...and it's gone.

[UH60guy]

Sounds familiar. I was (briefly) on the periphery of the project to change the Army's PT uniform. Well before any decisions get made, let alone added into a draft manual, there were months of suggestions, trials, discussions, vetting, senior leader guidance, etc... none of which the Army as a whole was privvy to until a survey came out soliciting opinions on what we narrowed it down to. I've since come off the project, but as nothing new has come out in a change letter, I have to assume the back room dealing is still going on.

When the actual publication comes out for comment, they're looking on comments on the publication- not the uniform itself at that time, as the major decisions have already been made. I think there was a lot of misunderstanding with the draft 39-1 along those lines, as most comments were "we should do X," not like "para X.1 sentence two has a subject-verb disagreement." Again, I'm basing this off of the discussions I saw here (as I'm not privvy to the actual comments submitted), but that seemed to be the theme that carried the day.

[NIN]

As much as it pains an old -47 guy to say this, I think you and I are on the same page on this.

[VNY]

I read an article a couple weeks back when they announced the new USAF uniform changes (the one that included sock & shoe color for the PFU) and at the bottom of the article it listed all the changes that had been proposed to the AFUB and rejected.  It was interesting (darn it, I wish I could find that article now).

Look at virtually any meeting of the Coast Guard uniform board - probably 20 things come up, 18 of which are rejected and two are delayed pending a future meeting.  And I have seen submissions that go as far as suggesting the entire CG uniform be trashed and to go back to the Navy uniforms.  I think the most significant thing I have seen approved regarded lettering on the T-Shirt.

And thats the active duty board - there is no AUX equivalent of it.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I did not take part in the comments on the 39-1 revision, for two main reasons.

First off, once I read the posted draft, I knew that any suggestions about uniform changes would be an exercise in futility.  The 39-1 turned out almost exactly as I expected - a very conservative ("conservative" as in minimalist) revision that had very few surprises (for me) and basically was 99% status quo, just closing a few loopholes; i.e., clarifying the flight cap with the blue flight suit/utility uniform.

Second, with my convoluted mix of linguistics, there are others better qualified than me to suggest changes in line with standard American English.

[Storm Chaser]

I submitted several comments (all within scope) addressing omissions, inconsistencies and requesting clarification due to vague or unclear wording.

I didn't request changes to the existing uniform, as I considered those out of scope for the current draft. I also didn't comment on existing pictures, although I hope many are addressed on the second draft; I will comment then, if needed.

[NIN]

I think you guys are right in that much of this 39-1 (this time around) was consolidation of the myriad of ICLs, fixing of the "loopholes and contradictions" and simplifying (even though update to the format of the AF Instruction didn't precisely do that! LOL). 

[VNY]

I think you guys are right in that much of this 39-1 (this time around) was consolidation of the myriad of ICLs, fixing of the "loopholes and contradictions" and simplifying (even though update to the format of the AF Instruction didn't precisely do that! LOL).

This time around there was such a significant format change they didn't want major revisions to content.  Just the same they introduced two new items of corporate uniform, giving us now three different corporate jackets and a fleece while still not having a service coat.

And do they really think anybody is going to put on / take off the black fleece every time they walk through a door?

[Panache]

A couple are incomprehensible.  "Would prefer a bib be authorized for mess dress.  (CLOSED:  A bib, really?)"

Sweet.  They did get my comments!

[NIN]

A couple are incomprehensible.  "Would prefer a bib be authorized for mess dress.  (CLOSED:  A bib, really?)"

Sweet.  They did get my comments!

You're not the only one.

[Storm Chaser]

And do they really think anybody is going to put on / take off the black fleece every time they walk through a door?

This rule is straight from AFI 36-2903. I believe the intent is that if you're working/training indoors, you're not supposed to wear it. I doubt anyone is going to care much if you enter an office/classroom for a minute, then go back out. It's not an issue in the Air Force, so why should it be in CAP. Then again...

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

This time around there was such a significant format change they didn't want major revisions to content.  Just the same they introduced two new items of corporate uniform, giving us now three different corporate jackets and a fleece while still not having a service coat.

I think they are adamantly against having a service coat (or cap) for the corporate uniforms; I think it's the long-standing mindset of "it'll tick off the Air Force" without even ASKING them.

For each of the AF-style uniforms, there should be a corporate equivalent.  There is not, nor is there likely to be.

[Eclipse]

So, just got an alert that the entire "Publications for Comment" section has been removed from National.     Not just updated, totally gone.
http://www.capmembers.com/forms_publications__regulations/

And the draft is gone from eServices as well.

So, now we wait.  Again.   

Actually, it's still there, just no open links to it:  https://www.capnhq.gov/Documents/CAPM_39-1_Draft_for_comments_(2013-12-31).pdf

[a2capt]

I'm still amazed that there's a link within that CMS that is -NOT- a jumbled mess of characters.

I swear, that's going to be an "Ask the National Commander" question..

Probably low hanging fruit, but the file names just look unprofessional and sloppy.

[Papabird]

Actually, it's still there, just no open links to it:  https://www.capnhq.gov/Documents/CAPM_39-1_Draft_for_comments_(2013-12-31).pdf

Shh...   

[a2capt]

Besides, many of the older revisions are still present on that server, too.

When you search via search engine for CAP regs, it's not uncommon at all to get the older one as the first offering.  Another reason why those file names should be consistent. So the only regulation offered from that site is -always- the current one.

Even if it's labeled "CAPR 39-1 12-DEC-2012" and it's now 2014, how do we know that is the current one?

Easy. You don't.

[Papabird]

Besides, many of the older revisions are still present on that server, too.

When you search via search engine for CAP regs, it's not uncommon at all to get the older one as the first offering.  Another reason why those file names should be consistent. So the only regulation offered from that site is -always- the current one.

Even if it's labeled "CAPR 39-1 12-DEC-2012" and it's now 2014, how do we know that is the current one?

Easy. You don't.

Yep, hard versioning is important.  And consistency would be wonderful.

So, (to answer your question), a person has to check everything against the authoritative source.  "The most up-to-date publications and
forms are on the National CAP website.", that is per the O-2.

That is the best answer, at this time.  Which means that you need the CAP Publication site any time there is a disagreement/reference/discussion.   Otherwise you may not be referencing the most current information.

[Panache]

Here's a question for those "in the know".

Just how set in stone is the "navy blue background for nametapes and grade insignia" for BBDUs?  Is that pretty much happening when the new 39-1 takes effect, or is that still up in the air?

I ask because I need a new set of BBDUs and on top of that, a promotion is in my immediate future.  If I can just save myself a little bit of time and money and order the grade insignia with the navy blue background for when the new 39-1 becomes official, that would be great.  I'll just wear my old shabby BBDUs until the new version kicks in.

[NIN]

Here's a question for those "in the know".

Just how set in stone is the "navy blue background for nametapes and grade insignia" for BBDUs?  Is that pretty much happening when the new 39-1 takes effect, or is that still up in the air?

I ask because I need a new set of BBDUs and on top of that, a promotion is in my immediate future.  If I can just save myself a little bit of time and money and order the grade insignia with the navy blue background for when the new 39-1 becomes official, that would be great.  I'll just wear my old shabby BBDUs until the new version kicks in.

A) There will be a decent phase in period (IIRC, it was > 2 years?)
B) That concept is there to tie into the same insignia across the board for BBDUs/ABUs. Who knows when the ABU part will *ever* happen.
C) I'd just setup your BBDUs under current standards and swapperoo when it makes sense.  I held off on BDUs until I just couldn't anymore.  I'm sure I'll pay for my impudence.

[NIN]

I heard that the 1200 comments were received and the action officer has about 95% of those "addressed" (ie. "Closed out")

600 involved grammatical or structure of the document comments.

[mdickinson]

I sure hope they will post draft #2, so that we could correct the grammatical errors and inconsistencies that were (doubtless) introduced while they were fixing the hundreds of omissions, grammar, and inconsistencies that were brought up in comments about draft #1.

Cause otherwise, it's gonna suck to be stuck with those errors for the next 18 years.