Jump Start- ABU Name Tapes, AF Occupational Badges, CAP Specialty Track Badges,

[Ned]

VG also pays a licensing fee back to CAP that amounts to thousands of dollars yearly. 

Which is what give a lot of us heartburn.  If there is money to return, the prices could be lowered.

Logically and obviously the prices could be lower on items that VG pays us the licensing fee, but since most retailers including VG base prices on multiple factors beyond simple "cost plus margin", there is no reason to believe that the prices would be any lower.  We simply have relatively little control over their pricing in specific items.  Restated, although VG pays us something like 8 cents for every $1.85 CAP tape sold, there is no reason to believe that they would start selling them for $1.77 if the licensing fee went away.  (And then we would have to find an alternative income stream for the funds.  I'm assuming you would not support a dues increase.)

because I can purchase cheaper on base.  Not all members have convenient base access,

All members, by the verbiage of the AFIs, are supposed to, but that is something CAP has allowed to dry up and not pursue.

[/quote]

I don't think the "allowed it to dry up and not pursue" comment is accurate or fair.

The problem is not a simple one.  Many members (it's hard to get hard data on this) don't live near enough to have access to MCSS even if there were no restrictions on base access.  This is a magic combination of geography and BRAC that will likely get worse before it gets better.  ORWG, for example, does not have a single active military installation in the state.

Second, Darin is right that base access has been significantly tightened in recent years, and individual base commanders have significant discretion as to who is allowed on.  As long as AF commanders have significant discretion as to who gets onto their base and under what conditions, it should not be surprising that CAP is treated somewhat differently at different bases in terms of ID required, vehicle passes, etc.  Aggravating the problem is growing reliance / default to the DBIDS scanner system.  CAP does not have the kind of government ID that is recognized by the scanners, and various local work-arounds have been developed.  I have never experienced a base access issue, but clearly see reports here on CT that others have.

I have personally spoken about this issue to not only the CAP-USAF commander, but also the 1stAF/AFNORTH commander.  The BoG has clearly engaged our AF colleagues on the issue.  A lot of work and effort is ongoing.

[lordmonar]

Another uniform change,  ABU now,  what is next in 4 years,  511 ??   Bottom Line,   Uniform change has Vangards name all over it.   One thing going to ABUs,  OK, Fine,  but we now can not even use our name tags, rank,  badges,    CRAZY,   As volunteers,  can only afford so much,  There is NO REASON, why we can not use our current name tags , etc,  Save some money,    Wish I had a multi color sharpie.      Crazy to get rid of all our tags, rank, etc.     Talk about insult to injury.   Someone is NOT thinking about the Volunteers wallet.  For sure.      Wear the blue BBDU,  until it rots off my body,   SMILE

...

If the name tapes, cutouts, and "CIVIL AIR PATROL" tapes cost more than $10 in total... I'd be quite surprised.

Don't be ruining a perfectly good rant with facts and logic.    It is what makes CAPTALK such a beloved source of information for our CAP leaders. 

It is also why almost no one ever admits that they are on the uniform committee. 

[Eclipse]

(And then we would have to find an alternative income stream for the funds.  I'm assuming you would not support a dues increase.)

I don't believe it has ever been stated that these returns go towards reducing member dues. If so, by how much per person, specifically?   On the occasions when any detail has been provided,
the funds were dispersed to a facility which benefits very few members and is controversial in its own right, and some of the funds were dispersed
for discretionary spending to individual wings.

CAP. on the mean, is a self-funded situation with activities that should be revenue neutral.  Members should not be put in the position of subsidizing things they aren't involved in through
a back-door tax at the vendor CAP presents as the single-source for uniforms.

As to the pricing question - that's why you have experienced people who make the agreements and decide if things are equitable. 
Member benevolence should never be squandered or assumed.  This does both.

I don't think the "allowed it to dry up and not pursue" comment is accurate or fair.

The problem is not a simple one.  Many members (it's hard to get hard data on this) don't live near enough to have access to MCSS even if there were no restrictions on base access.  This is a magic combination of geography and BRAC that will likely get worse before it gets better.  ORWG, for example, does not have a single active military installation in the state.

AAFES access for CAP members has very little to do with MCSS access on military bases.

Members for nearly two decades were able to place telephone orders to AAFES, this was never a smooth process,
and their were hoops to jump through, but it worked.

Then one day, with no explanation or even announcement, and only discovered by random members who were being turned away, they couldn't.

[NIN]

Yeah,  geez. Thanks BRAC & al Qaeda

I seriously doubt either of the above had much to do with CAP members being able to shop at AAFES, considering we did so for years at the height of several wars.

Member access to AAFES MCSS (locally) is somewhat limited by proximity to a base containing an MCSS carrying USAF uniforms (hence the term "BRAC") or base-specific security measures that limit CAP access to only those on an access list, or possibly not at all ("Thanks, al Qaeda!").  Pre-9/11, getting on base for a clothing sales run was only slightly more difficult than going to IKEA for many.

Unless you're referring to online ordering via AAFES, at which point I hope you're going to tell me you just took a job with the contractor that handles DEERS integration for AAFES and all our problems are solved.

My overarching point is that access to AAFES for CAP members isn't something that someone in Bldg 714 is just sitting on cuz they hate the membership. 

It is limited to a high degree by the aforementioned factors.

None of which are under CAP's direct control.

(And then I read Ned's last comment, which reminds me to read ALL the replies before replying. Durrrr)

[Eclipse]

Member access to AAFES MCSS (locally) is somewhat limited by proximity to a base containing an MCSS carrying USAF uniforms (hence the term "BRAC") or base-specific security measures that limit CAP access to only those on an access list, or possibly not at all ("Thanks, al Qaeda!").  Pre-9/11, getting on base for a clothing sales run was only slightly more difficult than going to IKEA for many.

Unless you're referring to online ordering via AAFES, at which point I hope you're going to tell me you just took a job with the contractor that handles DEERS integration for AAFES and all our problems are solved.

I'm not buying the BRAC / 911 part of this - the number of bases in my wing, nor the surrounding ones relevent, hasn't changed since well before this century or
the world got exciting.    BRAC was primarily a Clinton era thing, and my state lost a major USAF presence, but that had nothing to do with buying
uniforms from AAFES, and happened while the year started with "19".

Yes - I am literally talking about AAFES ordering, which could be worked out if there was command imperative, which there clearly isn't.
They competed directly with Vanguard, still do.  The math on this isn't hard to do.

"Hey, we're hearing Rosie won't take phone orders from CAP members anymore..."

"Meh, the VG guys aren't happy about that as it is, leave it be."

Done.

I get it, these are complicated problems that require effort and creativity to fix.  That's why some members get
stars and eagles on their shoulders.

With retention in the tank, questions of mission and purpose on the table, and regs and curriculum a hot mess,
the focus when you get CSAF attention is ABUs and NCOs.  So be it, but don't be surprised when members, especially
FNGs ask legitimate questions about the focus of effort.

And as long as we're here...

"2.As a result of negotiations with the Army & Air Force Exchange Services (AAFES), CAP
has also been approved to receive a significant number of excess ABUs. This will allow
many CAP members to receive the basic ABU shirt and pants at no cost. We are currently
working with AAFES to take possession of the excess uniforms and each Wing is establishing
a distribution plan. We expect these uniforms to be available to members in the field this
summer."

So apparently CAP is capable of negotiating with AAFES, just not fixing the issue, but here's something that
is more concerning, the use of the term "members" twice.

I read that as to include not only cadets, but senior members as well, and based on sizes, probably primarily.

So Joe Donuts has to go out and buy a new set of CFUs, but Jimmy Veg gets a free uniform?
Tack that onto the "issues' list regarding retention, spirit and initiative.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Starfleet, Airborne-

The combined tapes and badges will cost more than $10 with taxes and postage included.

However I doubt very much the color change was a sinister Vanguard plot to take all our money. 

If the uniform committee suggested it, it must have been for a reason.

[ProdigalJim]

The usual example we discuss here is something like a Master Character Development Instructor badge (SKU: CAP0763B - $9.50) which is a fairly complex insignia that has to be cast and have multiple colors of enamel applied. ...  Larger margins on high-volume things like CAP tapes and wing patches literally underwrites the expense of the "low-density" insignia like WWII service ribbons, Falcon Awards, and Master CDI badges.

I don't doubt that for a minute. But I think that locks us into a situation in which we can't demand performance and quality (see below).

The other problem with allowing anyone to produce our insignia, is that it would inevitably become a "race to the bottom" in terms of quality as price conscious parents and young cadets would tend to purchase the cheapest possible insignia without an appreciation of minimum standards of quality for things worn on a uniform.  Moms and Dads just wouldn't know any better, and it is the cadet who would have to "pay."

With respect, Ned, we members "pay" now via poor-quality items which we *must* buy and wear without any alternative.

Without disputing the overall benefit of the agreement as you've described it, this particular point above rankles me: Vanguard may well have "an appreciation of minimum standards of quality," but certainly does not evince that appreciation in the items it produces for us. I have pictures (which I have posted on CT previously) showing three sets of Captain's shoulder marks, each purchased within months of each other and each with markedly different lengths, widths, geometry, thread color, weight and weave. I have also posted pictures of leather name tags for flying clothing that were cartoonishly bad, with over- or under-sized wings and images or even distorted lines. Commander's Insignia for BDUs generally look like knots left behind by a sewing-machine accident; cloth-patch Observer wings are often indistinguishable from MP wings. My ground team badge wreath looks like an earthworm wrapped around the tri-prop. Details in relief on metal insignia are often indistinct, and backing pins arrive bent or off-center, making alignment on your shirt difficult.

A call to customer service invariably produces a pleasant, polite and sincere effort to rectify the problem...but still often requires weeks (or in the case of my leather jacket patch, seven months) to supply a replacement product. In the case of the shoulder marks, the problem has simply never been resolved. I'm willing to chalk it up to a "bad batch" every once in awhile, but with this level of consistent poor quality something needs to change -- telling members that it's up to them to ask serially for replacements is not the right answer.

VG contract is up for renewal periodically, and we track things like customer experiences.  VG values our business and works hard to keep the members as happy as any retail business can.

For some time I have intended to send a memo through channels to the Uniform Committee with a cc to Ms. Parker asking for a thorough review of quality standards attached to the Vanguard agreement and for consideration of adding a requirement to the contract that items meet the equivalent USAF mil-spec for colors and workmanship. I think now is the right time.

According to the Institute of Heraldry, Vanguard is certified to produce to IOH standards for thread, weights, color, etc., which means they have demonstrated the capability to meet those standards. It's also clear that VG often does not apply that same standard of care in producing CAP items -- often enough that the stories have taken on an apocryphal quality. VG's USAF Captain's shoulder marks are $15 and ours are $9. Personally I'd pay the extra six bucks for shoulder marks that don't look home-made. Holding our sole-source vendor to a minimum standard of repeatable quality is something NHQ can and should do on behalf of the members, who really can't do this effectively on their own.

The agreement as you've outlined it has much to recommend it; but that doesn't preclude us from re-examining the terms and considering something better. The documentable atrocious quality of many items purchased by members, who, importantly, have no alternative, suggests it's time to seek improvements.

[JAFO78]

Gentlemen, Has anyone checked Vanguards web page lately?? They already are offering Senior Rank for the new ABU's. Basically they are using the same number and changing the last two letters. Example, CAP0467K (for BDU) is now CAP0467KC (for ABU) price is the same $1.10 a set.

As I had said to NIN a few days ago, I am sure Vanguard has been in the loop since our Big Brothers and Sisters in the AF approached CAP, and said CAP would you change to our uniform with the proper adjustments?. Vanguard has the equipment to do the embroidering on site.  we have some 70,000 members - those of us who don't meet H&W standards.

I don't want to risk showing up to my unit, SAREX, or Encampment and look out of touch by being a color off. i had asked NIN about using a non CAP vendor, his reply was the same as a well respected BIRD COL in CAP and former Wing Commander, (a friend, and mentor) 

Tread Lightly....

[USAFRiggerGuy]

Gentlemen, Has anyone checked Vanguards web page lately?? They already are offering Senior Rank for the new ABU's. Basically they are using the same number and changing the last two letters. Example, CAP0467K (for BDU) is now CAP0467KC (for ABU) price is the same $1.10 a set.

As I had said to NIN a few days ago, I am sure Vanguard has been in the loop since our Big Brothers and Sisters in the AF approached CAP, and said CAP would you change to our uniform with the proper adjustments?. Vanguard has the equipment to do the embroidering on site.  we have some 70,000 members - those of us who don't meet H&W standards.

I don't want to risk showing up to my unit, SAREX, or Encampment and look out of touch by being a color off. i had asked NIN about using a non CAP vendor, his reply was the same as a well respected BIRD COL in CAP and former Wing Commander, (a friend, and mentor) 

Tread Lightly....

I already bought some navy blue rank for my ABU!

[Eclipse]

We have some of 70,000 members

FTFY.

[arajca]

Gentlemen, Has anyone checked Vanguards web page lately?? They already are offering Senior Rank for the new ABU's. Basically they are using the same number and changing the last two letters. Example, CAP0467K (for BDU) is now CAP0467KC (for ABU) price is the same $1.10 a set.

Those are for the corporate flight uniform. Which has been around for several years, at least.

[PHall]

Gentlemen, Has anyone checked Vanguards web page lately?? They already are offering Senior Rank for the new ABU's. Basically they are using the same number and changing the last two letters. Example, CAP0467K (for BDU) is now CAP0467KC (for ABU) price is the same $1.10 a set.

Those are for the corporate flight uniform. Which has been around for several years, at least.

And they use WHITE thread and not the called for silver.

[USAFRiggerGuy]

Gentlemen, Has anyone checked Vanguards web page lately?? They already are offering Senior Rank for the new ABU's. Basically they are using the same number and changing the last two letters. Example, CAP0467K (for BDU) is now CAP0467KC (for ABU) price is the same $1.10 a set.

Those are for the corporate flight uniform. Which has been around for several years, at least.

And they use WHITE thread and not the called for silver.

They will work for 2LT or Major.... Anyways, I think we got off track on the original reason for this thread! Haha

[NIN]

I'm not buying the BRAC / 911 part of this - the number of bases in my wing, nor the surrounding ones relevent, hasn't changed since well before this century or the world got exciting.    BRAC was primarily a Clinton era thing, and my state lost a major USAF presence, but that had nothing to do with buying uniforms from AAFES, and happened while the year started with "19".

[I'll probably get a mod smackdown for this, but oh well. -NIN]

Bob, you're talking out of your food exit portal here.

Base Realignments (and other "turbulence" in installations and facilities as a result) isn't just a Clinton-era thing.  Realignments of installations, downsizing of AAFES facilities, etc are the fallout of several BRAC rounds  The last BRAC round was 2005 and even the 1995 BRAC cuts were still being implemented well into 2001 and beyond. Plus, other realignments not specifically directed by BRAC as it was made clear that things were redundant, etc.  But points for nice use of hyperbole there.

Spend 20 minutes on the AAFES website and you'll see that over the years they've consolidated the facilities and services so much that even an active duty military member can't get what they need at their local facility unless its "the big base." 

I can give you two examples, there are undoubtedly more at other locations around the country:

Local ANG Base (a little over an hour away from me)
The dinky little Exchange on the ANG base used to have  two full "aisles" of actual MCSS uniform stuff in one corner. We'd go there as part of encampment and just decimate their stock, so much to the point where I'd call the facility manager a month before encampment and give her the dates we'd be there so they could stock up on all the stuff cadets might buy.

In the mid-2000s or so, they reduced that MCSS footprint to about a 12 or 14 ft length of wall space with "common sizes" of service coats, trousers & utility uniforms (maybe 8-10 items in each category, male & female, etc). Turn around and there is a head-high corresponding set of shelves and peg racks of insignia and accessories, flight caps and shoes. 2 kinds of shoes, 2 kinds of boots, that sort of thing.  (the "wall-o-snivel gear" got bigger as I recall, go figure)

But never mind that: You can't gain access to the ANG part of the facility anyway if you're not on the local unit's base access list. So great, you go thru all the hassle to get added to the list, drive all the way over there, are given the stink-eye at the gate because there is nothing CAP going on that day that they know of, and then walk in to the Exchange to find that you now have a larger selection of uniform items & sizes at the local Goodwill.  "We can order that stuff for you and you can pick it up, if you want. We'll have it in just a day or so." 

And that was before I retired from CAP in 2009. Now? That ANG base has an AAFES Express and its my understanding that the available military clothing has been reduced to even less stuff.

Small AF Base (about 90 minutes from here in a neighboring state):
Forget getting on the base if you're not part of the local unit.  I'm still trying to crack that nut (and I'm actually much closer today than I was).  We used to take uniform trips down here as part of our unit's BCT program. We'd take CAP vehicles since POVs were always a pain to get on base. Apparently during the 4 years I was retired, "Things Changed" and getting on the base became even more impossible difficult.

The MCSS was a small stand-alone facility on the base.  Last time I was there, before we lost the ability to easily access the base, we literally rolled up in two 12-pax vans, and the only thing missing was "Moved, Left No Forwarding Address" on the door. After a brief search, the MCSS was located in a corner of the newly refurbished Exchange. So now the stink-eye came from the card-checker at the door of the Exchange, and after having to explain the "Civil What Patrol?" a couple times, we learned that the "New MCSS" had about 1/3  - 1/2 the selection at the previous MCSS  (it was like a super-sized version of the ANG "outpost" MCSS mentioned above).  "We can order that for you and you can come pick it up.."

So at least in my neck of the woods, physical access to MCSS facilities has been hampered by the downsizing of both bases and the AAFES/MCSS retail footprint as a result of facility realignment and AAFES internal changes. 

Heck, the Army post that wasn't quite as far as the Air Force Base has a nice MCSS, but too bad its all Army & Marine stuff (but even then, it went from being a sleepy Army fort to a sleepy "reserve enclave" on the former fort and then the enclave was redesignated as a fort with lots of new spending on security measures... Good luck getting on post there, too, but if you do, all you can do is order AF stuff)

Now, alongside all this (and likely driving a lot of it) is the rise of the Internet and the ability for far-flung service members to get their "boots and utes" online via AAFES.com instead of AAFES having to stock and man a little MCSS at Burpleson Air Force Base.  Thats just good business practices, unfortunately for us.

Yes - I am literally talking about AAFES ordering, which could be worked out if there was command imperative, which there clearly isn't. They competed directly with Vanguard, still do.  The math on this isn't hard to do.

"Hey, we're hearing Rosie won't take phone orders from CAP members anymore..."

"Meh, the VG guys aren't happy about that as it is, leave it be."

Done.

I get it, these are complicated problems that require effort and creativity to fix.  That's why some members get  stars and eagles on their shoulders.

Wait, wat?  Do you seriously expect us to believe that its a conspiracy to funnel sales to Vanguard? 

But hey, thats OK.  Its far easier to point at a vast underground conspiracy and accuse the leadership of sitting on their hands than it is to understand a business process issue at AAFES that we've been trying (unsuccessfully) to solve. For years.

Remember, the reason phone ordering got to be such a pain is that AAFES had to keep sort of a "separate list," since they manage eligibility to purchase for military members with the DoD DEERS system.  And we're not in DEERS.  So you had to call and get set up.

And I suspect that the number of phone orders that came in for CAP was so vanishingly small that AAFES basically couldn't build any sort of a business case around expending resources to enable a more streamlined process. And, while they were busy downsizing their phone bank in the face of the increase in online ordering (need less people answering phones) the whole "who CAP is, and how they get to order from AAFES" angle never really entered into the picture for the AAFES managers and directors making decisions.

I can almost hear the meeting: "OK, well, our phone order volume has dropped from 1000 calls a day to about 200. We anticipate it will drop further once the new AAFES.com online ordering system goes online.  So we'll be downsizing our call center operations from 25 operators to 5 and streamlining the system that gives them screen pops in the ordering system from DEERS to cut down the time-per-call.."

And nowhere in there did a voice say "But what about CAP orders?"  Again, because our phone orders were such a small percentage, and I bet there were like 1-2 people in the call center who even knew what CAP stood for.

So that capability was essentially lost to the ravages of time and downsizing (I'm sure you can still do it, but I suspect its still the gigantic pain it was beforehand..)

And the access to online ordering requires more than just "effort and creativity." You say that like "If someone actually cared, they could do it."  You don't think CAP and CAP-USAF haven't engaged AAFES on this in the past?   

And then, knowing how these kinds of meetings go, I bet the conversations that took place sounded approximately like this:

CAP: "So, once again, how do we get to online ordering for our membership?"
AAFES: "AAFES uses DEERS to determine eligibility in the online system."
CAP: "Right, we've been over this with your predecessors. We're not in DEERS.."
AAFES: "Well, guess you're not eligible."
CAP: "Isn't there something we can work out?"
AAFES: "Well, can you give us a list of your members?"
CAP: "Uhhhh, hmmm, well, we have to be a little careful about that cuz some of it is protected info, etc.  But sure, lets say we can do that. How about we shoot you a member listing every month?"
AAFES: "Every month? That sounds like a lot of work. We're already cutting positions and asking people to do more. How about once a year? How big is your membership?"
CAP: "About 55 or 60,000 people. Some of those are cadets, so its really their parents who would be ordering, not the cadet, using a credit card with a different name, and that sort of thing.  And we have people who join and quit all the time, so the list changes some on a monthly basis."
AAFES: "Monthly?  Are you crazy? How can we be expected to keep up with that?"
CAP: "Couldn't you just import it into your system? We'll send you a big Excel file or a CSV or something."
AAFES: "Thats going to require customization of our software to handle your membership. Like, an extensive customization. One thats not in our IT development budget for this fiscal year. And not the next one, either. This really isn't a priority for us. Come back in a year and maybe we'll talk. Or talk to the DoD about getting into DEERS."

Rinse and repeat.

CAP can push all it wants. CAP-USAF can push all it wants.  AAFES is its own organization.  Like CAP is.  If AAFES says "yeah, sorry, not a priority for us. If you can find the dollar signs to make it happen, we're all ears, but we have our own masters to answer to" you're still up a creek.

Do I think this should be fixed? Totally.   And I'm sure it eventually will be. There are a lot of moving parts and you have to get to the right people who have their hands on the right budget items at the right time to say all the right things.  Or maybe it a larger issue of integration into DEERS and DBIDS (*cough* Total Force!)

Should this rise to the level of, say, SECAF involvement? God, I hope not. The SECAF has way bigger fish to fry.  But I bet this gets brought up frequently to the Manpower & Reserve Affairs people, and in some ways with all the recent engagements with HQ AF, the Secretariat and all the Total Force-ish-ness, along with this move to ABUs and AAFES involvement in that, I suspect someone higher up is going to realize "Hey, wait a minute, you guys can't get your uniforms like Air National Guard & Reserve people can? Thats a problem. Lemme make some phone calls."   

To add another blush to this rose: I bet Vanguard can't sell legit milspec ABUs like AAFES can.

(Side Note: Some DEERS-enabled people I know, active/reserve and retired, have tried online ordering of AF ABUs with AAFES.  Ready for your next wrinkle?  If you're not Air Force, you can't order Air Force uniforms online thru AAFES. Some retirees can't order uniforms at all, some can order the uniform of their service but not ABUs.  Holy inconsistency, batman)

With retention in the tank, questions of mission and purpose on the table, and regs and curriculum a hot mess,  the focus when you get CSAF attention is ABUs and NCOs.  So be it, but don't be surprised when members, especially FNGs ask legitimate questions about the focus of effort.

Retention isn't exactly "in the tank," but keep telling yourself that if it helps you craft a compelling narrative to paint the organization in whatever light you prefer.  Don't let facts get in the way of your conspiracy theories and vague knowledge of what you *think* the leadership is or is not focused on.

Retention is getting better, and has been for awhile, and while its surely "not great" in some areas (*cough* First Term Cadets), you're not going to see double digit improvements because of access to MCSS online.  There are improvements being made on all fronts that affect this.  It takes time and (so far) there is no magic bullet item that we've identified that will make it 'all better'.

And as long as we're here...

"2.As a result of negotiations with the Army & Air Force Exchange Services (AAFES), CAP
has also been approved to receive a significant number of excess ABUs. This will allow
many CAP members to receive the basic ABU shirt and pants at no cost. We are currently
working with AAFES to take possession of the excess uniforms and each Wing is establishing
a distribution plan. We expect these uniforms to be available to members in the field this
summer."

So apparently CAP is capable of negotiating with AAFES, just not fixing the issue, but here's something that is more concerning, the use of the term "members" twice.

Working with AAFES to get excess ABUs (I'm honestly not briefed on how AAFES is involved, but it may be related to their proximity to a large source of excess ABUs and their nationwide logistics network) is not the same as being able to fix a larger structural issue with AAFES's online ordering process.  Don't conflate the two.

So Joe Donuts has to go out and buy a new set of CFUs, but Jimmy Veg gets a free uniform?Tack that onto the "issues' list regarding retention, spirit and initiative.

Sure. And S'Member Bufftone has to buy his own AF-style blues, while C/Amn Bagodounts gets a free voucher for them.

Whats your point?  Are you the Bernie Sanders of uniform re-distirbution schemes? The world isn't fair.  People have been responsible for their own uniforms, in varying degrees, for years.  Some units were really good at securing old BDUs from the ANG & ARNG over the years. Does that mean they didn't care about their CFU-clad members?

I think you're reading too much into the use of the word "members" here. But it may well get down to "Here, your unit has 100 members today. You get 150% of your membership in  ABU pants and shirts in varying sizes.  Do with these what you will, unit, but give cadets the first crack at them, and try to recover them when people leave, mmkay?" or "Your unit got 200 sets of used ABUs from your local ANG unit 2 years ago that you've been sitting on, so we're not going to send you any in this first round."

But we don't know yet, because, like you, we're still waiting to find out.  As your quoted paragraph also says "We are currently working with AAFES to take possession of the excess uniforms and each Wing is establishing a distribution plan." 

So the commander's intent in this area isn't clear yet.  There will likely be additional guidance. And every wing is a little different, so they may well be allowed to "adjust fire" based on their specific circumstances in their specific area. 

Not all of CAP looks exactly like the Greater Chicagoland Area, Bob.

[Spam]

(Great post, but as an aside, please point out that the panel joke is a fake, from an Embraer ERJ 145! Last thing we need is our more literal-minded, unquestioning members thinking that's a real panel)!

Cheers
Spam

[PHall]

(Great post, but as an aside, please point out that the panel joke is a fake, from an Embraer ERJ 145! Last thing we need is our more literal-minded, unquestioning members thinking that's a real panel)!

Cheers
Spam

But it is a "real" panel!!!!   It's on the internet!

[Eclipse]

Retention isn't exactly "in the tank," but keep telling yourself that if it helps you craft a compelling narrative to paint the organization in whatever light you prefer.  Don't let facts get in the way of your conspiracy theories and vague knowledge of what you *think* the leadership is or is not focused on.

A net loss as of today of at least 2000 members in less then one fiscal year - that is the very definition of "in the tank", especially in light of the fact that
that doesn't accommodate those who have self-selected to no longer, or have never participate(d), yet still inexplicably write a check, not to mention
the annual churn that you yourself have indicated may be as high as 41% for cadets.

The organization is at its lowest level of Senior members in the 16 years, and hasn't seen this few cadets since 2009.  Without senior members,
the cadets aren't coming back, because the seniors are the continuity of the organization that keeps the doors open for cadets who are by nature transient.

How that isn't the singular focus of everyone in a leadership position at every level continues to astound me.

[Spam]

(Great post, but as an aside, please point out that the panel joke is a fake, from an Embraer ERJ 145! Last thing we need is our more literal-minded, unquestioning members thinking that's a real panel)!

Cheers
Spam

But it is a "real" panel!!!!   It's on the internet!

And I'm a French Model. (There, I said it, its on the Internet, ergo its true).

[PHall]

And who are we to doubt the internet! 

[JeffDG]

VG also pays a licensing fee back to CAP that amounts to thousands of dollars yearly. 

Which is what give a lot of us heartburn.  If there is money to return, the prices could be lowered.

Amounts to a "stealth dues increase".

Members are required to pay more for items, and the money is funneled to NHQ.