Senior Officers uncomfortable in Air Force skin?

[Short Field]

Perhaps "shy" is the word you're looking for, because I don't see how the way I process information matters in my desire to wear a set of uniforms.

I concur with this, 100%. The "I" in INTP is strong with this one.

The "I" affects several aspects of your personality and how you process information.  As a certified Myers-Briggs instructor/evaluator, I view it more as how you recharge your personal battery.   What becomes stressful for one person is relaxing to another.  I am a very strong "I" and have NEVER been considered shy or especially quite.

[JeffDG]

As a Sq CC I for one am glad that Hardshell Clam is   NOT  a member of my squadron.  With an attitude like his, I don't need that kind of grief.

What, an attitude of doing what his commander wants him to do?  Perish the thought.

And a point about manuals vs. regulations.  Manuals are not regulations.  Regulations tell you what you must do (ie. wear a uniform when flying or executing the Cadet Programs mission), manuals tell you how to do it when the regulation tells you that you must do it.

[davidsinn]

As a Sq CC I for one am glad that Hardshell Clam is   NOT  a member of my squadron.  With an attitude like his, I don't need that kind of grief.

What, an attitude of doing what his commander wants him to do?  Perish the thought.

And a point about manuals vs. regulations.  Manuals are not regulations.  Regulations tell you what you must do (ie. wear a uniform when flying or executing the Cadet Programs mission), manuals tell you how to do it when the regulation tells you that you must do it.

There is not a uniform REG. The manual says compliance is mandatory.

[JeffDG]

As a Sq CC I for one am glad that Hardshell Clam is   NOT  a member of my squadron.  With an attitude like his, I don't need that kind of grief.

What, an attitude of doing what his commander wants him to do?  Perish the thought.

And a point about manuals vs. regulations.  Manuals are not regulations.  Regulations tell you what you must do (ie. wear a uniform when flying or executing the Cadet Programs mission), manuals tell you how to do it when the regulation tells you that you must do it.

There is not a uniform REG. The manual says compliance is mandatory.

Absolutely.  Whenever a regulation or other command directive says that you must wear a uniform, you must wear it in accord with the manual.  In that way, the uniform manual is mandatory, but a manual does not tell you when you must wear a uniform, it tells you how to wear it when some other directive tells you that you must.

[SarDragon]

My reading of the 5-4 leads me to believe that manuals are no less regulatory than regulations.

1. Definitions. As used in national publications distributed on or after the date of this regulation, the following words will have the definition indicated:
a. "Shall", "will" or "must", when used in a regulation, manual, OI, supplement, or change there to indicate a mandatory requirement [directive].

f. "Manuals" announce procedures and guidance for performing standard tasks and usually contain examples.

j. "Publication" means regulations, manuals, pamphlets, operating instructions, any other documented guidance and supplements thereto.

l. "Regulations" announce policies, direct actions and prescribe standards.

I suppose that some readers will interpret the above to mean something else, based on how it fits their view of how CAP should operate, but it looks pretty clear to me.

[JeffDG]

My reading of the 5-4 leads me to believe that manuals are no less regulatory than regulations.

1. Definitions. As used in national publications distributed on or after the date of this regulation, the following words will have the definition indicated:
a. "Shall", "will" or "must", when used in a regulation, manual, OI, supplement, or change there to indicate a mandatory requirement [directive].

f. "Manuals" announce procedures and guidance for performing standard tasks and usually contain examples.

j. "Publication" means regulations, manuals, pamphlets, operating instructions, any other documented guidance and supplements thereto.

l. "Regulations" announce policies, direct actions and prescribe standards.

I suppose that some readers will interpret the above to mean something else, based on how it fits their view of how CAP should operate, but it looks pretty clear to me.

"Manuals announce procedures and guidance for performing standard tasks"

That's what I said.  The manual tells you "how".  It does not tell you to do something.  It's entire purpose is to provide guidance for when some other source (either a regulation or command directive) tells you that you must do something.

This is pretty basic stuff...used in organizations all over the place.  You have things like "Work Instructions" (ie. regulations) that tell you what you must do, and you have other guides (manuals) that tell you how to do it when told to do it.

[SARDOC]

JeffDG's statements are consistent with typical organizational items.  Even with the definitions provided in CAPR 5-4.  Training in Organizational Management focus heavily on this and people will argue semantics until the cows come home. 

The Definition found in CAPR 5-4 "Manuals" announce procedures (a particular course or mode of action. ie step by step directions on how to perform a task) and Guidance(advice or counseling)for performing standard tasks and usually contain examples.

Nothing in there is particularly regulatory. 

I believe JeffDG's point is that the uniform manual only has regulatory power when adopted by reference in an actual regulation.  Where I find regulations that have members wear the CAP uniform, I can't find a particular reference that adopts CAPM 39-1 specifically...I'm sure someone has better search skills than I do.

[JeffDG]

I believe JeffDG's point is that the uniform manual only has regulatory power when adopted by reference in an actual regulation.  Where I find regulations that have members wear the CAP uniform, I can't find a particular reference that adopts CAPM 39-1 specifically...I'm sure someone has better search skills than I do.

I don't think that a regulation needs to specify CAPM 39-1.  If a regulation specifies that "thou shalt wear a uniform" (for example, CAPR 60-1 2-3(c) ) brings the Uniform Manual into play.

[SARDOC]

I don't think that a regulation needs to specify CAPM 39-1.  If a regulation specifies that "thou shalt wear a uniform" (for example, CAPR 60-1 2-3(c) ) brings the Uniform Manual into play.

CAPR 60-1 does while not specifically calling out CAPM39-1 does state "appropriate CAP uniform"  Which is profoundly more specific than "Wear a uniform" because where would one go to find and APPROPRIATE CAP uniform.  If 60-1 just stated that they must "wear a Uniform" that would be way to vague for our membership. View any uniform thread on CAPTALK...you'd have those saying they could wear their Boy Scout uniform or work uniform and be in compliance while we know that is not the intended purpose of the regulation. 

During the rewrite of some of these regulations I would suggest that they should indeed specifically adopt CAPM 39-1 by reference in it's entirety and it would end some of the silly debates.  It would help if these were regulations were written by those with other Organizational management experience...most seem very poorly written, not updated frequently enough or open to too much interpretation in areas where is was never intended.

[Eclipse]

R,M,P - all, for the most part, irrelevant.

It makes for good coffee chat, which I engage as much as anyone, but the reality is that CAP hasn't abided by it's own protocol and structure in regards to pubs for at least a decade, and further, they regularly conflict while individually asserting their respective sovereignty.

[Salty]

Can anybody give me any direction on why military stuff isn't allowed on the CAP uniform (ribbons, badges, etc)?

I know what the regs say but it doesn't satisfy my why question.

[SARDOC]

R,M,P - all, for the most part, irrelevant.

It makes for good coffee chat, which I engage as much as anyone, but the reality is that CAP hasn't abided by it's own protocol and structure in regards to pubs for at least a decade, and further, they regularly conflict while individually asserting their respective sovereignty.

Absolutely True...Why is that?   If an organization isn't going to abide by their own rules..why don't they just get rid of them?  It seems to be an institutional malaise that has propelled us towards organizational impotence.

[SARDOC]

Can anybody give me any direction on why military stuff isn't allowed on the CAP uniform (ribbons, badges, etc)?

I know what the regs say but it doesn't satisfy my why question.

I don't know if it's written anywhere but I think it's ultimately because the USAF doesn't like it.   Although anybody can wear medals or ribbons they've earned on Civilian clothes outside of CAP ie Veterans Day Parades, VFW, American legion functions, etc.

[Salty]

Yeah I knew about the holiday stuff.  In the USAF uniform instruction it mentions honorably discharged vets and retirees can wear the uniform on certain holidays.

What I don't get is why there is a disconnect between the white aviator shirt/bbdu and the USAF blues/bdu.

[ol'fido]

Ask Radioman.

[Hardshell Clam]

He is not an IG, he may have taken a basic or maybe the senior IG course but I doubt he is a real Wing IG. I however am an IG and have done a few investigation, mostly consisting of official interviews. IG Investigations are considered 'A' missions so a uniform is required. If you are a real Wing IG, then simply tell us what wing, I'm sure the wing staff roster will list you as such. It's not privileged information.

SUI's and IG Investigations are Air Force Funded activities, therefor, you simply can not perform them in civilian clothes.

I don't know about how things are in his wing, but investigations are very rare animals, I have done three in the last three years and that was considered alot. Most of the stuff we do is SUI's. My BS meter is pinging pretty loud with this guy.

You are 100% correct in that I am NOT "the" IG, but then, I have said that several times! I am simply on staff. Nor anyplace do I say we do a lot of investigations,

Concerning the wear of civilian clothing while performing IG duties: there is ABSOLUTELY no special regulation within the CAP or USAF requiring the wear of a uniform while performing an IG function. There is no difference between the regulations in any of the specialty tracks, PERIOD! You have to wear a uniform when mandated by the regs (flying, directly involved with cadets, etc.) You DO NOT have to wear one otherwise unless directed by competent authority.

Finally concerning your "BS" meter, have it checked as where you state "therefor, you simply can not perform them in civilian clothes",  is simply an opinion/interruption. Please, if I'm wrong, let us know the cite or official policy, etc. confirming this. Wishing that uniform wear was always mandatory and it actually being that way are not the same thing.

My finial thought and post on this subject: CAP Nat HQ has stated in writing that the wear of the uniform is mandatory for certain functions, otherwise optional.  You are free to contact them and this is exactly what they will tell you, the same as they told me.

[Smokey]

Hardshell....just admit it....you loathe the uniform, have no interest in wearing it and have comtempt for those who do.  You are not happy being part of a military aux. Please do CAP a favor and find an organization you will be happy in and stop trying to bring everyone down.  You might want to try a birdwatching group, literary club, etc.  They will gladly welcome you in civilian clothes.

[PHall]

Hardshell Clam, are you Radioman015's brother?

[BuckeyeDEJ]

When my wing went through its last CI -- a triennial bane of every wing staff member's existence -- the CAP members of the inspection team were wearing a special golf shirt. The Air Force members of the team were in blues.

The question was asked of one of the inspectors, and I can't remember if it was an Air Force member of the team or a senior member of the wing staff here, why the CAP inspectors weren't in uniform. The answer: "This IS our uniform." Had it been an Air Force member of the team asking the question, I'm sure it was cloaked criticism lost on the CAP members of the team. It may have been a senior member of our wing staff, who I'm sure was asking with the same methodology in mind.

"This IS our uniform." Huh? It's not in regulation, nor has any such thing ever been authorized. It's a case of senior members who want to follow the beat of their own drum, rather than work within the system, if you ask me. Of course, you don't dare question your inspectors, and this last inspection had several of us thinking there was a vendetta out against the wing from somewhere!

But if you're a CAP member on a CAP operation, whether it's a SAREX or an inspection or a squadron meeting, you should wear the established uniform everyone else wears. Golf shirts are as pervasive, and as annoying, as kudzu, but we've allowed the flying-club culture to pervade. Time to purge it, dontcha think?

Guess if inspectors can wear their own funny shirts, public affairs officers can, too. We'll see how far that one goes. Leadership by example, after all.

[SarDragon]

Re: reg vs. manual, let's review the quotes above.

1. Definitions. As used in national publications distributed on or after the date of this regulation, the following words will have the definition indicated:
a. "Shall", "will" or "must", when used in a regulation, manual, OI, supplement, or change there to indicate a mandatory requirement [directive].

f. "Manuals" announce procedures and guidance for performing standard tasks and usually contain examples.

j. "Publication" means regulations, manuals, pamphlets, operating instructions, any other documented guidance and supplements thereto.

l. "Regulations" announce policies, direct actions and prescribe standards.

Publications with "shall", "will", or "must" are directive. Publications include regs and manuals. Therefore if a manual says "shall" or "must", it is directive.