Beards?

[mikeylikey]

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!

[Hawk200]

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.

[RiverAux]

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.....

[Hawk200]

^^ 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?

[Hawk200]

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.)

[Dragoon]

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!   

[JohnKachenmeister]

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.

[dwb]

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.

[jimmydeanno]

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.

[Dragoon]

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)

[Eclipse]

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...

[Dragoon]

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? 

[Eclipse]

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.

[dwb]

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?

[SarDragon]

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.

[Pumbaa]

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!

[shorning]

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

[stillamarine]

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.

[Dragoon]

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.

[Dragoon]

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?