"Minority" majority

[RiverAux]

One of the themes that has popped up in another thread is that CAP members who either cannot or will not wear AF-style uniforms are second class members in some fashion and that those in AF-style are somehow keeping them down.  I really don't get how anyone can think this way. 

I think I can safely say that in my Wing, the majority of senior members do not wear AF-style uniforms.  Its not a strong majority, but at least 50-60% only wear corporate style uniforms, including most of the Wing leadership.  I'd take it even further and say that the majority of members wearing corporate uniforms are wearing civilian style (golf shirt) uniforms rather than any of the military style corporate uniforms.

In photos of CAP's national leaders and wing commanders from other states, it seems sort of obvious to me that most of them wear corporate uniforms as well. 

So, just who is keeping the "minority", which is most likely the majority, down? 

If anything, it is those that wear AF-style uniforms that should be worried that their choice is the one that is going to be taken away. 

[Short Field]

If anything, it is those that wear AF-style uniforms that should be worried that their choice is the one that is going to be taken away.

When you scrape away all the other rhetoric, I think that is you really have left in the discussions - a very real fear they are going to lose the ability to wear AF-style uniforms.  You will also hear some members vehemently state that if they can't wear  the AF-style uniform, they would quit CAP.   

[IceNine]

This is the same argument that society has on a regular basis.

The perceived "alpha male" is always a point of contention, because the "no longer a minority" is too ignorant of their situation to realize that NO ONE else cares, not even a little.

I have literally never heard any prior military speak poorly of non military types wearing "their" uniform unless they looked like a stuffed sausage doing it, or otherwise disgraced the meaning.

You will hear this same thing in every single controversial realm.  Politics, religion, race, creed, color, gender, pro-life, pro-choice, don't ask don't tell, same sex marriage, etc.

This may be a smaller instance but it is a reflection of civilization, not our garments.  I guarantee if we had to hunt for our food none of the above would even be topics of discussion.  Our advancement as a species accounts for our longer life span and our having too much time to consider irrelevant topics for discussion.  And all to fill the spare time.

[Eclipse]

So, just who is keeping the "minority", which is most likely the majority, down?

No one is keeping anyone "down", but there is clearly a difference in formal dress, and considering how important
paramilitary organizations view appearance, customs, and formality, to not see a difference is kidding yourself.

This discussion heated up when the CSU was disavowed without any real warning and in a year's time.  With two
years on the clock now, and with what appears to be some will and momentum to be reasonable regarding uniforms,
the situation of not having a military-style formal uniform is a non-issue today, and many of us are hopeful it will be rectified permanently.

But consider these photos:

You see no difference or issue here, especially in a paramilitary organization and considering the person in the blazer below is the highest ranking officer in the organization?


Who's the paramilitary commander in this photo?  Is that lady the cadet's mother or his commander? Hard to tell
from here.


Much easier to tell in this photo.

These are the specific situations my issue is with.  During missions and regular meetings and activities,
everybody pretty much dresses at least "similar", and there's little difference in the display of CAP badges
and bling, but during our most formal situations, ceremonies and activities which are the most likely to have family, parents, and outside dignitaries and members of the military, we reduce many of our members to a "civilian status", where everyone in the room wearing a blazer looks like a new member or a senator, regardless of achievement, grade or status.  Absent the CSU or "TBD", the blazer is the only way not to look like you forgot it was picture day during formal activities.

And before any of you start trotting out the "well, if all you're about is the bling, I have no sympathy for you..."
nonsense, those statements are neither true nor fair, and the same thing could be said for those in USAF-style
combinations with racks that continue over their shoulder.

Rank has its privileges, bling has its place, and no one should be less in a volunteer organization that asks as much of its members as CAP does.

[PHall]

You will also hear some members vehemently state that if they can't wear  the AF-style uniform, they would quit CAP.

To whom we say "Good by and good riddance." 

[Eclipse]

You will also hear some members vehemently state that if they can't wear  the AF-style uniform, they would quit CAP.

To whom we say "Good by and good riddance." 

I would not argue with that anymore than I'd argue with the reverse, but sadly many of those same people are the first to tell those
wearing distinctive combos that its "no big deal".

[flyguy06]

Is the blue polo shirt/grey sacks an official CAP uniform or is it a more recreational uniform?

[IceNine]

What does that even mean?

It's addressed in the official uniform publication from the organization, can't get more official than that.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Is the blue polo shirt/grey sacks an official CAP uniform or is it a more recreational uniform?

It is an official "CAP-distinctive" (whatever the heck that is supposed to mean anymore!) uniform.

There used to also be ultramarine and white polo shirts with the CAP crest screened-on, without the name/wings embroidery.

I remember asking a similar question after I first joined in 1993; could I wear one of those just to "hang out" in?  It was pointed out that since it is a uniform item, restrictions apply per 39-1.

I don't know when the above pictures were taken, but I would say that General Courter is perhaps trying to set an example of abiding by her own directives by no longer wearing the CSU and wearing the blazer/white shirt/grey slacks.

I can't speak for anyone else, but even though I personally dislike the uniform, I certainly do not, and never have, regarded anyone who wears the grey/white as a "second-class member."  My commander often wears that combination, and saves the AF blue for more formal occasions.

I can't necessarily say that if we lost the AF-type uniform that I'd leave, but I would strongly consider it if we lost that uniform with nothing to replace it except the current white/grey/polo combinations.

[Eclipse]

I don't know when the above pictures were taken, but I would say that General Courter is perhaps trying to set an example of abiding by her own directives by no longer wearing the CSU and wearing the blazer/white shirt/grey slacks.

Both photos predate this discussion by several years.  #1 is 2008, #2 is 2007.

[AirAux]

I think the current situation does a disservice to the senior members involved in a cadet or composite squadron that for whatever reason can't wear AF uniforms and have to wear CAP distinctive uniforms.  They don't even appear to belong to the units they are working with or in command of.. Here we have the young cadets and all we teach them about uniforms and customs and courtesies and then their chain of command ends in a gray/white or blazer combo.  Confusing and somewhat demeaning..  After all the squadron around the corner has the 24 year old trim and fit CO captain in AF style and we got the old fat major in the suit..  Yeah, that doesn't create a question of credibility to a 13 year old, now does it??  If the old fat major isn't good enough for the AF uniform why is he good enough for us (meaning the cadets)??  Most cadets aren't interested in the experience of the person, but with the appearance and the uniform makes a big difference..

[RogueLeader]

You will also hear some members vehemently state that if they can't wear  the AF-style uniform, they would quit CAP.

To whom we say "Good by and good riddance." 

To some, taking the AF style uniform is symbolically taking away the tradition and the visibile association to the AF.  That is telling the members that where we came from does not matter, or is not relevant anymore.  For some of us, those things are important,; important enough to make the stand in something that we believe in.

[Strick]

You will also hear some members vehemently state that if they can't wear  the AF-style uniform, they would quit CAP.

To whom we say "Good by and good riddance." 

To some, taking the AF style uniform is symbolically taking away the tradition and the visibile association to the AF.  That is telling the members that where we came from does not matter, or is not relevant anymore.  For some of us, those things are important,; important enough to make the stand in something that we believe in.


+1 :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[N Harmon]

You will also hear some members vehemently state that if they can't wear  the AF-style uniform, they would quit CAP.

To whom we say "Good by and good riddance." 

To some, taking the AF style uniform is symbolically taking away the tradition and the visibile association to the AF.  That is telling the members that where we came from does not matter, or is not relevant anymore.  For some of us, those things are important,; important enough to make the stand in something that we believe in.

I do not wear the AF style uniform because I do not meet height/weight standards, however I think those uniforms are important to our organization's history and place in our country. I would be quite taken aback if they were eliminated from our organization.

[lordmonar]

You will also hear some members vehemently state that if they can't wear  the AF-style uniform, they would quit CAP.

To whom we say "Good by and good riddance." 

To some, taking the AF style uniform is symbolically taking away the tradition and the visibile association to the AF.  That is telling the members that where we came from does not matter, or is not relevant anymore.  For some of us, those things are important,; important enough to make the stand in something that we believe in.

That is the attitude that makes those who must wear corporate uniforms feel like second class citezens.  The fat and fuzzies have no choice and no matter what their personal feelings are...the are forced into the alternate uniforms.  Those of us who meet AF standards have the choice to wear what we want.  We then spout about "loosing our traditions" when someone suggest that we all wear the altenate uniforms.

[lordmonar]

I do not wear the AF style uniform because I do not meet height/weight standards, however I think those uniforms are important to our organization's history and place in our country. I would be quite taken aback if they were eliminated from our organization.

We will never eliminate them for our organisation.....the cadets will still wear them.

Secondly traditions are well and good.....but IMHO organisational unity and organisational identity are more important then holding on to the organisation's history through uniforms.

I mean we can take this idea to the absurd extream and go back to the WWII USAAF uniforms with the red epaulets. 

[AirAux]

And you think the cadets don't think less of those not in AF uniforms??  After all if the AF doesn't respect them, why should anybody??  PIRIAH...  (I am sure I misspelled that, but you get the drift)..

[N Harmon]

We will never eliminate them for our organisation.....the cadets will still wear them.

Secondly traditions are well and good.....but IMHO organisational unity and organisational identity are more important then holding on to the organisation's history through uniforms.

I mean we can take this idea to the absurd extream and go back to the WWII USAAF uniforms with the red epaulets.

I see no problems with organizational unity and identify, except on captalk.net.     

[Ned]

Folks, as long as you collectively want to keep picking at this wound, let me suggest that whether cadets think more or less of seniors in AF-style vs corporate uniforms is probably not a very useful measure to help decide the issue.

Cadets are adolescents - essentially by definition they will have strong opinions about their senior members.  While we all hope that cadets form their impressions about their adult leaders and mentors based on careful study of their behaviors, relevent experience and education, and demonstrated performance in leadership roles, sadly young people often form lasting first impressions based on superfical details.  And the opinions of their peers are often more important than their direct observations.

IOW, we should not make uniform decisions based on popularity polls among teenagers.  That way lies madness.  We would all wind up dressing like Lady Gaga or the Jonas Brothers.

WIWAC, to my eternal shame, I had very strong opinions about my senior members.  (At the time, even larger seniors wore USAF-style uniforms.)  And many of my opinions were not based on a careful study of the senior member's performance.  I admit that I "judged some books by their covers."

It was wrong, of course, and there are some officers to whom I owe amends.

I guess my point is that whatever judgments I made, I did not make them based on the uniform that the senior wore, but the way the wore it and how they looked in general.  So, the "cadet impression" metric will not change whether we have one or two uniform types.

[AirAux]

Then, why are we so concerned with keeping the AF style uniform in the cadet program??  If it's not improtant, why not have our own uniform like the Boy Scouts??  If the cadet program revolves around the AF uniform then their leaders should be allowed to wear same.  If you think the cadet program will not survive without the AF uniform then you should be able to understand the point of this argument..

[lordmonar]

1) They are free (for the blues) and have a ready surpluss supply for the BDU (or ABUs when we switch  ).

2) The USAF has not problems with overweight kids in USAF uniforms (so long as they can't be mistake for "real" USAF persons).......so this is not issue.

As for organsational identity/unity.....there is a very clear distiction between a Cadet and a Senior member....with no negetive connations to be explained to outside customers.  "why is he in BDUs and you are wearing Blue?"  "He's a cadet and I'm an Senior Member."

[Eclipse]

I'd have no issue whatsoever for our cadets to be in one uniform (all of them), and our seniors in another (all of them).

That's not uncommon at all in organizations such as ours, and would make things a whole lot easier and "uniform".

Something that just struck me that I'd forgotten and no one else had mentioned - outerwear.  Those wearing USAF combos
are required to wear outerwear that displays their grade - those in the aviator whites don't even have the option.

Do anything outside in the Spring or Fall where people have actual weather and you might as well be the pizza guy for anyone
would know your affiliation.  So forget about ribbons, how about just basic "I'm with the band..."

[OldSalt]

This thread is more to the point and appreciated and photos say more than anyone of us can.  :clap:

The bottom line is really not one of how many uniform combinations we have, but that we are uniform - uniformity across all spectrums of what makes CAP, CAP.

CAP's history and Air Force military tradition are to be respected and (hopefully) admired. Whether we standarize on the AF-Style uniforms, or some other styles, uniformity and cohesion demand that we adopt one uniform for all members equally.

Rather than each stakeholder in CAP (Members and AF reps) trying to bully their own positions through endless committees, the chain of command needs to take hold of this issue and make some command decisions that put the overall health and well being of our organization at the forefront. Both the AF reps and the CAP members need to say to themselves before every issue is decided, "How does this improve CAP and CAP's ability to perform our 3 distinct missions?"

No more delegating down the chain - let the Board of Governors make some command decisions and say, "[darn] the torpedoes - full speed ahead!"     

[AirDX]

But consider these photos:

You see no difference or issue here, especially in a paramilitary organization and considering the person in the blazer below is the highest ranking officer in the organization?


Who's the paramilitary commander in this photo?  Is that lady the cadet's mother or his commander? Hard to tell
from here.

Well, who's holding the rank in THIS picture:

Is it the dude in that red hat? That's pretty cool.  How about the sharp-looking SFC holding the wreath?  Surely it can't be the dude dressed like the butler on the left!

Point is... it's not the uniform that makes a leader.

we reduce many of our members to a "civilian status",

We ARE civilians.  Some of this discussion loses sight of that.

[Майор Хаткевич]

We are a para-military organization in nature, structure, and dress.

The picture with the president is really a non-comparable example, nor addresses the issue.

Most people know who the president is. Most don't know who the commander of CAP is.

Looking at the picture of the National CC I'd think she may be a congresswoman at best, certainly NOT the commander of the whole organization. Besides, the picture of her in the CSU clearly shows that she has a good number of awards as a SM, which can further be inferred to show her position compared to say, the 20 year old (I think he was actually 21 when he got the award) cadet with 20+ ribbons, or the SM Colonel with only 8.

[PhoenixRisen]

We are a para-military organization in nature, structure, and dress.

The picture with the president is really a non-comparable example, nor addresses the issue.

Most people know who the president is. Most don't know who the commander of CAP is.

Looking at the picture of the National CC I'd think she may be a congresswoman at best, certainly NOT the commander of the whole organization. Besides, the picture of her in the CSU clearly shows that she has a good number of awards as a SM, which can further be inferred to show her position compared to say, the 20 year old (I think he was actually 21 when he got the award) cadet with 20+ ribbons, or the SM Colonel with only 8.

Also, regardless of whether or not people recognize their leaders, I'd also like to point out on that matter that these two situations / people are further uncomparable in that the President may be the leader of this country's military, be he is a civilian.  He has no designated uniform.  Our national commander, however, is a Major General (and in this case, a uniformed member) of the CAP.  We do have uniforms.

[arajca]

Also, regardless of whether or not people recognize their leaders, I'd also like to point out on that matter that these two situations / people are further uncomparable in that the President may be the leader of this country's military, be he is a civilian.  He has no designated uniform.  Our national commander, however, is a Major General (and in this case, a uniformed member) of the CAP.  We do have uniforms.

Two points:
1. All CAP members are civilians. Those who are military personnel do not get that status from CAP.
2. The POTUS is the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, but he is NOT a member of the Armed Forces.

[PhoenixRisen]

Also, regardless of whether or not people recognize their leaders, I'd also like to point out on that matter that these two situations / people are further uncomparable in that the President may be the leader of this country's military, be he is a civilian.  He has no designated uniform.  Our national commander, however, is a Major General (and in this case, a uniformed member) of the CAP.  We do have uniforms.

Two points:
1. All CAP members are civilians. Those who are military personnel do not get that status from CAP.
2. The POTUS is the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, but he is NOT a member of the Armed Forces.

Regarding your first point:  I'm in full agreement.  That was not my point.  I was simply echoing USAFaux2004's point that we are a uniformed, paramilitary organization.  As "dysfunctional" as it may be (including how our "rank" structure is), and regardless of how the two separate entities interact (CAP and the military), it's still there, so I threw out my opinion on the matter.  I am not debating whether or not we are "civilians" or "military".  We are the former, not the latter.

Your second point is exactly what I was getting at.  The difference between the President not being uniformed and our National Commander not being uniformed are two separate animals.  The POTUS is a civilian, leading a uniformed military.  He nas no uniform, period.

We (CAP) are a "uniformed" organization, and our National Commander is a rank-holding member of the organization (unlike certain CAP higher ups who aren't uniformed, period, like the Executive Director).  Given that we are an Air Force oriented organization, with the authorization to wear military-style uniforms, I think it is only appropriate that our National Commander go a bit farther than a blazer combo.

Then again, I'm one of those who think our ties to the Air Force play a big part in why I'm involved in CAP.  I enjoy the military aspect of the program.  If I wanted to volunteer in a group that didn't wear military uniforms or follow military protocol, I would not have joined CAP.

[JROB]

Hate to throw gas on the flames but if you notice in the above picture with the President the Tomb Guard SFC and the "dude in that red hat" are both in the Army and are wearing different uniforms for the same occasion.

[cap235629]

Hate to throw gas on the flames but if you notice in the above picture with the President the Tomb Guard SFC and the "dude in that red hat" are both in the Army and are wearing different uniforms for the same occasion.

The "dude in the red hat" is an Amy Band Member wearing a distinctive heraldic Army Band Uniform.  It has a specific purpose.  ONLY members of the Army band can wear it.  No different than an MP wearing his duty gear.

[npfd505]

I am a member of CAP who does not meet the weight requirements to wear the AF style uniform.  I understand the rules and regulations and honor our organization's choice to respect the USAF uniform worm by our men/women who have/are/will be defending our great nation.  As such I wear the CAP grey uniform and Blue BDU's.

I am very active in cadet programs.  I feel that we need to set the example in uniform wear for the cadets.  We should also set the physical fitness example too, yet I will concede that some folks cannot due to medical/physical conditions.  I personally do not like the grey uniform and proudly wore the "Pineda" uniform.  I felt it gave me a chance to wear a uniform similar to the cadets (wear of a cover, sharp appearance, & required use of military customs/courtesies).  I had to "act" the part just like they did.  (I will happily concede that the use of metal insignia, blue name plate and epaulets were in poor taste).  The grey uniform does look professional, but lacks standardization (any grey pants that meet the 39-1 will do).  The "Pineda" suit was more of a uniform.  I feel I have lost that "military" like option I enjoyed when working around cadets.  Will I quit CAP? Ummmm, NO!  That's stupid.  I did not join this organization to wear a uniform.  I enjoy the cadets, participating in ES and the friendship.  CAP is more than a uniform and rank!  I feel sorry for those folks who use CAP as a crutch for something that lacks in their lives and takes it too seriously (For another topic).

I honestly do feel singled out and in some cases discriminated upon (some CAP programs require the wear of AF style uniform or some staff jobs are withheld from those who "chose" not to wear the AF-Style uniform).  I believe the "singled out" feeling comes from all the attention people give to the issue and is almost internal.  People in Southern California are EXTREMELY image conscious.  We also, by the very nature of wearing an "alternate" uniform, look different when you are in a sea of cadets and seniors wearing the AF blues.  95% of participants at cadet activities wear the blue uniform in CAWG.  That also adds to the feelings I have.  And finally, there is a feeling I am less of a person because I cannot lose the weight despite all my efforts (my desire to lose weight goes FAR beyond the wear of any uniform...My children, health, and wife are the top reasons). 

I hope this gives some insight to those who often state "I don't understand why you feel that way"

[npfd505]

Dear Lordmonar,

I think you have an excellent point.  I would agree with the concept of cadets in one uniform and adults (seniors) in another.

[Ned]

(some CAP programs require the wear of AF style uniform or some staff jobs are withheld from those who "chose" not to wear the AF-Style uniform).

Really?  Except for the dozen or so chaplains that minister to the RM, I can't think of any other activities or programs that "require" the AF style uniform.  What am I forgetting?

And which staff jobs are witheld from members who wear corporates?  Heck, our national commander wears corporates.  More local to you, the former CAWG commander Virginia Nelson also wore cororates exclusively.

[OldSalt]

This has probably been stated a bunch of times, but I think that the bottom line is really the overall CAP Identity that is the problem. We are like a person with a split personality, on the one hand we are the Air Force Auxiliary - a fine all volunteer civilian addition to the AF team. As such, identifying with our parent organization by wearing the AF-Style uniforms during AFAMS seems very appropriate in this case and is very accepted by the overall membership, including our AF assigned stakeholders.

However, we also have the non-profit humanitarian service organization personality with missions that mirror other civil service entities like law enforcement, fire / rescue, paramedics, and other emergency services.

It's the acceptance of the latter personality that we are struggling with. Should we wear AF-Style uniforms for all of our missions, or should we only wear AF-Style when in AF Aux mode, and another suitable civil service uniform when in other than AF Aux mode?

In either mode, being uniform is key so that we are distinctly recognizeable to our customers, our parent organization, and the general public. Other paramilitary civil service entities all wear distinct uniforms and no one complains about their choice of attire. No one says to the Sheriff or local Police Chief that they shouldn't use military-style metal rank for themselves or their officers. No one tells the Fire Chief the same thing - for that matter, no one tells the Commander of the Salvation Army they shouldn't wear military-style metal rank or uniforms either, and you don't see members of the same police or fire forces all running around wearing different-but-equal uniforms either.

It seems to me, regardless of the negative connotations of the "TPU" and the original proposer - the adopted CSU was very well suited to this civil service role.

If we can all accept these uniforms and rank styles for other paramilitary agencies, why is it so difficult here in CAP to do the same thing? Why must it be AF-Style or nothing in some people's minds? On another note, why not lobby for Cadet Programs to be put under the AF Aux umbrella and mandate that active participation in Cadet programs requires AF-Style uniform compliance if wearing AF-Style is a key element of that program?

Let's sort out our identity then decide on uniforms that fit that identity across the board.

[vmstan]

Even the RM has taken on a "non-profit humanitarian service organization personality" in some of their recent missions. Take Haiti for example. Yet they still wear the same uniforms when doing those missions. Obviously when you're RM you're ALWAYS RM, and we have the Aux On/Off problem... but regardless of where the assigned mission came from (AF vs local) I think it's fair to always associate us as a member of the AF team... just as people would always associate the ANG with the AF, even when they're not off blowing up bunkers in Afghanistan. As such it seems reasonable for us to always be able to wear AF-style uniforms, if we can meet their requirements.

[MooneyMeyer]

Here's an idea.  Have one corporate uniform, the grey slacks / blue polo combo.

If those that do not meet weight and grooming requirements would like to show off their ribbons and rank insignia there is an easy, clear cut solution to that issue. And, perhaps CAP could offer members some help.

CAP could offer members a razor, access to hair clippers, and a good general diet and exercise plan. 

Problem solved.

[davedove]

Here's an idea.  Have one corporate uniform, the grey slacks / blue polo combo.

If those that do not meet weight and grooming requirements would like to show off their ribbons and rank insignia there is an easy, clear cut solution to that issue. And, perhaps CAP could offer members some help.

CAP could offer members a razor, access to hair clippers, and a good general diet and exercise plan. 

Problem solved.

It's this attitude that just doesn't get it.  CAP has decided that all are considered full members, EVEN THOSE WHO DON"T MEET THE H/W OR GROOMING STANDARDS.  It isn't about whether a person can shave or lose weight, because CAP says you don't have to do that to be a member.

However, even though these members are told they are full members, they are then told "Sorry, but you don't have a dress uniform where you can wear your accomplishments like the other members."

[RLM10_2_06]

I still don't understand the removal of the CSU in the first place. Yes, maybe the Air Force had a few problems wih finer details (metal rank, etc.), and everything about the process of its adoption was crap, but why not simply fine-tune the uniform and keep it? I know a double-breasted coat isn't cheap, and it's a fine formal uniform; a double-breasted coat doesn't stand out too terribly much among a bunch of single-breasted coats of the same color, from what I've seen, but still provides a noticeable difference to those who use their eyes (I'd say the same gos for the white shirt versus light blue, but that's stretching it a bit). Solves all this "heritage" and "equal treatment" crap.

[Eclipse]

Review the other related threads, though you really won't find anything definitive.  Most of the justifications look like conjecture or retroactive continuity.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I still don't understand the removal of the CSU in the first place...why not simply fine-tune the uniform and keep it?

In a word: politics.

Without being privy to the officialese behind all this, there are a few opinions (and that's all they are) I've thought of.

P****a.  It was his idea, and a good one, though very badly implemented.  To the CAP leadership, the CSU represents P****a and they (understandably) don't want anything that he did hanging over their/our heads.

Misinformation.  The AF today, especially young Airmen, know so little about us that they (wrongly) believe that any sort of attempt at a distinctive uniform that is anything but grey/white/polos is some sort of end run around their policies.  To me the whole "Coast Guard Admiral/foreign General/we don't know what they are" argument is a red herring at best, especially given the vagueness of the AF policies on CAP uniforms ("low light/at a distance/mistaken for the Armed Forces") and that they do not own every shade of blue in the book.  Some Airmen at various levels saw what they thought were "fat and fuzzies" wearing their uniform wrongly, grumbled about it and eventually got the ear of CAP-USAF.  Even an E-2 fresh out of tech school can have an effect with such complaints, especially if s/he has the "right" ears listening to them (first shirts, wing kings, etc).

CAP's own blundering for at least the past 20 years.  We have had "corporate leadership" that has tried to have it both ways: wanting to be (loosely) associated with the AF, but downplaying that connection (meaning: "we're a non-profit volunteer group, the AF can't tell us what to do!") and up-playing (OK, that's not a word) the "corporate" side to the point where our relationship with the AF has become very, very needlessly adversarial at times.

Add to that the fact that we did wear hard rank and blue epaulettes with "CAP" embroidered on them but lost them in the early '90s due to bad behaviour on our part (depending on who you ask).  I believe that another post addressed the AF offering to give us back blue CAP epaulettes and hard rank, but since it wasn't on "our" terms, the "corporate leadership" basically flew the AF the bird.

There is a small-but-vocal chunk of our membership who would like to see us ditch any sort of Air Force trappings altogether and just become an ES/SAR/DR organisation with airplanes.  No ranks, no "bling," no uniforms (other than the grey/white/polos/blazer); just fly ES/SAR/DR.  Cadets?  Let them join JROTC.  AE?  If it doesn't relate to a CAP airplane, it's not needed.

These are just my own summations based on things I have personally witnessed, read about and been told since I joined CAP in 1993.

I agree fully with you about retaining the CSU with General Courter's interim modifications.  I've worn it, and it looks good, much better than the atrocious (in my opinion) grey pants.  But I don't really see it happening.  I think CAP has been so snakebitten by this CSU episode that those at the top are really not inclined to press the issue, nor have a "CAP-distinctive" uniform that has any shade of blue in it.  Status quo.

YM (and opinion) MV.

[OldSalt]

In a word: politics.

I agree fully with you about retaining the CSU with General Courter's interim modifications.  I've worn it, and it looks good, much better than the atrocious (in my opinion) grey pants.

You hit it right on the head here. Politics. I think that a lot of members are still living in the past in terms of the overall corporate makeup of CAP. The "good ole' boy way" of doing business was done away with by Congress. Every member should make themselves familiar with the federal laws that keep CAP in existence, that being 10 USC, Chapter 909, and 36 USC, Chapter 403.

No one now can point the finger at either the AF or CAP for failure to effectively address any issue within CAP. According to Federal Law, both the AF and CAP have equal representation on the Board of Governors and the BOG is the sole governing body over CAP - period. The new uniform committee should be an organ of the BOG alone and the BOG should take the uniform committee's recommendations to heart and make some command decisions. No more passing the buck or the blame for past mistakes or offenses.

If an AF rep doesn't like the outcome, then they should resign or ask for a transfer, and the same goes for any CAP rep. It's time to open the doors and let some fresh air into the smoke-filled rooms of CAP debate.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

It's time to open the doors and let some fresh air into the smoke-filled rooms of CAP debate.

You're right, of course.

Please let me know when that happens.

[OldSalt]

You're right, of course.

Please let me know when that happens.

I think there is an opening on the Board of Governors right now for any CAP member at large who really wants to take their opinion to the top and provide the fresh air we're all looking for.    If interested see this link: http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/BOGpackageDec09EXFinal_300EF112A5C09.pdf

Of course, I would volunteer, but I think I'd be left on the ramp after my first meeting. 

[Ned]

If an AF rep doesn't like the outcome, then they should resign or ask for a transfer, and the same goes for any CAP rep. It's time to open the doors and let some fresh air into the smoke-filled rooms of CAP debate.

Non-concur.

The BoG cannot force the AF to approve or not approve CAP uniforms that require AF approval.  The BoG simply has no authority to change AFIs or affect the AF in any way.  Their sole authority is over CAP, Inc.  And in that arena they have complete control.

I suspect that the AF reps are detailed assignment by SecAF, which means that they cannot simply resign if things don't go their way. 

Finally, CAP really can't get much more public on their decision making than we currently are.  Meetings of the NB and NEC are web-cast, for Goodness sakes.   Any member has a right to attend the meetings, however both the NB and NEC take the position that they can meet briefly in executive session to discuss personnel matters and litigation.

Of course there are politics in CAP.  Because our senior leadership is elected, that seems inevitable.  There are politics in every other organzation on the planet involving two or more people.  "Politcs", per se, is not evil.  Indeed, that is how the public & private business of this country gets done.

But I agree that it is possible to have too much of a good thing, and clearly CAP has had its share of destructive, petty politics.

But if you can invent a way to reliably separate the Good Politics (discussion, pursuasion, compromise, personal leadership) from the Bad Politics (back-biting, strong-arming, gossip, and innuendo) please let us know so that we can elect you to public office.   

Ned Lee
(Elected Official)

[Chappie]

An overlooked item.  The USAF has revised it fitness program.  Check out:
http://www.446aw.afrc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123163354

If we are talking about a 39" (or less) waist required for all USAF personnel...wonder what CAP members are going to do when they can't buy USAF-style uniform pants???  Just thinking ahead...hmmm maybe Vanguard can make bigger sizes.

[Eclipse]

An overlooked item.  The USAF has revised it fitness program.  Check out:
http://www.446aw.afrc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123163354

If we are talking about a 39" (or less) waist required for all USAF personnel...wonder what CAP members are going to do when they can't buy USAF-style uniform pants???  Just thinking ahead...hmmm maybe Vanguard can make bigger sizes.

They already do for the CSU.

[davidsinn]

An overlooked item.  The USAF has revised it fitness program.  Check out:
http://www.446aw.afrc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123163354

If we are talking about a 39" (or less) waist required for all USAF personnel...wonder what CAP members are going to do when they can't buy USAF-style uniform pants???  Just thinking ahead...hmmm maybe Vanguard can make bigger sizes.

54" I have seen them with my own eyes.

They already do for the CSU.

[Chappie]

An overlooked item.  The USAF has revised it fitness program.  Check out:
http://www.446aw.afrc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123163354

If we are talking about a 39" (or less) waist required for all USAF personnel...wonder what CAP members are going to do when they can't buy USAF-style uniform pants???  Just thinking ahead...hmmm maybe Vanguard can make bigger sizes.

They already do for the CSU.

But are they the same shade of blue for the USAF-style jacket?  If not, they can carve out a market

[OldSalt]

Non-concur.

The BoG cannot force the AF to approve or not approve CAP uniforms that require AF approval.  The BoG simply has no authority to change AFIs or affect the AF in any way.  Their sole authority is over CAP, Inc.  And in that arena they have complete control.

Thanks Ned for your well reasoned post. I tend to get a bit passionate at times in my writing 

I agree 100% with what you are saying here; the only caveat being that I believe that if the AF members of the CAP BOG went back to the AF with a unanimous ruling from the BOG - I think the AF would have a very hard time shrugging it off without some very good explanation since they are responsible for half of the BOG votes.

We do need to remember that the federal laws also state that the AF has limited control over CAP - which I believe (and please correct me if I'm incorrect here) is specifically spelled out to mean only under the conditions when CAP is operating under AFAMS or where the AF has budgetary oversight.

If it hasn't come across yet in my posts, let me state clearly that in pointing all of this out, I am not in favor, nor am I attempting to pursue, separating us from the AF. My goal here is merely to cut through the "myth and legend" of CAPs governance structure in the hopes of promoting greater cooperation between the main stakeholders and to help us all to move forward constructively and let the past "mistakes or errors" go.

I believe Congress put the BOG in place and made the AF and CAP equal partners in the overall governance specifically in the hopes that we would all stop the negative fingerpointing and legislative hand-wringing.

My point in saying that people should resign or move on if they cannot work within this new CAP governance structure is again to point out that since the inception of the BOG, the old way of doing CAP business is done and we need leadership on the BOG that embraces this new culture of renewed and fresh cooperation.

[ColonelJack]

I think there is an opening on the Board of Governors right now for any CAP member at large who really wants to take their opinion to the top and provide the fresh air we're all looking for.    If interested see this link: http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/BOGpackageDec09EXFinal_300EF112A5C09.pdf

Of course, I would volunteer, but I think I'd be left on the ramp after my first meeting. 

When are they going to announce who's been chosen?  I submitted my paperwork for consideration...

Jack