shy establishing meaningful national standards, and allow each Wing (or in many cases each person) to do things their own way.

Quote from: Dragoon on June 21, 2007, 02:29:32 PM
That, without the utility argument, is the true heart of the matter.  Everyone is the same - uniform.  So everyone shaves.  USAF is the same way.  IMHO, we should be the same way, if we want to have things like USAF officer grade, titles like "squadron commander", customs and courtesies. . etc.   Or we could ditch the USAF trappings entirely, declare ourselves a civilian force, get rid of officer grades, and adopt an appropriate civilian appearance.  I think that would work fine as well. 

We've discussed that option (doing away with grades, etc.) before, and I still maintain you would lose more than half -- likely three-quarters -- of your membership.  There are many who join CAP just for the military trappings ... not that they are "wannabes," more like they're those who -- for one reason or another -- couldn't be a part of the military but want to serve their country just the same.  Or those who are former military who miss the "old days" and find CAP their way to keep the feelings alive.  Or those who ... well, you get the idea.  Take away the military trappings and, for many, you've just got a regular flying club.

Jack

Quote from: ColonelJack on June 21, 2007, 03:04:10 PM

Quote from: Dragoon on June 21, 2007, 02:29:32 PM
That, without the utility argument, is the true heart of the matter.  Everyone is the same - uniform.  So everyone shaves.  USAF is the same way.  IMHO, we should be the same way, if we want to have things like USAF officer grade, titles like "squadron commander", customs and courtesies. . etc.   Or we could ditch the USAF trappings entirely, declare ourselves a civilian force, get rid of officer grades, and adopt an appropriate civilian appearance.  I think that would work fine as well. 

We've discussed that option (doing away with grades, etc.) before, and I still maintain you would lose more than half -- likely three-quarters -- of your membership.  There are many who join CAP just for the military trappings ... not that they are "wannabes," more like they're those who -- for one reason or another -- couldn't be a part of the military but want to serve their country just the same.  Or those who are former military who miss the "old days" and find CAP their way to keep the feelings alive.  Or those who ... well, you get the idea.  Take away the military trappings and, for many, you've just got a regular flying club.

Jack

Actually, I think you would have something more akin to an un-uniformed quasi-military organization providing operational support and what amounts to force multiplication to the United States military. That is if you only took away the bling and the duds.

And for the record, Ive joined CAP because at age 33, I tried to join the Reserves of every one of the armed forces and wanted to serve as a corpsman, health services specialist, etc and despite the current huge recruiting blitz was politely shown the door because I wanted to serve my country my putting people back together and not taking them apart. I was particularly interested in the USCG and because I wasn't interested in a Port Security Specialist billet, they suddenly stopped their aggressive campaign to recruit me.

And it wouldn't necessarily be un-uniformed - just un-military.

We might lose members - those who value the militaryness of CAP over the services it performs.  But those attracted to the mission would remain.

I think we would be better with either a "military" or "civilian" approach - and either is preferable with the current hybrid, schizophrenic do whatever turns you on culture we have now.

I'd prefer more military, but question whether we will ever have the time and member buy-in to make it a reality. 

I hate to admit it, but without the uniforms, I don't think we would have many cadets, but they usually don't have to worry about beards, however, there was this young lady I once met while serving with the Navy from the great state of Nebraska, but I digress..

Quote from: capchiro on June 21, 2007, 05:56:04 PM
I hate to admit it, but without the uniforms, I don't think we would have many cadets, but they usually don't have to worry about beards, however, there was this young lady I once met while serving with the Navy from the great state of Nebraska, but I digress..

You're absolutely right.  A non-military cadet program would be a MUCH bigger shift than a non-military senior program. I can't imagine it would be much of a draw, unless we promised every kid flight training.

Quote from: SARMedTech on June 19, 2007, 06:24:08 AM
Its a bit off the subject, but still to do with "military style" grooming. I was watching a documentary the other night about spec ops folks in Iraq. Can anyone tell me why all of them were wearing beards and most of them had long-ish, very shaggy hair. They seemed to be having alot of interaction with Iraqi civilians and I wondered if it was because a beard is the "sign of a man" in many Arabic countries.

Thanks to anyone who can answer this one for me.

Spec Ops like Special Forces ans SEALS may need to blend in with the indigenous population.

Quote from: ELTHunter on June 21, 2007, 08:07:19 PM

Quote from: SARMedTech on June 19, 2007, 06:24:08 AM
Its a bit off the subject, but still to do with "military style" grooming. I was watching a documentary the other night about spec ops folks in Iraq. Can anyone tell me why all of them were wearing beards and most of them had long-ish, very shaggy hair. They seemed to be having alot of interaction with Iraqi civilians and I wondered if it was because a beard is the "sign of a man" in many Arabic countries.

Thanks to anyone who can answer this one for me.

Spec Ops like Special Forces ans SEALS may need to blend in with the indigenous population.

And this is a running fight between the SOF types and the mainstream military.  In AFSOC, I think their 36-2903 supplement says "wear whatever supports the mission and call it pro gear.  March on, HUA!"