I brought this here from another posting. The Gorilla Guide has everything you need to know about how to prepare and wear the Air Force Uniform. If you ever wondered what made the difference between a good and a bad uniform you'll find it in the guide. If you have ideas or suggestions on how to improve it, please let me know.
Chief,
I should like to publish sections of your work in my weekly Squadron Newsletter. I also wish to respect copyright law.
I would be honored to run a message from you in our newsletter prior to this feature. Please PM me with said message and your e-mail should you like to receive our newsletter.
Major Carrales
Looks pretty good Chief.
I have only two thing to say.
1. It needs to be updated...you have a section on how to prepare you blues shirt for sewing on patches...we don't sew patches to our blues shirts anymore.
2. You jump around on subject matter. Again in the blues shirt prep section...you mention about how to prep your BDU name tape and CAP tape.
Little things like that make it a little confusing.
Except for that it has all the tricks of the trade and what not.
I have only one concern about publishing this at your level. There is a big difference between going the full difference and being within regulations. I worry that there will be people out there that will expect newbies to be ready to meet the full on standards at the basic level.
While it is great we keep raising the bar...you have to remember that everyone has to take baby steps to get there.
Your right.
In previous editions I had to deal with the wing patch on the blue shirt. I thought all that had been edited out, but I missed some stuff.
Your right again.
Newbies may take awhile, but the answer for that is training, early, and complete. One of the most enjoyable things I've ever done was conducting uniform clinics for my cadets. Teaching them how to use an iron, or spit shinning shoes. My cadets look better than the USAF ever did, how I wish you could see them.
Your spell checker has let you down.
Correct spellings - shiny, shining
Take out the double n's
With respect to sideburns, you're way off the mark.
AFI 36-2903 says: they "will not extend below the lowest part of the exterior ear opening". There is no figure in the AFM, but the text accompanying the figure in the CAPM corresponds to the text above, so I will presume that the CAPM figure is correct.
NAVPERS 15665I says"Sideburns shall not extend below a point level with the middle of the ear, as indicated by line "A". There is an accompanying figure.
MCO P1020.34G says: "Sideburns will not extend below the top of the orifice of the ear, as indicated by the line A-A' in figures 1-1 and 1-2. Sideburns will not be styled to taper or flare. The length of an individual hair of the sideburn will not exceed 1/8 inch when fully extended."
USAR 670-1 say : "Sideburns will not extend below the lowest part of the exterior ear opening." There is no accompanying figure.
Even though you may dislike sideburns, I think it is improper to put incorrect information in a publication that unsuspecting readers will take as gospel.
Also, you state: "In the current Marine Corps uniform manual mustache hair cannot exceed 1/12th of an inch in length." This is incorrect. The correct figure is 1/2 inch.
While a potentially useful resource, I think it needs peer review by an unbiased individual. I see too many personal opinions added to some excellent factual information.
Good stuff, Chief... with a little tweaking such as described above, it'll be an outstanding guide.
I think its good for the newbies to get a good dose up front of it. If they see what is expected, then perhaps they will get it right. Its harder to correct the problems after they are in the habit. Always best to get them right from the starting gate.
I read something in the guide about replacing the web belt for BDUs with a leather belt. The manual only mentions the web belt.
Quote from: MIKE on January 16, 2007, 03:48:47 PM
I read something in the guide about replacing the web belt for BDUs with a leather belt. The manual only mentions the web belt.
The new edition of AFI 36-2903 now allows 'rigger's belts' to hold up BDU trousers instead of the standard web belt. And it's available in AF blue. CAPM 39-1 is way behind the times.
http://www.kellac.com/xcart/product.php?productid=16537&cat=278&page=1
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on January 16, 2007, 04:41:35 PM
Quote from: MIKE on January 16, 2007, 03:48:47 PM
I read something in the guide about replacing the web belt for BDUs with a leather belt. The manual only mentions the web belt.
The new edition of AFI 36-2903 now allows 'rigger's belts' to hold up BDU trousers instead of the standard web belt. And it's available in AF blue. CAPM 39-1 is way behind the times.
A leather belt isn't a rigger's belt.... And until they update CAPM 39-1 you can only wear said rigger's belt with the CAP Field Uniform.
USCG just authorized black rigger's belts with the ODU BTW. UDC was stocking them before the ALCOAST came out.
As for sideburns: we have semantical confusion here, a hairline that does not extend below the lowest part of the ear opening - isn't a "side burn" in the classic sense of facial hair! That was my intended reference. 39-1 allows sideburns to fall below that line. And it isn't a matter of wether or not I like "sideburns", that fact is they are not acceptable because of current customs of hair in the armed forces.
As for the leather BDU belt, same thing. The issue belt just didn't do the job, so airmen sought their own solutions. The leather belt was abandoned for the riggers belt, and that "custom" became so powerful that it had to be recognized in the AFI, and sold by AAFES. I need to revise that section of the Guide.
As I said in the Guide - the AFI is not the first, last, or only word on uniforms. You have all heard the phrase "Customs and Courtesies" Well, we are dealing in the nebulous world of customs, and they change over time.
Sorry about the typo on mustache hair length - I will correct the error in the next edition.
Chief, all I'm saying is you shouldn't print something that is suggesting something that is contrary to directives as written.
Adding insult to injury, I'm not convinced that my beloved Air Force's use of a BDU belt alternative is even necessary in CAP.
The issue or elastic variety is plenty sufficient for non-combatant seniors and cadets...with emphasis on the elastic version for those of us getting longer in the tooth! :D
I have never been on a mission where a CAP member stopped and said, "whew doggie - I sure wish I had a different belt on these BDUs. It'd make this mission happen more easy!"
Quote from: Chief Chiafos on January 16, 2007, 07:38:43 PMAs I said in the Guide - the AFI is not the first, last, or only word on uniforms.
I agree 100% - in fact, the AFI doesn't even apply!
Our uniform manual is CAPM 39-1.
The single biggest place where new members get themselves into trouble, especially those who are current or ex-military, is injecting their opinion about how things "should be" into conversations and guidance which imply a regulatory authority.
We'd be so much better off if we just worked the program, OUR program, instead of being constantly peppered with comments, anecdotes, and comparisons to the RealMilitary®.
For those of you concerned that my guide doesn't follow regulations, or that there is too much personal opinion, I remind you, this is a gorilla guide, not a regulation, use it or don't use it.
Remember, our uniform belongs to the Air Force, and the Air Force has the expectation that we will follow their 'customs' when we wear it - failure to do so is the single greatest cause of Air Force heartburn with CAP.
Quote from: Chief Chiafos on January 16, 2007, 07:38:43 PMAs I said in the Guide - the AFI is not the first, last, or only word on uniforms.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2007, 07:53:35 PMI agree 100% - in fact, the AFI doesn't even apply!
Really, sir? Then how did CAP adopt its rules regarding body piercings and such? For a very long time, the only guidance on this was from AFI 36-2903.
SIGH...
Guardrail, I really don't know, and don't care. My only concern with the Guide was to provide information that appears no where else, so that members of CAP could improve the appearance of their uniforms. If the Guide doesn't meet your expectations - publish your own.
Quote from: Chief Chiafos on January 16, 2007, 07:59:24 PM
For those of you concerned that my guide doesn't follow regulations, or that there is too much personal opinion, I remind you, this is a gorilla guide, not a regulation, use it or don't use it.
Yes, I understand Chief. But with great respect, if your guide does not follow regulations, it's teaching cadets and seniors to wear their uniform out of regulations (in those areas where the guide does not follow regulations). That's a bigger deal than the personal opinion stuff.
In those areas where your guide doesn't follow regulations, it is in effect doing one of 2 things: it's either making an incorrect citation from the uniform manual, or it's including something that is not found in the uniform manual (that contradicts it). Either way, it's teaching someone to wear the uniform incorrectly.
Good example is the Air Force Airman's Guide. The guide is like your gorilla guide - it is not a regulation, and people don't have to follow it. However, all the information that is found within the guide correctly cites the manuals referenced, and nothing is made up and reproduced as if it came from a manual. Same goes for the Officer's Guide.
Quote from: Chief Chiafos on January 16, 2007, 07:59:24 PMRemember, our uniform belongs to the Air Force, and the Air Force has the expectation that we will follow their 'customs' when we wear it - failure to do so is the single greatest cause of Air Force heartburn with CAP.
Great point, Chief. However, I don't know if poor uniform wear/care is the single greatest cause of Air Force heartburn with CAP. I think it has more to do with an unprofessional attitude, where mediocrity takes the place of excellence in all that is done. Nonetheless, I would argue that poor uniform wear/care is certainly within the realm of that kind of attitude.
Quote from: Chief Chiafos on January 16, 2007, 08:09:31 PM
SIGH...
Guardrail, I really don't know, and don't care. My only concern with the Guide was to provide information that appears no where else, so that members of CAP could improve the appearance of their uniforms. If the Guide doesn't meet your expectations - publish your own.
Chief Chiafos, all I can say is that my only expectation is that it doesn't contradict the uniform manual. That's all.
With great respect, never said anything about the manual in that post about the AFI 36-2903 and body piercings, Chief. I think the Gorilla Uniform Guide is great, just needs a little tweaking.
Quote from: Guardrail on January 16, 2007, 08:20:36 PM
Quote from: Chief Chiafos on January 16, 2007, 08:09:31 PM
SIGH...
Guardrail, I really don't know, and don't care. My only concern with the Guide was to provide information that appears no where else, so that members of CAP could improve the appearance of their uniforms. If the Guide doesn't meet your expectations - publish your own.
Chief Chiafos, all I can say is that my only expectation is that it doesn't contradict the uniform manual. That's all.
With great respect, never said anything about the manual in that post about the AFI 36-2903 and body piercings, Chief. I think the Gorilla Uniform Guide is great, just needs a little tweaking.
Okay Guardrail, take the initiative and collaborate with Chief and/or others to update the guide. Sounds like a good project!
Keep up the good work Chief!
;D
Quote from: sandman on January 16, 2007, 08:32:02 PM
Quote from: Guardrail on January 16, 2007, 08:20:36 PM
Quote from: Chief Chiafos on January 16, 2007, 08:09:31 PM
SIGH...
Guardrail, I really don't know, and don't care. My only concern with the Guide was to provide information that appears no where else, so that members of CAP could improve the appearance of their uniforms. If the Guide doesn't meet your expectations - publish your own.
Chief Chiafos, all I can say is that my only expectation is that it doesn't contradict the uniform manual. That's all.
With great respect, never said anything about the manual in that post about the AFI 36-2903 and body piercings, Chief. I think the Gorilla Uniform Guide is great, just needs a little tweaking.
Okay Guardrail, take the initiative and collaborate with Chief and/or others to update the guide. Sounds like a good project!
Keep up the good work Chief!
;D
Maybe Guardrail should first join CAP in some capacity before he starts writing uniform wear guidelines.
YMMV.
Sandman, thank you!
I really want to keep this positive. Is my opinion better than yours? No. Are regulations to be respected? Yes.
Here is the bottom line: I made the Guide available to you in the hopes you will use it to improve our uniforms. The guide is a template, use it as you will, if you don't like something - change it! That is why it is in MS Word, and not adobe. The key word here is guide. I want you to use the information however you think is best for you or your organization.
I know you have real trouble with the word custom. But custom has always driven the uniform instructions. In WWI GIs made their own division patches and sewed them on. The Army tried to stomp out the practice but couldn't, so it made it part of the regulation. Just as the rigger belt has been recently added. Where do you think military traditions come from? Some clown at headquarters with the power to write regulations (with the exception of General McPeak)? They are generated from the bottom up.
In the 1970s the Chief of Naval Operations (Zumwalt) tried to get rid of the navy jumper, bell bottomed pants, and pill hats. The enlisted corps went nuts, congress was going to hold hearings - Zumwalt got spanked and spanked good. As one Chief remarked, "This is our uniform, not Zumwalt's." Too bad the same could not be said for the Air Force when our uniform got "McPeaked".
Well, I'm not going to get into the arguement of what's regulation and isn't, I'll leave that discussion for those of you much more knowledgeable of CAPM 39-1 and the Air Force regs.
I am a "portly" senior, and choose to wear the blue trousers, white shirt, AF blue grade slides because I think it looks better on me, and I never liked the "non-uniform" appearance of the gray trousers. The Gorilla Guide gave me the information to make a 1000% improvement in the way my uniform looked and fit. I also wear the navy blue flight suit and blue BDU's because I will not wear an "Air Force Style" uniform until I can meet the regs, and even then I will probably not switch over.
One of my greatest discomforts is seeing someone wear either the CAP uniforms or Air Force style uniforms incorrectly, or even mixing them up.
Thanks Chief, I appreciate the effort, keep up the good work.
Chief, I just wanted to say thank you for all the hard work you put into your uniform guide. I apologize if I sounded disrespectful in my previous post; I was just trying to make the guide better, like msmjr2003, Capt Harris, and all the other folks who have responded to this topic with suggestions.
By the way... I used your uniform guide as a cadet, and it helped me a lot (esp. with shining shoes). :)
Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2007, 07:53:35 PM
Quote from: Chief Chiafos on January 16, 2007, 07:38:43 PMAs I said in the Guide - the AFI is not the first, last, or only word on uniforms.
I agree 100% - in fact, the AFI doesn't even apply!
Our uniform manual is CAPM 39-1.
The single biggest place where new members get themselves into trouble, especially those who are current or ex-military, is injecting their opinion about how things "should be" into conversations and guidance which imply a regulatory authority.
Yeah except they have a lot more experience with how it "should be" than you do. I understand your concern & certainly anything can be taken too far, but a career NCO speaking to the best way to prepare & wear common uniform items that they've worn for 20 years... put the high horse back in the closet.
39-1 is the uniform manual. It's very poorly written & leaves out many many critical details to know how to wear the uniform correctly. When you come to such a case, the AFI is a good secondary source to give context to what 39-1 meant to say. When the AFI also falls short, it is typical to rely on customs in the culture (what the people around you do, more experienced people tell you to do, and guides like this).
It's good stuff chief. I've been meaning to get some stuff done on our website with a new member resource area & this will be there with some other good stuff. Just hadn't gotten around to it yet.
Chief Chiafos, I have a perfect job for you and your new position! Re-write 39-1 and bring it more in step with the AFI. It is a piece of crap and has been since I joined over 15 years ago! I don't want to go off on rant but, could we get some better pictures this time? Maybe move away from photos and use illustrations as they do in the other services uniform regs. It makes things more clear. Just an idea!
Mike, That may be a good idea and it will get serious consideration. However, from my experiences here - I may need body armour to get it done :)
Quote from: Chief Chiafos on January 18, 2007, 01:48:49 AM
Mike, That may be a good idea and it will get serious consideration. However, from my experiences here - I may need body armour to get it done :)
Maybe add an up armored HUMMV to that. I know two of the principle players involved in the last rewrite of CAPM 39-1 and many of the folks pictured in the manual. They got right testy when folks started picking apart their manual.
However, they should have proofed their pictures. >:D
Quote from: Chief Chiafos on January 18, 2007, 01:48:49 AM
Mike, That may be a good idea and it will get serious consideration. However, from my experiences here - I may need body armour to get it done :)
Chief, there are some tank and APC hulks littering the ranges at Camp Dodge. I'll put a recovery detail together next WTA and we'll fashion something up for you. Do you prefer sleeves or a vest?
Chief, Good stuff :)f I would like to use your guide in a basic cadet leadership school. Can I send you an email?
Quote from: Chief Chiafos on January 18, 2007, 01:48:49 AM
Mike, That may be a good idea and it will get serious consideration. However, from my experiences here - I may need body armour to get it done :)
Not if you're fixing the document rather than changing all the uniform items. CAP has the distinct problem that we don't have that corrective culture around us & no quality standardized training at the front to get people up to speed. I'm of the opinion that the reg should go into extreme detail as if for martians that have nothing else to go on, and it should stay updated, I mean it's online, how hard is it.
I've been one of the big (and I mean BIG) proponents of change for CAPM 39-1 since about 1998 and would love nothing more than to see it follow every revision to AFI 36-2903 with appropriate changes for CAP-distinctive items. Unfortunately, I doubt to seeing that happen anytime soon, even though I've volunteered to write it.
Having considered all this, let us take into consideration for a moment that we are talking about a volunteer organization that isn't 100% concerned about following uniform regulations to the letter. I know -- I'm one of them. I've been wearing a rigger's belt in BDUs since about... oh... 2001. I do suspect that most CAP members take care of the parts of their uniform that are visible to anyone else and couldn't give a crap about the parts that are not. I'm just throwing numbers out here, but I would bet perhaps 30% of the members wear standard AAFES blue elastic/web belts with black tips. I also bet maybe 40% wear black socks with their boots. But really, when it all comes down to it... who cares? It's what's on the outside that counts (unless you want to cash in the integrity card) when you question a member about the uniform they're wearing. Is not wearing a blue belt or a pair of black socks going to intervene an insurance payout from CAP? God I hope not.
It's a question of practicality vs. uniformity (and I can't believe I'm admitting this as a member of the uniformed services)... but, in our defense, we're paid to wear our uniform properly. CAP members are expected to follow these standards with no compensation in return. So really, it does come down to practicality, doesn't it?
You know, as *taboo* as it probably is, I think McLarty hits the head of the nail with his hammer.
Now hear (er, "read") me out....
While there is some statistically relevant information that follows along the 'ole trite statement of "if I can't trust you to wear your uniform to the letter, then how can I trust you to maintain a multi-million dollar aircraft?" most of the educated sorts - if you put any credence into their experience and mastery of their years of study.... Well, most in the educated world(s) of academia agree that such a form of logic is a stretch at best.
Not the point. My point is....there really are some merits to presenting a professional image in CAP but, there has to be "balance in the Force." McLarty mentions the sock thing...and he's more right (in application) than most would like to admit.
Methinks that planes don't fall out of the sky because his belt is some blue rigger's dealy-o....and UDF missions don't fail because he wears pink socks (whoops, sorry guy...didn't mean to let that one slip.) :P
The whole "uber-attention to detail" has a historical significance to "The Greatest Generation" up through, and including, all of us. If tradition, however, is the real yardstick by which we measure our commitment to our clothes, then folks would be in for a VERY sore lesson from an American, historical perspective.... One word: Custer. Don't need to say much more than that.
Painting rocks and sweeping dirt pits, as well as measuring insignia to microns of inches, came about for a reason....and it wasn't because one guy wore his stripes on his arm and another wore them on his leg...
Simple mistakes should be fixed (i.e., nametapes on wrong pockets, missing stuff, wrong stuff) but some of the most anal mistakes (i.e., an insignia that is .00136" inch off of center) aren't worth the trouble a VOLUNTEER would have to invest in making the tiny correction.
The Air Force doesn't care about the CAP feller/gal that is .00136" inch off. Of course, I can't speak for the nearly 3/4 of a million airmen, but I can speak for those I know who've told me such things (and you meet hundreds of some WONDERFUL friends and acquaintances through 8 years of service.)
Okay, I reckon that I just opened myself up to flaming attacks...
Quote from: msmjr2003 on January 18, 2007, 02:22:28 PM
Okay, I reckon that I just opened myself up to flaming attacks...
Only if you're wearing those pink socks... :P
Quote from: shorning on January 18, 2007, 02:49:29 PM
Quote from: msmjr2003 on January 18, 2007, 02:22:28 PM
Okay, I reckon that I just opened myself up to flaming attacks...
Only if you're wearing those pink socks... :P
Oh,
thtop it with your playing (said while doing my best Freddie Mercury lisp that I can type.)
;D
A few comments...
Chief...Thanks for your efforts with all you have done. I'm suprised you posted this topic after the grief you were given over the NCO corps. You are a braver man than I Gunga Din. You've at least made an effort to help CAP and it's members, unlike some who have bagged on you on this blog and done nothing to help the members or organization. Talk is cheap.
To those that have bagged on the Chief......geez guys, give him a break. Instead of bagging, how about doing something useful. Again, talk is cheap.
msmjr 2003......flaming and pink socks !!! Are you from San Francisco???? Good 'Ol cereal land......flakes , fruits and nuts.
Quote from: Smokey on January 18, 2007, 03:57:15 PM
A few comments...
Chief...Thanks for your efforts with all you have done. I'm suprised you posted this topic after the grief you were given over the NCO corps. You are a braver man than I Gunga Din. You've at least made an effort to help CAP and it's members, unlike some who have bagged on you on this blog and done nothing to help the members or organization. Talk is cheap.
To those that have bagged on the Chief......geez guys, give him a break. Instead of bagging, how about doing something useful. Again, talk is cheap.
msmjr 2003......flaming and pink socks !!! Are you from San Francisco???? Good 'Ol cereal land......flakes , fruits and nuts.
Pink socks was a light-hearted reference, friend.
You're kidding, right? I mean...well....I think you're kidding. Folks like shorning roll their eyes (in all good fun, I hope) because they know where I'm from....and how I won't "let it go."
You won't have to dig real deep to find out my personal etiology... (
And yes, I'm temporarily living 45 mins from the city of fruits and nuts.....just waiting for my ticket to get punched so I can leave....)
As for the "bagging," I wasn't "bagging" on anybody; merely offering a general alternative thought in the general sense. I'm actually pretty good about either including quotes or names if I'm to "bag" somebody.
I promise you; I'm one of the most jovial pards around. Y'all take CAP way too seriously sometimes so, I try to bring in the balanced perspective. Yin and yang.
:)
Monty,
On the bagging...I wasn't referring to you.....it was a general reference to those who are quick to jump on the Chief everytime he makes a post.
But the pink socks comment....was....directed at you ;D
I say, that's a joke son.....that's a joke. I'd say it was poking fun, but that would probably be to politically incorrect to the flamers wearing pink socks.
Quote from: Smokey on January 18, 2007, 05:00:43 PM
Monty,
On the bagging...I wasn't referring to you.....it was a general reference to those who are quick to jump on the Chief everytime he makes a post.
But the pink socks comment....was....directed at you ;D
I say, that's a joke son.....that's a joke. I'd say it was poking fun, but that would probably be to politically incorrect to the flamers wearing pink socks.
Groovy. We're right as rain!
Quote from: Smokey on January 18, 2007, 05:00:43 PM
But the pink socks comment....was....directed at you ;D
I say, that's a joke son.....that's a joke. I'd say it was poking fun, but that would probably be to politically incorrect to the flamers wearing pink socks.
Since I am from CAWG...I just did a sock check :o ....whew...not pink but black ;D
Quote from: Chappie on January 18, 2007, 05:42:33 PM
Quote from: Smokey on January 18, 2007, 05:00:43 PM
But the pink socks comment....was....directed at you ;D
I say, that's a joke son.....that's a joke. I'd say it was poking fun, but that would probably be to politically incorrect to the flamers wearing pink socks.
Since I am from CAWG...I just did a sock check :o ....whew...not pink but black ;D
I thought you guys didn't wear socks unless it was formal. ;)
The guide seems useful to me. I would recommend putting all the uniform care and maintenance details into a revised 39-1. That is the sort of stuff that is passed down word-of-mouth in the military but CAP is so spread out over the country and has such a diverse membership that this method won't work for us. Putting the right way to care for nametags, etc. in the manual will guarantee that everyone at least has the proper info available to them. Having it in a separate guide like this guarantees that most won't see it since it will be easy to overlook. However, the manual is much more widespread, even if ignored sometimes.
Quote from: Smokey on January 18, 2007, 05:00:43 PM
On the bagging... it was a general reference to those who are quick to jump on the Chief everytime he makes a post.
I think those people fall in the category of "those who think they can write the uniform guide better but really can't and don't want to admit it."
I admit I couldn't have done a better job than Chief Chiafos, even if I tried. Great job, Chief!
Quote from: davedove on January 18, 2007, 05:52:22 PM
Quote from: Chappie on January 18, 2007, 05:42:33 PM
Quote from: Smokey on January 18, 2007, 05:00:43 PM
But the pink socks comment....was....directed at you ;D
I say, that's a joke son.....that's a joke. I'd say it was poking fun, but that would probably be to politically incorrect to the flamers wearing pink socks.
Since I am from CAWG...I just did a sock check :o ....whew...not pink but black ;D
I thought you guys didn't wear socks unless it was formal. ;)
Remember, no fashion faux paux (sp) here in CAP Land. Never wear your pink socks with your Birkenstocks!
Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2007, 07:53:35 PM
Quote from: Chief Chiafos on January 16, 2007, 07:38:43 PMAs I said in the Guide - the AFI is not the first, last, or only word on uniforms.
I agree 100% - in fact, the AFI doesn't even apply!
Our uniform manual is CAPM 39-1.
The single biggest place where new members get themselves into trouble, especially those who are current or ex-military, is injecting their opinion about how things "should be" into conversations and guidance which imply a regulatory authority.
We'd be so much better off if we just worked the program, OUR program, instead of being constantly peppered with comments, anecdotes, and comparisons to the RealMilitary®.
Maybe some of the "should be" stuff should be ditched. But while this organization wears a military uniform there will inevitable comparisons to the military, including the uniforms. Our program makes uses those comments, anecdotes and similarities to the military, they have value.
You don't like the uniforms? Go join one of those SAR units that only wears an orange T-shirt. I doubt you'll have any uniformity issues there. Nobody will care what color your socks are, and they won't bother you if you wear your "Jack Daniels" hat.
There are times when you would have to actually reference AFI 36-2903. 39-1 says Air Force Ocupational badges are authorized on CAP uniforms (the Air Force variants anyway). How are going to know which badges are legitimate? Gonna go on the word of your cousins brothers ex-wife who was in the Air Force that said the "Space Needle Tour" badge is authorized?
OK, maybe it's only one instance, no biggie right? I mean cadets don't have worry about anything either. We got our own Drill and Ceremonies manual down pat. Oh wait, no we don't, we use an
Air Force manual. AFMAN 26-2203, to be accurate.
Not looking like all Air Force guidance is worthless to us, is it? Ignoring the Air Force is just imprudent at it's best. I'll let you figure out the worst cases.
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 19, 2007, 02:21:17 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2007, 07:53:35 PM
Quote from: Chief Chiafos on January 16, 2007, 07:38:43 PMAs I said in the Guide - the AFI is not the first, last, or only word on uniforms.
I agree 100% - in fact, the AFI doesn't even apply!
Our uniform manual is CAPM 39-1.
The single biggest place where new members get themselves into trouble, especially those who are current or ex-military, is injecting their opinion about how things "should be" into conversations and guidance which imply a regulatory authority.
We'd be so much better off if we just worked the program, OUR program, instead of being constantly peppered with comments, anecdotes, and comparisons to the RealMilitary®.
Maybe some of the "should be" stuff should be ditched. But while this organization wears a military uniform there will inevitable comparisons to the military, including the uniforms. Our program makes uses those comments, anecdotes and similarities to the military, they have value.
You don't like the uniforms? Go join one of those SAR units that only wears an orange T-shirt. I doubt you'll have any uniformity issues there. Nobody will care what color your socks are, and they won't bother you if you wear your "Jack Daniels" hat.
There are times when you would have to actually reference AFI 36-2903. 39-1 says Air Force Ocupational badges are authorized on CAP uniforms (the Air Force variants anyway). How are going to know which badges are legitimate? Gonna go on the word of your cousins brothers ex-wife who was in the Air Force that said the "Space Needle Tour" badge is authorized?
OK, maybe it's only one instance, no biggie right? I mean cadets don't have worry about anything either. We got our own Drill and Ceremonies manual down pat. Oh wait, no we don't, we use an Air Force manual. AFMAN 26-2203, to be accurate.
Not looking like all Air Force guidance is worthless to us, is it? Ignoring the Air Force is just imprudent at it's best. I'll let you figure out the worst cases.
Nobody said anything about ignoring the AFI's, but they are not regulatory when there is a conflict (or even when there isn't). I advise members all the time to look to these types of documents when necessary.
its the "well, [darn] the regs, do it this way, because I said so, its a custom, etc.".
Whatever uniform you wear, should be work correctly, but we have enough issues with retention without making things harder again than
they already are.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 19, 2007, 02:41:28 AM
Noboday said anything about ignoring the AFI's, but they are not regulatory when there is a conflict (or even when there isn't).
OK, I need a little clarification on what you mean by "not regulatory".
Chief, excellent job! We should all show such initiative! When a final (updated) version is available, please let us know, I think most of us would like a copy.
And as for updating 39-1, if you're willing to do so as part of your duties and you get the OK, then I say have at it. If someone wants to get their panties in a bundle over it, well, who cares?! If they're so ignorant as to not recognize that serious updates are needed, then they certainly can't have any valid complaints against someone else doing the updates. Be open to feedback and you'll be golden!
Well done!
Quote from: A.Member on January 19, 2007, 02:53:33 AM
Chief, excellent job! We should all show such initiative! When a final (updated) version is available, please let us know, I think most of us would like a copy.
And as for updating 39-1, if you're willing to do so as part of your duties and you get the OK, then I say have at it. If someone wants to get their panties in a bundle over it, well, who cares?! If they're so ignorant as to not recognize that serious updates are needed, then they certainly can't have any valid complaints against someone else doing the updates. Be open to feedback and you'll be golden!
Well done!
I don't think 39-1 needs updating. I think it needs to be rewritten, from the bottom up. Too much is cut and pasted in there, it's a fiasco. Although I will acknowledge that the Chief seems to be the type of personality that is needed, or would be highly useful if he doesn't lead the project himself.
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 19, 2007, 02:46:03 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 19, 2007, 02:41:28 AM
Noboday said anything about ignoring the AFI's, but they are not regulatory when there is a conflict (or even when there isn't).
OK, I need a little clarification on what you mean by "not regulatory".
Meaning it may be a good guide, but we are not bound by it, for better or worse.
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 19, 2007, 02:57:27 AM
I don't think 39-1 needs updating. I think it needs to be rewritten, from the bottom up.
Good point. My fault. ;) :)
Quote from: Eclipse on January 19, 2007, 03:02:09 AMMeaning it may be a good guide, but we are not bound by it, for better or worse.
OK, I'll accept that we are not bound by
most AFI's. But completely discounting any guidance that those publications have can be considered foolish. Some posts seem to come across as "It's not our reg, so there's no need to even acknowledge it's existance."
I think that's a dangerous beginning. If you advocate that AFI's are invalid, when do you start advocating that CAP pubs are? I think one leads to another.
There is AF Policy Directive 10-27 that establishes policy concerning Civil Air Patrol. Then there are AFI's 10-2701, and 10-2702. They specify how Civil Air Patrol can be utilized, and what comprises the Board of Governors. They essentially establish a cornerstone for us.
By your reasoning, they are invalid (or at least that's the impression I get, others may not agree), because they have "Air Force" at the beginning of the title, and not "Civil Air Patrol".
A lot of people kind of have a childs viewpoint of "That's not my yard!" when it comes to Civil Air Patrol and the Air Force. Like it or not, we're a sandbox in the Air Forces' backyard. Which is really good reason to play nice, and show deference to Air Force policies.
Hawk....do you know what the AF in AFI and AFPD stand for.
Now I know you don't like to hear this...we are not the Air Force and there fore those instructions and Policy Directives are guidance TO THE AIR FORCE. Not to CAP. Now....some of this guidance does affect us directly in our relationship nut we are not legally bound by them.
No specifically the USAF Uniform AFI 36-2903 does not apply to us at all! Never has and never will....and that is because the USAF wants it that way!
Otherwise we would have been wearing Gortex years ago and we would all be getting ready to buy the new ABU's next year.
Now if you so love USAF regulations....I would like you to look at 21-116 and make sure that your squadron's computer meet USAF guidelines for security accreditation and access controls.
Do all your personnel have the CAC and have completed their computer security course work? Can you show me 100% completion?
No of course not...because your squadron's computers are not part of the USAF because you are not in the USAF.
You can't have a devotion to any USAF AFI (except the few that affect or mention CAP directly) unless you have a devotion to all of them.
QuoteBy your reasoning, they are invalid (or at least that's the impression I get, others may not agree), because they have "Air Force" at the beginning of the title, and not "Civil Air Patrol".
These regulate how the AF deals with us and don't regulate CAP directly.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2007, 04:26:19 AM
Hawk....do you know what the AF in AFI and AFPD stand for.
Now I know you don't like to hear this...we are not the Air Force and there fore those instructions and Policy Directives are guidance TO THE AIR FORCE. Not to CAP. Now....some of this guidance does affect us directly in our relationship nut we are not legally bound by them.
No specifically the USAF Uniform AFI 36-2903 does not apply to us at all! Never has and never will....and that is because the USAF wants it that way!
Otherwise we would have been wearing Gortex years ago and we would all be getting ready to buy the new ABU's next year.
Now if you so love USAF regulations....I would like you to look at 21-116 and make sure that your squadron's computer meet USAF guidelines for security accreditation and access controls.
Do all your personnel have the CAC and have completed their computer security course work? Can you show me 100% completion?
No of course not...because your squadron's computers are not part of the USAF because you are not in the USAF.
You can't have a devotion to any USAF AFI (except the few that affect or mention CAP directly) unless you have a devotion to all of them.
I disagree. CAP can choose which AFI's it will use. In fact, I am all for having the AF come in and specificly devote an air force instruction series to CAP. Let them write all of the regs like they should have been doing. CAP-USAF has the authority to do this last time I looked.
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 19, 2007, 05:22:40 AM
I disagree. CAP can choose which AFI's it will use. In fact, I am all for having the AF come in and specificly devote an air force instruction series to CAP. Let them write all of the regs like they should have been doing. CAP-USAF has the authority to do this last time I looked.
Yep, can, should, would...
...hasn't
Of course, based on the SOW, they could only write AFI's that apply to us when we are conducting USAF missions. The rest of the time, in the words of the immortal M.C. Hammer "Ya can't touch dis." :D
Quote from: RiverAux on January 19, 2007, 04:45:23 AM
QuoteBy your reasoning, they are invalid (or at least that's the impression I get, others may not agree), because they have "Air Force" at the beginning of the title, and not "Civil Air Patrol".
These regulate how the AF deals with us and don't regulate CAP directly.
This page: http://level2.cap.gov/visitors/member_services/publications/other_publications.cfm
You need to actually read those. Without those
Air Force pubs, CAP wouldn't exist. They lay out our function, requirements for CAP members, and establish the Board of Governors. AFI 10-2702 especially is important.
This idea that Air Force guidance is irrelevant is uninformed. And it's part of CAP's problems in general. They are still our parent service. We don't exist without them.
I do however feel that the Air Force seems to want oversight, but they seem to have a few issues with taking responsibilities for us. If they did take some responsibility, our integration might run smoother.
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 19, 2007, 05:22:40 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2007, 04:26:19 AM
Hawk....do you know what the AF in AFI and AFPD stand for.
Now I know you don't like to hear this...we are not the Air Force and there fore those instructions and Policy Directives are guidance TO THE AIR FORCE. Not to CAP. Now....some of this guidance does affect us directly in our relationship nut we are not legally bound by them.
No specifically the USAF Uniform AFI 36-2903 does not apply to us at all! Never has and never will....and that is because the USAF wants it that way!
Otherwise we would have been wearing Gortex years ago and we would all be getting ready to buy the new ABU's next year.
Now if you so love USAF regulations....I would like you to look at 21-116 and make sure that your squadron's computer meet USAF guidelines for security accreditation and access controls.
Do all your personnel have the CAC and have completed their computer security course work? Can you show me 100% completion?
No of course not...because your squadron's computers are not part of the USAF because you are not in the USAF.
You can't have a devotion to any USAF AFI (except the few that affect or mention CAP directly) unless you have a devotion to all of them.
I disagree. CAP can choose which AFI's it will use. In fact, I am all for having the AF come in and specificly devote an air force instruction series to CAP. Let them write all of the regs like they should have been doing. CAP-USAF has the authority to do this last time I looked.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks this. I think they need to buck up and start taking some more direct involvement. How many squadrons have you been to that had a Reserve officer assigned? The only ones I've been to were on Air Force installations. The ones that aren't don't have them.
I know there's probably someone thinking "If you want to be like the Air Force, then join them!". I'm not advocating that, and it's a childish jab. The only way CAP would ever be like the Air Force is if we went to basic training, got stationed at bases, and got paid for it. That's not going to happen, and I wouldn't be able to do that if it did. Besides, even though CAP is a job, it wouldn't be nearly as fulfilling if that occurred.
This anti-Air Force sentiment really needs to cease. It's not just the regs, it's the general attitiude that they don't have any control of us. It's wrong, and creating more rifts than it is improving us.
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 19, 2007, 06:35:06 PM
This anti-Air Force sentiment really needs to cease. It's not just the regs, it's the general attitiude that they don't have any control of us. It's wrong, and creating more rifts than it is improving us.
First, this is not anti-Air Force sentiment. Please.
We are a PRIVATE CORPORATION with specific rules of governance.
CAP-USAF has no direct authority over us. They have oversight and advisory roles regarding how some of our money is spent, and some limited authority during AFAM's. That's it. Congress made sure of that a few years back.
What's the 2-minute way to tell?
Because I guarantee you that if they actually HAD any real authority over CAP, much of what we discuss here would be moot.
I would welcome it, but its not there. That's not an anti-anything sentiment, that's a fact.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 19, 2007, 07:33:32 PMFirst, this is not anti-Air Force sentiment. Please.
We are a PRIVATE CORPORATION with specific rules of governance.
CAP-USAF has no direct authority over us. They have oversight and advisory roles regarding how some of our money is spent, and some limited authority during AFAM's. That's it. Congress made sure of that a few years back.
What's the 2-minute way to tell?
Because I guarantee you that if they actually HAD any real authority over CAP, much of what we discuss here would be moot.
I would welcome it, but its not there. That's not an anti-anything sentiment, that's a fact.
You may say there isn't any, but I don't buy it. There are a lot of people here that say things that amount to "The Air Force needs to keep its nose out of our business." They discount any guidance that might be gained from the Air Force and its publications. Your own post says they have no authority over us. Overall there are constant posts here about the Air Force being invalid when it comes to our operations. If you don't see that as anti-Air Force sentiment, what would it take for you to do so?
Civil Air Patrol is not in any way, shape or form a completely
independent entity. We cannot, and would not stand on our own. Instead of fighting Air Force control, and discounting them, maybe we need to be pursuing it. And that will include getting rid of the people that act independently on issues, and do end runs around the Air Force.
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 19, 2007, 08:04:08 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 19, 2007, 07:33:32 PMFirst, this is not anti-Air Force sentiment. Please.
We are a PRIVATE CORPORATION with specific rules of governance.
CAP-USAF has no direct authority over us. They have oversight and advisory roles regarding how some of our money is spent, and some limited authority during AFAM's. That's it. Congress made sure of that a few years back.
What's the 2-minute way to tell?
Because I guarantee you that if they actually HAD any real authority over CAP, much of what we discuss here would be moot.
I would welcome it, but its not there. That's not an anti-anything sentiment, that's a fact.
You may say there isn't any, but I don't buy it. There are a lot of people here that say things that amount to "The Air Force needs to keep its nose out of our business." They discount any guidance that might be gained from the Air Force and its publications. Your own post says they have no authority over us. Overall there are constant posts here about the Air Force being invalid when it comes to our operations. If you don't see that as anti-Air Force sentiment, what would it take for you to do so?
Civil Air Patrol is not in any way, shape or form a completely independent entity. We cannot, and would not stand on our own. Instead of fighting Air Force control, and discounting them, maybe we need to be pursuing it. And that will include getting rid of the people that act independently on issues, and do end runs around the Air Force.
I think you are confusing different issues.
AFI do not apply to us except in very limited circumstances....and that is the way congress, CAP and the USAF want it.
We are not saying it is a good thing or a bad thing....it is just a thing.
Whether or not we are completely independant and are moving closer or farther away from our relationship with the USAF is not the issue here.
It just means that the USAF uniform AFI is not our regulation. Should it, could it, would it does not play here. It is just the fact.
The Board of Governors is set up by federal law. The AFI just re-states what the federal law is and talks about how the AF chooses its reps.
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 19, 2007, 08:04:08 PM. Your own post says they have no authority over us. Overall there are constant posts here about the Air Force being invalid when it comes to our operations. If you don't see that as anti-Air Force sentiment, what would it take for you to do so?
Discussing whether a given document or agency has authority has nothing to do with that document or agency's value to us as a guide.
It is a statement regrding the law, nothing else.
There is a legal Grand Canyon between "should" and "will".
As someone in authority in a given organizization, you can't go around telling people how things WILL be done, and then cite documents which have no authority in that organization.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 19, 2007, 08:29:58 PM
The Board of Governors is set up by federal law. The AFI just re-states what the federal law is and talks about how the AF chooses its reps.
Yo have to be more specific, this has been a discussion of 36-2903. I don't recall anything about the BOG in with sideburn length.
Alsso, AFI's dictate how the USAF and other agencies will support and interact with us, not what we will do with them.
Because, of course, the USAF has no authority over a private corporation.
The uniform overisght comes form the fact that WE are wearing THEIR uniform. However they have no authority to require us to wear it at all.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2007, 08:09:37 PM
I think you are confusing different issues.
AFI do not apply to us except in very limited circumstances....and that is the way congress, CAP and the USAF want it. We are not saying it is a good thing or a bad thing....it is just a thing.
Whether or not we are completely independant and are moving closer or farther away from our relationship with the USAF is not the issue here.
It just means that the USAF uniform AFI is not our regulation. Should it, could it, would it does not play here. It is just the fact.
I'm not confusing issues here, you just don't know what I'm thinking. I'm well aware that
most AFI's don't apply to us and we aren't required to follow them. I'm surprised that you even had that impression.
I'm not looking for compliance with Air Force pubs, with the exception of the ones that do apply to us. But I'm a little disturbed by the mindset of complete segregation from the Air Force. It shows here on a regular basis.
If a manual is unclear, some of the related Air Force pubs can provide a great deal of insight. What I'm seeing is a refusal to consider that avenue, that if it says "Air Force" as part of the pub title then it is valueless. I think that is where the danger is.
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 19, 2007, 08:45:41 PMBut I'm a little disturbed by the mindset of complete segregation from the Air Force. It shows here on a regular basis.
No one said that, no one implied that, and this is going in a circle.
On second thought, forget it. There's a little too much twisting in here to get the point across. And it's pointless to argue something when there's a complete refusal to see a different viewpoint by twisting ideas.
QuoteIf a manual is unclear, some of the related Air Force pubs can provide a great deal of insight. What I'm seeing is a refusal to consider that avenue, that if it says "Air Force" as part of the pub title then it is valueless. I think that is where the danger is.[
In that situation the AF manual might help, but only if the AFI doesn't actual conflict with the CAPR (as it does in regards to the Pledge of Allegience -- discussed elsewhere). But if something isn't in the CAPR at all, that doesn't mean that a relevant AFI can be applied to the situation.
What surprises me is that someone would have the audacity to claim, on a public forum, that the Air Force has no jurisdiction over its own auxiliary, and do so without the veil of anonymity.
Hawk200 is right - it's not worth it trying to argue with someone who completely refuses to see a different viewpoint by twisting ideas. And although this discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere, at least he chooses to remain anonymous (and is open to different viewpoints!)
It's not that they have NO jurisdiction - it's that they have a rather limited jurisdiction.
Remember, by public law CAP is only their auxiliary part-time. They have jurisdiction over our operations when we do USAF stuff. But the rest is entirely up to CAP.
Now the argument as to whether this is the best way to be is a completely different one. But it is the truth.
Quote from: Guardrail on January 19, 2007, 08:58:07 PM
What surprises me is that someone would have the audacity to claim, on a public forum, that the Air Force has no jurisdiction over its own auxiliary, and do so without the veil of anonymity.
I suggest you discuss this with your Congressman. It was their idea, not mine.
Quote from: Guardrail on January 19, 2007, 08:58:07 PM...it's not worth it trying to argue with someone who completely refuses to see a different viewpoint by twisting ideas. And although this discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere, at least he chooses to remain anonymous (and is open to different viewpoints!)
...and yet you persist.
Quote from: Guardrail on January 19, 2007, 08:58:07 PM.And although this discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere, at least he chooses to remain anonymous (and is open to different viewpoints!)
So...we've reached the point where anonymity actually INCREASES credibility?
Quote from: Eclipse on January 19, 2007, 09:09:26 PM
Quote from: Guardrail on January 19, 2007, 08:58:07 PM
What surprises me is that someone would have the audacity to claim, on a public forum, that the Air Force has no jurisdiction over its own auxiliary, and do so without the veil of anonymity.
I suggest you discuss this with your Congressman. It was their idea, not mine.
Quote from: Guardrail on January 19, 2007, 08:58:07 PM...it's not worth it trying to argue with someone who completely refuses to see a different viewpoint by twisting ideas. And although this discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere, at least he chooses to remain anonymous (and is open to different viewpoints!)
...and yet you persist.
Quote from: Guardrail on January 19, 2007, 08:58:07 PM.And although this discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere, at least he chooses to remain anonymous (and is open to different viewpoints!)
So...we've reached the point where anonymity actually INCREASES credibility?
<a href="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fwww.smileycentral.com%252F%253Fpartner%253DZSzeb008%255FZNxdm824YYUS%2526i%253D1041%2526feat%253Dprof/page.html" target="_blank">(http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/1041.gif)
Quote from: Dragoon on January 19, 2007, 09:01:47 PM
Remember, by public law CAP is only their auxiliary part-time. They have jurisdiction over our operations when we do USAF stuff. But the rest is entirely up to CAP.
I'm not too interested in jumping into this conversation (besides, I haven't been following it that closely) but in the sole interest of accuracy, I just want to clarify what
Title 10 (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C909.txt) actually says about our role (my emphasis added):
Quote(a) Volunteer Civilian Auxiliary. - The Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government.
(b) Use by Air Force. - (1) The Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of the Civil Air Patrol to fulfill the noncombat programs and missions of the Department of the Air Force.
(2) The Civil Air Patrol shall be deemed to be an instrumentality of the United States with respect to any act or omission of the Civil Air Patrol, including any member of the Civil Air Patrol, in carrying out a mission assigned by the Secretary of the Air Force.
Quote from: Guardrail on January 19, 2007, 08:58:07 PM
What surprises me is that someone would have the audacity to claim, on a public forum, that the Air Force has no jurisdiction over its own auxiliary, and do so without the veil of anonymity.
Hawk200 is right - it's not worth it trying to argue with someone who completely refuses to see a different viewpoint by twisting ideas. And although this discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere, at least he chooses to remain anonymous (and is open to different viewpoints!)
The USAF has no authority over its own auxiliary.
My name is Patrick M. Harris, Capt, CAP and MSgt, USAF.
We are arguing legalities here. Hawk asserted that we should follow all the AFIs that we were required to follow the AFI's and that the USAF can dictate how we do business.
And that is simply not the case. They can dictate how we do business when on AF Assigned Missions, because they are paying for them. The can dictate how we conduct business on USAF installations. They can dictate how we request and use USAF assets.
But those AFIs and AFPD do not and cannot dictate how we do our corporate business.
That is all.
I agree.....that if we are lacking specific guidance in CAPRs about how to do business...going to the AFIs would be a good idea on finding out a way to do our business...but we are not obligated to doing so.
I think we should make sure that our policies and operating procedures match those of the USAF simply so that we are similar...improving our ability to work together. But as Eclipse said...there is a vast difference between should and will.
Since our primary mission is performing Air Force Missions, it would be in the best interest to always follow the guidance of the Air Force even if we are performing missions for other agencies and not the Air Force.
Why have TWO sets of operating procedures, one AF, one non-AF. If we dump the non-AF mentality, we can begin to align ourselves more closely with the organization that can turn us off tomorrow if they wished! Just think how quick the Secretary of the Air Force can say "The Civil Air Patrol is no longer the AF Auxiliary, we will no longer assign any AF mission, nor will we approve any mission requests from federal agencies through the AF to CAP".
It could all end tomorrow. It almost ended in 1980. Some of you "older members" may recall the AF contemplating dumping CAP, some of the NHQ folks even went as far as approaching the Army to see if they would be interested in picking CAP up.
We (all members) should get away from saying we are the Auxiliary only on AF assigned missions. I know what is written on paper, but I think it is that way because those same members began contesting our status when we truly were the Auxiliary. Train and conduct ourselves to the Air Force standard at all times as though we have to. In the end it makes the organization better. Quit using the "AUX ON, AUX OFF" excuse when it suits the situation.
I am Charles W.Cranford, Major CAP and Specialist Army National Guard...I
t should be stated that CAP-USAF has more control over us then people realize. Regardless of what pot of money an activity is coming through, usually your State Director has a hand in it somehow, and in turn CAP-USAF (your Region LO).
Think about it. Use of Federal and State military facilities. Training opportunities on both the regional and national levels. Our very own National Headquarters at Maxwell AFB. Lose CAP-USAF support and the folks at Maxwell will be off looking to lease space somewhere.
Logistics support, DRMO access, transfering of surplus equipment -- all on the logistics side, usually supported by a CAP-USAF person moving the paperwork along.
Honor Guard Academy, Hawk Mountain, IACE. All those good things we like to send our cadets on. Lose CAP-USAF, kiss them goodbye without the support of the Air Force folks.
Lose CAP-USAF and you lose those fighting for our Air Force appropriation funds. Are we willing to lose that?
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 20, 2007, 02:47:29 AM
We (all members) should get away from saying we are the Auxiliary only on AF assigned missions.
We can't. The USAF won't let us.
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 20, 2007, 02:47:29 AM
Quit using the "AUX ON, AUX OFF" excuse when it suits the situation.
I'll quit doing that when Congress, the USAF, and our National Commander quits doing it. Deal?
I am Robert P. Hartigan, Major, CAP and honorary Belgian Royal Air Force Air Commodore and an Attorney-in-Fact... may I ask the point of adding all the other hats we might wear to make a point about the Chief's Uniform Guide?
BTW I have a Spaatz award but the Commodore thing is much cooler!
Because someone couldn't believe we would discuss things like these under our real names.
See about three ticks up...
Oh in that case I want to be called Commodore from now on. The Air Force would never come after a Commodore.... :D
With respect...
Quote from: msmjr2003 on January 18, 2007, 02:22:28 PM
"if I can't trust you to wear your uniform to the letter,
Attention to detail, precision, work ethic/pride in work, professionalism...
Quote from: msmjr2003 on January 18, 2007, 02:22:28 PM
then how can I trust you to maintain a multi-million dollar aircraft?"
Attention to detail, precision, work ethic/pride in work, professionalism...
Why do we teach drill?
Attention to detail, precision, work ethic/pride in work, professionalism, teamwork, discipline...
Besides the technical expertise, what skills do you need on a mission?
Attention to detail, precision, work ethic/pride in work, professionalism, etc...
In the case of the drill, it is an instructional technique that lays the foundation upon which other things are built. Pretty much the most efficient technique in fact, not because it has it's roots in historically neccessary military skills, but because a few thousand years have perfected it better than alternative methods.
Quote from: msmjr2003 on January 18, 2007, 02:22:28 PM
My point is....there really are some merits to presenting a professional image in CAP but, there has to be "balance in the Force." McLarty mentions the sock thing...and he's more right (in application) than most would like to admit.
Methinks that planes don't fall out of the sky because his belt is some blue rigger's dealy-o....and UDF missions don't fail because he wears pink socks (whoops, sorry guy...didn't mean to let that one slip.)
True, but it presents an image contrary to public & internal (CAP & AF) expectations. We derive our credibility from our association with them, and the extent to which we reflect that (or not) in our appearance as judged by others. It goes further than appearance to be sure, but first impressions are not just hard to change, they are generally the yardstick by which you measure how far up or down that spectrum you can influence a perception.
Clearly they don't care if your badge is off a touch, assuming they notice. Honestly when you're around uniforms a lot & something is a touch off you tend to get a feeling something is just not right, but may not notice right away what that is. An AF person looking at a CAP uniform with unknown devices on it is going to get that impressions already, even if you did use a lazer to measure the distances. There's no getting past that, even less so in BDUs. The Corporate style uniforms defy association (and that derived credibility in my opinion, which is part of why I don't wear them anymore).
Your point though was balance... to be honest, I think if you took people in the military away from a military cleaners & seamstress, away from ready access to the devices they put on, & away from issued & AAFES delivered uniforms in favor of a lot of unservicable surplus to dig thru & make decide on.... I'm not sure over the long haul how well many of them would do day-in & day-out. I grant a degree of latitude to CAP members on that basis, more in practice than you'd think from how I talk about the subject normally, but I can't do anything about that stuff. I can influence people's attitudes & training on the subject & that's an area that's lacking. I don't think the expectation is to have CAP memebrs walking around looking like the honor guard, and I doubt we can do quite as well as the AF given the problems we have to overcome, but I think we can meet AF expectations fo what they think each other should look like, at least as minimally presentable - ie not an embarassment.
Quote from: DNall on January 20, 2007, 08:20:35 AM
With respect...
Quote from: msmjr2003 on January 18, 2007, 02:22:28 PM
"if I can't trust you to wear your uniform to the letter,
Attention to detail, precision, work ethic/pride in work, professionalism...
Quote from: msmjr2003 on January 18, 2007, 02:22:28 PM
then how can I trust you to maintain a multi-million dollar aircraft?"
Attention to detail, precision, work ethic/pride in work, professionalism...
Why do we teach drill?
Attention to detail, precision, work ethic/pride in work, professionalism, teamwork, discipline...
Yes but once out of technical school....the focus of attention to detail is on the work not the uniform. No one expects a maintenance grunt's or a CE pavement guys uniform to be be "above and beyond" the regulations. We as supervisors know that the attention to detail consistancy fallocy works both ways. You may have guy who micrometers his uniforms but still takes short cuts in the maintenance procedrures. Like wise someone who cares nothing about staying in regs with his uniform KNOWS HOW IMPORTANT his other job is and never takes short cuts.
So....we don't sweat the little stuff...because we are monitoring the important stuff.
Quote from: DNall on January 20, 2007, 08:20:35 AM
Besides the technical expertise, what skills do you need on a mission?
Attention to detail, precision, work ethic/pride in work, professionalism, etc...
In the case of the drill, it is an instructional technique that lays the foundation upon which other things are built. Pretty much the most efficient technique in fact, not because it has it's roots in historically neccessary military skills, but because a few thousand years have perfected it better than alternative methods.
And once you build the foundation you build other structures. The USAF does not do drill! Maybe we might form up for a change of command, or the once a month mass PT (we did at MIsawa)...but it was horrendous. My CAP Cadets were vastly better than the entire base as a whole. We do drill in ALS and NCOA...but 3 and 6 weeks out of a 14 year career shows you how much we don't focus on drill.
Quote from: DNall on January 20, 2007, 08:20:35 AM
True, but it presents an image contrary to public & internal (CAP & AF) expectations. We derive our credibility from our association with them, and the extent to which we reflect that (or not) in our appearance as judged by others. It goes further than appearance to be sure, but first impressions are not just hard to change, they are generally the yardstick by which you measure how far up or down that spectrum you can influence a perception.
You are right....but guess what....the public notices seven different uniforms and multiple compinations of the same more that the fact that one guy may have a rigger's belt and the rest have web (or elastic, or none at all).
If this is such an issue...we need to attack the larger problem than the minor details. They can be taken care of at unit level once we give our commanders a clear, unified and noncontadictory vision of what exactly our pubic and interal image is supposed to be. Because I don't know what it is.
Speaking of PT (above post) does the AF do PT at the local unit level? I am out side three times a week (a lot for an officer) leading Company PT (behind the formation). I never see any of the AF units on post doing PT. It seems that they all "do it" whenever and not organized. So question is....does the AF have an organized PT session at the local level? I mean, the AF has those new PT outfits, and that updated PT test, but I just don't see any action.
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 21, 2007, 04:51:27 AM
does the AF have an organized PT session at the local level?
Simple answer is, yes.
I appreciate the Chief's Uniform Guide- I've downloaded it and plan to distribute it to my Cadet Officers and NCOs, with instruction that it may be used as a "best-practices" reference. If a conflict with CAPM 39-1 is discovered, CAPM 39-1 rules.
The only problem I saw that has not been already mentioned in this thread is a statement in the "Commander's Section", 2nd paragraph of page 2:
Quote...Next, demand compliance from your Cadet Programs Officer, and all cadet officers and NCOs. When infractions are observed, use the chain of command to immediately confront and correct violations. When repeated correction fails, revoke the privilege of wearing the Air Force Uniform. Openly reprimand offenders and reward those who exceed the standards.
(Above emphasis mine): A foundational theme of the CAP Cadet NCO and Officer leadership training is to "praise in public, criticize in private." Thus, as attractive as it may be to dress-down a cadet in front of the whole squadron for a uniform discrepancy, that approach isn't tolerated in my squadron. The Cadet Officers and NCOs take care of those types of problems via chain of command and direct private mentoring. Demerits may also be issued, but again not in public. This perhaps is another area where our program differs from the real military.
Knight,
You are right about reprimands - however, uniform wear is the exception. It is important that everyone sees you will not hesitate to correct infractions - it sends a message. This does not mean that someone is dressed down, belittled, or embarrassed. HOW you do it is as important as doing it. Positive, non-personal comments during an open ranks inspection is the time and place: Cadet Jones your BDUs are badly wrinkled, what happened to them? Cadet Smith, your boots have dried mud on them, lets get them cleaned up and polished. Praise is also given: Cadet Ford, those low quarters are outstanding!
Publicly singling out an individual, outside of an open ranks inspection, for a uniform violation is bad leadership. Some things, such as poor personal hygiene, are best addressed privately. The application of common sense, and treating others as you would expect to be treated under the same circumstances is always appropriate.
Quote from: Chief Chiafos on January 25, 2007, 06:21:50 PMPublicly singling out an individual, outside of an open ranks inspection, for a uniform violation is bad leadership. Some things, such as poor personal hygiene, are best addressed privately. The application of common sense, and treating others as you would expect to be treated under the same circumstances is always appropriate.
I wholeheartedly agree, Chief.
Only thing is I think it would be better if the uniform guide said "Openly remprimand offenders (in an open ranks inspection only)." You're absolutely right about common sense Chief Chiafos, but not everyone has it.
Chief,
Now that you've clarified your definition of "reprimand", I don't think we have any disagreement whatsoever. Your "reprimand" is actually constructive criticism. We apply that frequently, both in and out of formation. I had a mental image of the "reprimand" being C/1st Sgt Carter screaming at C/Amn Gomer Pyle. ;D
Trust me, I dont think they yell at people inthe USAF anyway. ;D
Quote from: flyguy06 on January 26, 2007, 04:46:07 AM
Trust me, I dont think they yell at people inthe USAF anyway. ;D
But they still use 'wall-to-wall counseling! ;D
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on January 26, 2007, 12:45:01 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on January 26, 2007, 04:46:07 AM
Trust me, I dont think they yell at people inthe USAF anyway. ;D
But they still use 'wall-to-wall counseling! ;D
See: http://www.cadetstuff.org/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=Wall-to-Wall+Counseling . <a href="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fwww.smileycentral.com%252F%253Fpartner%253DZSzeb008%255FZNxdm824YYUS%2526i%253D29%252F29%255F1%255F9%2526feat%253Dprof/page.html" target="_blank">(http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/29/29_1_9.gif)
Quoting flyguy06:
Trust me, I dont think they yell at people inthe USAF anyway.
They sure as hell did when I was in basic training!!! :o
Jack
Quote from: ColonelJack on January 27, 2007, 12:28:36 AM
Quoting flyguy06:
Trust me, I dont think they yell at people inthe USAF anyway.
They sure as hell did when I was in basic training!!! :o
Jack
That was in the "olde farts'" Air Force. It isn't proper to yell are our young trainees any more. The same thing happened in the Navy. It might hurt their delicate sensibilities.
I went through USAF BMT in 1994 they yelled and screamed and turned purple from not breathing because they were yelling so much. I still wake up in a cold sweat because of my MTI's... SSgt Fears and SSgt Bruno. SSgt Fears scared the hell out of me. There was one psycho named SSgt Lamb that was just nuts! You think the Air Force does not play nice with CAP trying being in the only Air National Guard Airmen going through USAF BMT that is when learn the pecking order. This was when we wore aircrew patches on the BDU and nothing else. Those guys flipped out over the alignment of the patch.
Quote from: flyguy06 on January 26, 2007, 04:46:07 AM
Trust me, I dont think they yell at people inthe USAF anyway. ;D
Sure...thing....there.....
My TI would get us into the day room every couple of days and say..."We don't cuss at you!"....and we would all say "NO, Sir!"....and then he would say "F...ing A we don't.....We don't call you little scum bags names?" "NO Sir"...."We don't throw your mail at you?" "NO Sir!" "Right...Harris" mail sails 30 feet in a perfect arch from years of training and pings me right in the head!
Quote from: lordmonar on January 27, 2007, 06:58:46 AM
Quote from: flyguy06 on January 26, 2007, 04:46:07 AM
Trust me, I dont think they yell at people inthe USAF anyway. ;D
Sure...thing....there.....
My TI would get us into the day room every couple of days and say..."We don't cuss at you!"....and we would all say "NO, Sir!"....and then he would say "F...ing A we don't.....We don't call you little scum bags names?" "NO Sir"...."We don't throw your mail at you?" "NO Sir!" "Right...Harris" mail sails 30 feet in a perfect arch from years of training and pings me right in the head!
......memories......... ;D
Quote from: SarDragon on January 27, 2007, 01:06:01 AMThat was in the "olde farts'" Air Force. It isn't proper to yell are our young trainees any more. The same thing happened in the Navy. It might hurt their delicate sensibilities.
And like us old timers say... The Ooooooooooold Air Force was the BEST Air Force! ;D
My BMT was in '75, so I guess it really was old-corps USAF. SSgt Bong and SSgt Williams -- I will never forget those two men. (God knows I've tried.)
The yelling and screaming started the minute I got off the bus at the Lackland Receiving Station and didn't stop completely until graduation. I guess it did slack off toward the end of BMT, as we finally managed to figure out what they wanted and how to give it to them with the least possible problem, but it never really stopped.
Ask me some time about having to kiss Lackland 50 times because I loved it. ::) I understand that was a favorite of the TIs back then.
Jack
Quote from: lordmonar on January 27, 2007, 06:58:46 AM
Quote from: flyguy06 on January 26, 2007, 04:46:07 AM
Trust me, I dont think they yell at people inthe USAF anyway. ;D
Sure...thing....there.....
My TI would get us into the day room every couple of days and say..."We don't cuss at you!"....and we would all say "NO, Sir!"....and then he would say "F...ing A we don't.....We don't call you little scum bags names?" "NO Sir"...."We don't throw your mail at you?" "NO Sir!" "Right...Harris" mail sails 30 feet in a perfect arch from years of training and pings me right in the head!
Yeah, that's the way it was in my day too. The first night we were sitting in the dayroom (we had to sit and get up again three times before we seated ourselves quickly enough for him, but I digress...) our TI was going through the book of dorm rules. He flipped over a page and said, "Smoking is not allowed in the dorms." Then he took a big long drag on his cigarette, blew the smoke out, and said, "for you guys."
Oh yeah, and we got called every name in the book, and cussed at ("What the f--- are you looking at?" was literally the first thing I ever heard a TI say), and the mail was all delivered "on the wing." And almost everything was said at extremely loud volume.
Quote from: Chief Chiafos on January 25, 2007, 06:21:50 PM
Knight,
You are right about reprimands - however, uniform wear is the exception. It is important that everyone sees you will not hesitate to correct infractions - it sends a message. This does not mean that someone is dressed down, belittled, or embarrassed. HOW you do it is as important as doing it. Positive, non-personal comments during an open ranks inspection is the time and place: Cadet Jones your BDUs are badly wrinkled, what happened to them? Cadet Smith, your boots have dried mud on them, lets get them cleaned up and polished. Praise is also given: Cadet Ford, those low quarters are outstanding!
Publicly singling out an individual, outside of an open ranks inspection, for a uniform violation is bad leadership. Some things, such as poor personal hygiene, are best addressed privately. The application of common sense, and treating others as you would expect to be treated under the same circumstances is always appropriate.
Any time I was in charge, I set the ground rules with the cadets right from the start. I explained to them that I would be pointing out mistakes on their uniforms during formation/inspection and that it was done not to put them down, but rather to illustrate some of the common mistakes people make on their uniforms when first starting out. Better to do that than have to correct the same common mistake over and over again with each individual. It also got them into the habit of looking at each other's uniforms, and seeing that improving as a group was as important as improving as individuals.
I made it clear that being pointed out as a "bad example" was not cause to feel belittled or picked on, and being pointed out as a "good example" was not grounds for getting a big head. It worked pretty well to do this. The hardest part is making sure that new members who join later on know about and understand the ground rules.
Since there is a wide difference of opinions regarding the appropriateness of dressing down cadets for uniform violations in public, I'll reinforce my original point. In my squadron we follow Leadership 2000 second edition pretty much to the letter. This is THE leadership text for the CAP cadet program, and it contains the principles that I (as a cadet programs officer) am responsible for implementing. There are questions on the cadet leadership tests that specifically address how and when discipline is to be applied in the cadet program. Most cadets learn best by 'doing'. If our actions and instructions are inconsistent with the leadership guide, most cadets will invariably miss those test questions. This is a recurring problem in some squadrons that I interface with. The seniors have not educated themselves on the current program. They're insist on operating in the "WIWAC" or "when I was in the real military" mode.
The following is a direct quote from Leadership 2000 2nd ed. volume 1, page 23 (emphasis mine):
QuoteCorrecting people is just as important as teaching them to maintain military courtesy. On the spot correction is most effective, but should be done in private if possible. Your leaders are responsible for supervising and correcting you, one of their followers. When they correct you, they should explain the meaning and importance of their corrective action. Many violations of military courtesy are unintentional and result from not being taught properly. The purpose of correction is to teach, not punish.
There are many similar statements throughout both volumes. As I wrote earlier, it's clearly a foundational theme of the program.
Now it is apparently the option of
everyone in CAP to redefine and morph the cadet program into whatever they wish it to be. And apparently NHQ has no real problem with that (as long as no one goes to jail). But I do ask that you at least have the courtesy to refrain from actively undermining those of us who are implementing the program as written because we've discovered it actually works! ;)
As usual, Phil, I have to agree with you and endorse your opinion completely. Following the program regulations is not a discretionary option, it is our law. If you think the program is wrong, get out of it. How many good cadets do we lose by some hot shot throwing around his/her weight and embarrassing them? I am always amazed at how few members seem to lack any familiarity with the cadet hazing reg's. I truthfully think we need to enforce our hazing reg's and perhaps weed out some of the military want-to-be's that are not in alignment with the program. JMHO.
Quote from: BlackKnight on January 28, 2007, 05:54:37 PM
Since there is a wide difference of opinions regarding the appropriateness of dressing down cadets for uniform violations in public, I'll reinforce my original point. In my squadron we follow Leadership 2000 second edition pretty much to the letter. This is THE leadership text for the CAP cadet program, and it contains the principles that I (as a cadet programs officer) am responsible for implementing. There are questions on the cadet leadership tests that specifically address how and when discipline is to be applied in the cadet program. Most cadets learn best by 'doing'. If our actions and instructions are inconsistent with the leadership guide, most cadets will invariably miss those test questions. This is a recurring problem in some squadrons that I interface with. The seniors have not educated themselves on the current program. They're insist on operating in the "WIWAC" or "when I was in the real military" mode.
The following is a direct quote from Leadership 2000 2nd ed. volume 1, page 23 (emphasis mine):
QuoteCorrecting people is just as important as teaching them to maintain military courtesy. On the spot correction is most effective, but should be done in private if possible. Your leaders are responsible for supervising and correcting you, one of their followers. When they correct you, they should explain the meaning and importance of their corrective action. Many violations of military courtesy are unintentional and result from not being taught properly. The purpose of correction is to teach, not punish.
There are many similar statements throughout both volumes. As a wrote earlier, it's clearly a foundational theme of the program.
Now it is apparently the option of everyone in CAP to redefine and morph the cadet program into whatever they wish it to be. And apparently NHQ has no real problem with that (as long as no one goes to jail). But I do ask that you at least have the courtesy to refrain from actively undermining those of us who are implementing the program as written because we've discovered it actually works! ;)
I think I would need to see the full context of the statement you quoted before I started adopting a practice of telling cadets to see me after the formation. It may not be possible or appropriate to do such a thing.
And to be honest, if you are correcting cadets in private, then you're probably setting up for a bit of trouble on your part. I know you may hate the comparision, but the new military version is "Praise in public, counsel in
semi-private." You can see the obvious advantages of having witnesses at all times. And yes, I know, it's that pesky "real military" that we just happen to be modeled after, but it's a very valid and practical concept. (Which can be considered somewhat unusual considering the source. ;D )