Does the new Corporate Service Dress Uniform Violate the UCMJ and USC Codes?

Started by Guardrail, February 05, 2007, 06:39:26 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lordmonar

Quote from: DNall on February 05, 2007, 10:36:03 PMThe uniform still violates USC/UCMJ in a couple ways. Objectively, according to the UCMJ, enlisted service members cannot wear the AF officer slides in any form regardless of the shirt color. It also states that Military uniform items may not be worn in combination w/ civilian apparel. Subjectivly, by USC & for civilians, if it can be confused with a military officer than you are impersonating an officer & that's a crime. Hence there's silver sleeve braid. Still a lot of people are not real happy with it in these terms.

Well this is definately a very gray area depending on how you interpret the meaning of those particular laws and regulations.

The reg that says not to wear military items on civilian clothing did NOT mean on CAP uniforms...because they were not even thinking about it.....I'm sure they would have made a written execption if it were going to be a problem.  And you got to remember....back in the 80's before the maroon-toons the CAP uniform was much closer to AD USAF officer uniforms.  If it was not a problem back then it is not a problem now.

No...concerns about the UCMJ is not why the USAF balked at the TPU....it was the worry that some USAF personnel would mistakenly think the CAP officer was a USAF officer and loan out a bunch of rifles or computers or other improper stuff.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

DNall

QuoteUCMJ § 934, Article 134. General article. Includes offenses that are not specifically listed in the Manual for Courts-Martial and which may "cause disorder and neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, or conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces." Article 134 is often considered to be a "catch-all" for various offenses that aren't necessarily covered by the other articles in the UCMJ. Article 134 offenses include disloyal statements, unclean equipment, improper wear of military uniform, abuse of public animals, adultery, bigamy, bribery, fraternization, et al.
Unauthorized wear of any military insignia item not awarded to that individual by competent military authority, be that while in uniform or not, is specifically deemed to be a violation. This has never been an issue with CAP before because we don't wear any military badge not awarded by competent authority (the "US" cutouts being authorized). The AF slides are however a military uniform item not specifically authroized for wear. Because they don't go on the AF-style uniform the AF wasn't consulted in adding them, but it is a violation for military personnel. At least that's the interpretation I've gotten & I sure wouldn't press my luck to find out.

The hope of course is that they'll embroider CAP onto those slides & be done with it, or stick tot he gray slides.

Guardrail

QuoteUCMJ § 934, Article 134. General article. Includes offenses that are not specifically listed in the Manual for Courts-Martial and which may "cause disorder and neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, or conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces." Article 134 is often considered to be a "catch-all" for various offenses that aren't necessarily covered by the other articles in the UCMJ. Article 134 offenses include disloyal statements, unclean equipment, improper wear of military uniform, abuse of public animals, adultery, bigamy, bribery, fraternization, et al.

Quote from: DNall on February 05, 2007, 11:44:10 PMUnauthorized wear of any military insignia item not awarded to that individual by competent military authority, be that while in uniform or not, is specifically deemed to be a violation.
Where is this specifically spelled out in the UCMJ?  I didn't see this in the quote you cited.  I don't doubt that it's there, I'd just like to see where it's written. 

Quote from: DNall on February 05, 2007, 11:44:10 PMThis has never been an issue with CAP before because we don't wear any military badge not awarded by competent authority (the "US" cutouts being authorized). The AF slides are however a military uniform item not specifically authorized for wear.
Have you been able to find documentation to back that claim?  I can't see how National could justify authorizing an item of the Air Force uniform for wear by CAP without prior Air Force approval. 

Quote from: DNall on February 05, 2007, 11:44:10 PMBecause they [AF Slides] don't go on the AF-style uniform the AF wasn't consulted in adding them, but it is a violation for military personnel. At least that's the interpretation I've gotten & I sure wouldn't press my luck to find out.

If this is true, it was a foolish decision by National.  It undermines the Air Force, regardless of the circumstances.   

Quote from: DNall on February 05, 2007, 11:44:10 PMThe hope of course is that they'll embroider CAP onto those slides & be done with it, or stick tot he gray slides.

I wish National would just authorize the blue AF slides with CAP embroidered on them for every uniform, but I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon. 

I think going to the gray slides would be the best course of action right now.  Besides, they'd go better with that uniform than any of the AF dress combinations. 


lordmonar

Quote from: DNall on February 05, 2007, 11:44:10 PM
QuoteUCMJ § 934, Article 134. General article. Includes offenses that are not specifically listed in the Manual for Courts-Martial and which may "cause disorder and neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, or conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces." Article 134 is often considered to be a "catch-all" for various offenses that aren't necessarily covered by the other articles in the UCMJ. Article 134 offenses include disloyal statements, unclean equipment, improper wear of military uniform, abuse of public animals, adultery, bigamy, bribery, fraternization, et al.
Unauthorized wear of any military insignia item not awarded to that individual by competent military authority, be that while in uniform or not, is specifically deemed to be a violation.

Go back and read the article again.  It says improper wear of uniform.  Being a member of CAP and wearing the CAP uniform is not the improper wear of the "military" uniform.


Quote from: DNall on February 05, 2007, 11:44:10 PMThis has never been an issue with CAP before because we don't wear any military badge not awarded by competent authority (the "US" cutouts being authorized). The AF slides are however a military uniform item not specifically authroized for wear. Because they don't go on the AF-style uniform the AF wasn't consulted in adding them, but it is a violation for military personnel. At least that's the interpretation I've gotten & I sure wouldn't press my luck to find out.

Then why were the military slides kept?  The only thing that was change was that the rank came off the flight cap and we changed the "US" cutouts with "CAP".  Back in the 80's when we wore blue cut outs...they were the same as the USAF IIRC.  There was no problem with military people wearing them back then.  No....I think you are looking for "good" excuses for the USAF for not allow us to be more like them.  The real answer is that they still do not trust us to police that 1% who give CAP a bad name.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

AlphaSigOU

Quote from: lordmonar on February 06, 2007, 08:28:38 AMBack in the 80's when we wore blue cut outs...they were the same as the USAF IIRC.  There was no problem with military people wearing them back then.  No....I think you are looking for "good" excuses for the USAF for not allow us to be more like them.  The real answer is that they still do not trust us to police that 1% who give CAP a bad name.

The blue grade slides had CAP above the grade, just like the grays do now. Until recently all we could wear on the lapels of the service dress (new and old style) was the CAP cutouts and not the US.

Way I look at the whole thing ('cause I'm getting tired of all the barracks lawyering in this thread):


  • If you wear the TPUs, it's unlikely you will be sent to the stockade/brig/confinement facility/. However, If you overstep your authority as a CAP officer and pretend to be a RealMilitary® officer by deeds, actions or words, you deserve to be strung up the base flagpole at dawn.
  • IT'S A CORPORATE UNIFORM - NOT AN AIR FORCE UNIFORM!!!! So it resembles the uniform of our 'parent' service, Bravo Foxtrot Delta! USAF approval is not required (The NEC asked Col. Hodgkins, and he promptly turned around and said 'it's a corporate thing'). Apparently, they may later have mentioned those items in the early rollout needed to be changed, and we did 'em.

Granted, I'd prefer wearing AF-style, but I feel much more comfortable wearing the TPU.
Lt Col Charles E. (Chuck) Corway, CAP
Gill Robb Wilson Award (#2901 - 2011)
Amelia Earhart Award (#1257 - 1982) - C/Major (retired)
Billy Mitchell Award (#2375 - 1981)
Administrative/Personnel/Professional Development Officer
Nellis Composite Squadron (PCR-NV-069)
KJ6GHO - NAR 45040

brasda91

no, we are not subject to UCMJ.  even the members on active duty, who are performing a mission for CAP, are just like "non"-active duty members, imo.
Wade Dillworth, Maj.
Paducah Composite Squadron
www.kywgcap.org/ky011

DNall

This is the exact wording of the article:
QuoteThough not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.
It mentions nothing about uniforms, but it is the section under which you would be charged for uniform issues (see also cut & pasted explination in previous post).

Quote from: Guardrail on February 06, 2007, 07:41:28 AM
Quote from: DNall on February 05, 2007, 11:44:10 PMThis has never been an issue with CAP before because we don't wear any military badge not awarded by competent authority (the "US" cutouts being authorized). The AF slides are however a military uniform item not specifically authorized for wear.
Have you been able to find documentation to back that claim?  I can't see how National could justify authorizing an item of the Air Force uniform for wear by CAP without prior Air Force approval. 
What the hell are you talking about? Documentation that CAP has never before authorized wear of military uniform items unless: A) specifically authorized by AF (ie AF-style uniform), or B) devices awarded by competent military authority while serving in the armed services.

Quote from: DNall on February 05, 2007, 11:44:10 PMBecause they [AF Slides] don't go on the AF-style uniform the AF wasn't consulted in adding them, but it is a violation for military personnel. At least that's the interpretation I've gotten & I sure wouldn't press my luck to find out.

If this is true, it was a foolish decision by National.  It undermines the Air Force, regardless of the circumstances.   [/quote]
That would be correct. Feel free to drive the CAP-USAF CC to the airport & let him tell you all about it.

Quote from: DNall on February 05, 2007, 11:44:10 PMThe hope of course is that they'll embroider CAP onto those slides & be done with it, or stick tot he gray slides.

I wish National would just authorize the blue AF slides with CAP embroidered on them for every uniform, but I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon. 

I think going to the gray slides would be the best course of action right now.  Besides, they'd go better with that uniform than any of the AF dress combinations. 
[/quote]
The take lemons & make lemonade theory on this is... make them embroider CAP on the AF slides for the corporate version (transition: allow pin on cutouts w/ a 2-yr wearout date & option to send in their slides for embroidery), wait a couple years till the time is right & we've earned it, cite what NGB lets SDFs get away with... then standardize to the blue-CAP-slides & the single blue two-line nametage on everything (silver nameplate on jacket, slides on jacket not metal grade - need something to give up off the corporate version to get blue CAP slides on blues) - same nametage for cadets & adults, hey look how the proces go down when you work in volume.

Quote from: brasda91 on February 06, 2007, 04:02:58 PM
no, we are not subject to UCMJ.  even the members on active duty, who are performing a mission for CAP, are just like "non"-active duty members, imo.
Regardless of your opinion, people in the military are bound by UCMJ when at home asleep in their beds. If UCMJ says they can't wear jump wings on their civilian jacket cause they didn't earn them in the military, then they can get in trouble for that. Are they going to prison over it? No, not a chance, but it is going to piss off airborne troops who earned them legitimate & know this guy didn't. And that has a negative effect on good order & discipline if it's allowed to continue. Now take that scenerio, insert AF officer slides on a CAP uniform not authorized by AF & being viewed by real AF officers who spend a career of hard work making those grades & find the combination disturbing. That's what it's about. They may not have power to tell CAP to change it (which is why Col Hodgkins was not allowed to officially speak his or the AF's mind on a corporate uniform issue in a fomal/public setting), but that doesn't mean it's okay or that someone who doesn't like it may not try to make an example out of an NCO wearing the combo to make that point to CAP. Crazier things have happened. I still wouldn't expect anyone to go to jail over it, not in a million years, but that's not the question that was asked in teh thread.

Guardrail

Quote from: Guardrail on February 06, 2007, 07:41:28 AM
Quote from: DNall on February 05, 2007, 11:44:10 PMThis has never been an issue with CAP before because we don't wear any military badge not awarded by competent authority (the "US" cutouts being authorized). The AF slides are however a military uniform item not specifically authorized for wear.

Have you been able to find documentation to back that claim?  I can't see how National could justify authorizing an item of the Air Force uniform for wear by CAP without prior Air Force approval. 

Quote from: DNall on February 05, 2007, 11:44:10 PMWhat the hell are you talking about? Documentation that CAP has never before authorized wear of military uniform items unless: A) specifically authorized by AF (ie AF-style uniform), or B) devices awarded by competent military authority while serving in the armed services.

No.  I'm looking for documentation that the AF slides are a military uniform item not specifically authorized for wear. 


Dragoon

Here's the best I could do on short notice.

In the USAF Uniform Reg (AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 36-2903), in table 1-3 it says DO NOT wear:

"in civilian attire. For example: grade insignia, cap devices,
badges and other U.S. or Air Force insignia, distinctive
buttons, etc."

Footnote 6 of that table spells it out

"Officers and Enlisted: Do not wear or mix unique uniform items with civilian clothes.
These items are those unique to the uniform. They include grade insignia, cap devices,
badges and other U. S. or Air Force insignia, such as items with the "Wing and Star"
design, and so forth. Exception: Tie tacs and lapel pins when wearing business attire
authorized."

Now, to me, the CAP corporate uniforms counts as "civilian attire."  (After all that's the whole reason to have them - so we can avoid military oversight.)  Others may have a different view.

So yeah, the grade insignia, both slides and pin-on, would seem to be covered by this.  And, I think so would the "U.S." collar insignia.

Of course, like all rules, it only matters if it's enforced.  If USAF tells its military members who are also in CAP not to wear the corporate service dress, we'll know for sure.  My guess is they won't get around to it.

lordmonar

Definate gray area....this is one of those spirit vs. letter of the law things.

Obviously they do not want USAF guys pinning their captains bars to their T-shirts or someone sewing his stripes to an old jean jacket......but again obviously they did not mean USAF personnel could not join CAP and wear CAP uniforms. (or any other volunteer organisation that uses military style rank...that is police/fire department/emt that some times use Lt or Capt bars as their rank insignia).

Then you have the equally gray area of USAF style uniforms in the CAP and active duty personnel.  From the AFI point of view....are the USAF Style CAP uniforms "civilian cloths" or not?

Also....I have to point out....our corporate uniforms are not so we can avoid military oversight.  They are there because the military does not want some people they deem outside of the proper image in USAF uniforms.  We did not invent the corporate uniforms to piss off the USAF....they mandated them to us.

We invented the TPU to make our corporate uniforms closer to USAF uniforms...which in fact pisses the USAF off...because they want us to be different.

So bottom line....technically any CAP uniform (corporate or USAF style) is a violation of the UCMJ and AFI's...but in practice it is not.

The reason the USAF balked at the original TPU design was because they are worried we look too much like "real" officers not that they were worried that they would have to take UCMJ actions agains USAF personnel who were also CAP members.

You have to keep that in mind.  It is the USAF (for what ever reason) that is holding CAP at arms length not the other way around.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Guardrail

Quote from: lordmonar on February 06, 2007, 09:33:23 PM
We invented the TPU to make our corporate uniforms closer to USAF uniforms...which in fact pisses the USAF off...because they want us to be different.

I don't know if we invented the TPU... it's more like Maj Gen Pineda invented the TPU.  There's a reason people call it the Tony Pineda Uniform.   

Yes, the USAF wants us to be different.  I wouldn't be surprised if the Air Force eventually orders CAP to get rid of the TPU.  It seems like the only reason the TPU exists is because someone in the higher echelon of command in CAP has a hatred for the Air Force and wants CAP to be as different from the Air Force as possible. 

Quote from: lordmonar on February 06, 2007, 09:33:23 PMSo bottom line....technically any CAP uniform (corporate or USAF style) is a violation of the UCMJ and AFI's...but in practice it is not.

I'm not sure about that... the blue service dress uniform has U.S. cutouts and is not considered in violation of the UCMJ/AFI because the U.S. cutouts have been approved by the Air Force in writing.

The problem with the TPU is that it includes AF officer shoulder marks which, to my knowledge, were not approved by the Air Force in writing.

Some may argue that this argument holds not water because these shoulder marks also are found on fire fighter's uniform and soforth, but that is normally not true because most of those uniform shoulder marks do not have the silver line on the end of the shoulder mark.  The shoulder marks for those uniforms are also normally black, not blue.     

Quote from: lordmonar on February 06, 2007, 09:33:23 PMThe reason the USAF balked at the original TPU design was because they are worried we look too much like "real" officers not that they were worried that they would have to take UCMJ actions against USAF personnel who were also CAP members.

I've been told that yes, the original design of the TPU could cause USAF personnel who were also CAP members, (and wearing the TPU), to be subject to an Article 16.  However, I've also been told that changes were made to the uniform that now prevents that from happening. 

Nevertheless, I don't believe that because if the shoulder marks were not authorized by the Air Force in writing, then having them on the TPU is the same as having them on a civilian dress shirt or business suit.   

Quote from: lordmonar on February 06, 2007, 09:33:23 PMYou have to keep that in mind.  It is the USAF (for what ever reason) that is holding CAP at arms length not the other way around.

I agree, Capt Harris.  And sadly, there are people out there in CAP who want to keep it that way. 

lordmonar

Quote from: Guardrail on February 06, 2007, 10:54:14 PMYes, the USAF wants us to be different.  I wouldn't be surprised if the Air Force eventually orders CAP to get rid of the TPU.  It seems like the only reason the TPU exists is because someone in the higher echelon of command in CAP has a hatred for the Air Force and wants CAP to be as different from the Air Force as possible.

It will be awful hard for them to do so.  They already approved it...and technically they do not have any say in our corporate uniforms.....we listened to their concerns and made changes to the TPU because we ARE trying to be a team...but the USAF cannot order us to ditch the TPU.  The could order us to ditch the USAF style uniforms or wear pink arm bands and tutus....but that is far as they can go.

(I am not advocating this...I am only pointing out a legal distinction...we should work very closely with the USAF on uniform issues (and I think we do for the most part.)) 

Quote from: Guardrail on February 06, 2007, 10:54:14 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on February 06, 2007, 09:33:23 PMSo bottom line....technically any CAP uniform (corporate or USAF style) is a violation of the UCMJ and AFI's...but in practice it is not.

I'm not sure about that... the blue service dress uniform has U.S. cutouts and is not considered in violation of the UCMJ/AFI because the U.S. cutouts have been approved by the Air Force in writing.

The problem with the TPU is that it includes AF officer shoulder marks which, to my knowledge, were not approved by the Air Force in writing.

But the TPU is a corporate uniform and does not need USAF permission...any more than the local police department needs permission to use Lt/Capt Bars, Col's Eagles and Gen's Stars, all of which I see all the time.  Are they in violation of the law in wearing military insignia on their uniforms?  Probably in a technical sense...but the law was written to make impersonation of a military official illegal not the simple use of the insignia.  It is a matter of spirit vs letter of the law.

Quote from: Guardrail on February 06, 2007, 10:54:14 PMSome may argue that this argument holds not water because these shoulder marks also are found on fire fighter's uniform and so forth, but that is normally not true because most of those uniform shoulder marks do not have the silver line on the end of the shoulder mark.  The shoulder marks for those uniforms are also normally black, not blue.

See my remarks above.     

Quote from: Guardrail on February 06, 2007, 10:54:14 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on February 06, 2007, 09:33:23 PMThe reason the USAF balked at the original TPU design was because they are worried we look too much like "real" officers not that they were worried that they would have to take UCMJ actions against USAF personnel who were also CAP members.

I've been told that yes, the original design of the TPU could cause USAF personnel who were also CAP members, (and wearing the TPU), to be subject to an Article 16.  However, I've also been told that changes were made to the uniform that now prevents that from happening. 

Nevertheless, I don't believe that because if the shoulder marks were not authorized by the Air Force in writing, then having them on the TPU is the same as having them on a civilian dress shirt or business suit.

First it is Article 15....and secondly...think the whole UCMJ thing is just an urban (CAP) myth.  The concern is and always has been...the fear that some AD military personnel would mistake a CAP member in the TPU as being a member of the USAF with all the rights and authority of an officer....and issue them some weapons/computers/furniture/BX privileges.  We are still living under the same fall out that perpetrated the maroon shoulder marks.   

Quote from: Guardrail on February 06, 2007, 10:54:14 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on February 06, 2007, 09:33:23 PMYou have to keep that in mind.  It is the USAF (for what ever reason) that is holding CAP at arms length not the other way around.
I agree, Capt Harris.  And sadly, there are people out there in CAP who want to keep it that way.

This I disagree with....I think that there are some people out there (and I am one of them) that think that if the USAF is not going to let us improve our relationship we should go elsewhere for support.  We can work our asses off trying to please someone who will always have their doubts and hold a grudge....sometimes you have to just cut you losses and look elsewhere for support.

This is basically what Iowa did and I applaud them!
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

mikeylikey

I just don't see the reasoning of the TPU or corporate uniforms violating UCMJ if an AD member wore them.  First, why would an AD member be wearing them, I think that they should be meeting height/weight and grooming standards for the AF style service dress.  Second, they are masquerading around as a CAP officer, not an AD military officer.  Third who cares.  If it were such a huge problem, JAG would ahve been on the phone to CAP-USAF/ CAP NHQ so fast, we would be writing about the short life of the TPU instead!
What's up monkeys?

gallagheria

The main problem I see with people posting on this issue is ignorance. The Civil Air Patrol, although civilian, is authorized to wear the uniform as prescribed by the Air force. The Secretary of the Air Force oversees the CAP. As someones has already noted, State Defense Forces are authorized to wear Army uniforms slightly modified, and it goes the same way with CAP and the Air Force. So to say that CAP is violating Air Force regs would be to argue that the Secretary of the Air Force is violating them.

As for the UCMJ and USC, the UCMJ is a part of the USC. They are not two different things. The UCMJ would not be applicable in this case. Federal law, which governs the wear of military uniforms, only prohibits unauthorized wear. CAP uniform wear is just as authorized as SDF's wearing Army uniforms or civil service personnel/contractors wearing military uniforms.

 

DNall

Quote from: Guardrail on February 06, 2007, 07:51:51 PM
No.  I'm looking for documentation that the AF slides are a military uniform item not specifically authorized for wear. 
Seems pretty simple. The slides are an official military uniform item. No question of that. And because they are on a corporate-style uniform no uniform board was consulted & no permissions attained. Again, that's perfectly clear facts of the case. AF has not & would not grant permission for this if allowed to rule on it.

LM, I understand where you're coming from... now if you, as an NCO, pinned captain bars on a T-shirt & went walking around base talking to people, even your dress never comes up in conversation, you can see where some people would have a problem with that right? Where your commander could call you in & cite good order & discipline & it'd make perfect sense right? That's the basis. I understand CAP says it's okay to do, but the AF never blessed it. Hell yeah it's a technicality, but means it's technically wrong too. Is there any chance of you getting in trouble? Probably not, again that wasn't the question.

Honestly I don't care that it's an AF uniform item or if it violates the UCMJ. My problem with it is the risk of someone mixing up shirts & slides as I've seen now several times & having the wrong person see it, then it comes down on all of us.

Mikey... You'd be suprised actually. I don't liek the combo, but a lot of prior-service NCOs that do meet the ht/wt choose to wear this combo for the real slides. Some of the AD NCOs on here say they prefer the corporate alternative uniforms while working with CAP. They've given some verrious reasons & I'm in no position to tell them what they prefer. However, this is a narrow problem that hasn't come up a lot. I'd suspect no AF JA has ever been consulted on it. They would have been if it'd gone to a uniform board, that's part of the process, but that's not the route this took. In fact it came up after metal grade on the AF-style service coat was rejected, again.

gallagheria.... CAP goes thru the AU & AETC uniform boards, SDFs go thru a state board & then the NGB board, each SDF having dif uniforms, and don't forget the State Air Guards in that mix either. The point being made is that the USAF slides are a military uniform item not authorized for wear by CAP members, this rule only being enforcable in the UCMJ, & therefore only applicable to members of the armed forces.

Dragoon

Quote from: mikeylikey on February 07, 2007, 03:16:15 AM
I just don't see the reasoning of the TPU or corporate uniforms violating UCMJ if an AD member wore them.  First, why would an AD member be wearing them, I think that they should be meeting height/weight and grooming standards for the AF style service dress. 

I'm AD, meet height/weight and grooming, and for the most part I prefer corporate CAP uniforms.  Primarily because those are the uniforms that ALL CAP members can wear, and I'm a team player kinda guy.   8)

gallagheria

Completely not true. The federal law that regulates uniform wear is not a part of the UCMJ. The UCMJ is a part of the USC, but all the USC is not a part of the UCMJ.

10 USC 771:
QuoteExcept as otherwise provided by law, no person except a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, as the case may be, may wear—
(1) the uniform, or a distinctive part of the uniform, of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps; or
(2) a uniform any part of which is similar to a distinctive part of the uniform of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps.
and
10 USC 772
Quote(a) A member of the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard may wear the uniform prescribed for the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard, as the case may be.
(b) A member of the Naval Militia may wear the uniform prescribed for the Naval Militia.
(c) A retired officer of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps may bear the title and wear the uniform of his retired grade.
(d) A person who is discharged honorably or under honorable conditions from the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps may wear his uniform while going from the place of discharge to his home, within three months after his discharge.
(e) A person not on active duty who served honorably in time of war in the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps may bear the title, and, when authorized by regulations prescribed by the President, wear the uniform, of the highest grade held by him during that war.
(f) While portraying a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, an actor in a theatrical or motion-picture production may wear the uniform of that armed force if the portrayal does not tend to discredit that armed force.
(g) An officer or resident of a veterans' home administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs may wear such uniform as the Secretary of the military department concerned may prescribe.
(h) While attending a course of military instruction conducted by the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, a civilian may wear the uniform prescribed by that armed force if the wear of such uniform is specifically authorized under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the military department concerned.
(i) Under such regulations as the Secretary of the Air Force may prescribe, a citizen of a foreign country who graduates from an Air Force school may wear the appropriate aviation badges of the Air Force.
(j) A person in any of the following categories may wear the uniform prescribed for that category:
(1) Members of the Boy Scouts of America.
(2) Members of any other organization designated by the Secretary of a military department.

Guardrail

Quote from: Guardrail on February 06, 2007, 07:51:51 PM
No.  I'm looking for documentation that the AF slides are a military uniform item not specifically authorized for wear.
 
Quote from: DNall on February 07, 2007, 08:39:56 AMSeems pretty simple. The slides are an official military uniform item. No question of that. And because they are on a corporate-style uniform no uniform board was consulted & no permissions attained. Again, that's perfectly clear facts of the case. AF has not & would not grant permission for this if allowed to rule on it.

Then why has the Air Force allowed for the production and wear of the TPU?  Something doesn't add up here.

I wonder if anyone out there has any evidence that a uniform board was never consulted and no permissions attained.  I don't doubt it, I would just like to see some proof.

Quote from: DNall on February 07, 2007, 08:39:56 AMHonestly I don't care that it's an AF uniform item or if it violates the UCMJ. My problem with it is the risk of someone mixing up shirts & slides as I've seen now several times & having the wrong person see it, then it comes down on all of us.

I'm concerned about this, too.  I think it will happen sooner than we all think.  Maj Gen Pineda's appearance at the Pentagon in the Corporate Service Dress Uniform has already sparked controversy, with one AF Lt Gen getting pretty steamed about it.

Quote from: DNall on February 07, 2007, 08:39:56 AMHowever, this is a narrow problem that hasn't come up a lot. I'd suspect no AF JA has ever been consulted on it. They would have been if it'd gone to a uniform board, that's part of the process, but that's not the route this took. In fact it came up after metal grade on the AF-style service coat was rejected, again.

I doubt any AF JA has been consulted about it, too.  I feel that every proposed CAP uniform needs to go through the AETC & AU Uniform boards - no exceptions. 

Quote from: DNall on February 07, 2007, 08:39:56 AMgallagheria.... CAP goes thru the AU & AETC uniform boards, SDFs go thru a state board & then the NGB board, each SDF having dif uniforms, and don't forget the State Air Guards in that mix either. The point being made is that the USAF slides are a military uniform item not authorized for wear by CAP members, this rule only being enforcable in the UCMJ, & therefore only applicable to members of the armed forces.

I believe that is correct.  I have a friend in the AF who has told me he would be subject to an Article 16 if he were to wear the TPU, and I believe it is all because of the AF officer shoulder marks on the aviator shirt.

I used to think that the TPU originally contradicted the UCMJ, but now doesn't because of changes that have been made.  However, if no AF approval was sought for this uniform, then it still contradicts the UCMJ.  Therefore, it has not been made an official uniform of an organization recognized by the SECAF.

Dragoon

Quote from: Guardrail on February 07, 2007, 06:12:24 PMI wonder if anyone out there has any evidence that a uniform board was never consulted and no permissions attained.  I don't doubt it, I would just like to see some proof.

You can't prove a negative.  You might find evidence if they WERE consulted, but if they weren't consulted you'd find, well, nothing.

DNall

Quote from: gallagheria on February 07, 2007, 04:37:07 PM
Completely not true. The federal law that regulates uniform wear is not a part of the UCMJ. The UCMJ is a part of the USC, but all the USC is not a part of the UCMJ.
Yes, uniform violations by members of the armed services are charged under the cited article on the basis of violation of good order & discipline. Wear of military items not earned in military service is an offense. Do your research before you quote laws.

Quote10 USC 771: Except as otherwise provided by law, no person except a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, as the case may be, may wear—
(1) the uniform, or a distinctive part of the uniform, of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps; or
(2) a uniform any part of which is similar to a distinctive part of the uniform of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps.
That would be a specific violation then & not okay UNLESS specifically authorized under the authority below.
Quote10 USC 772(2) Members of any other organization designated by the Secretary of a military department.
That's the legal authority for CAP to wear A uniform, it is NOT a free ticket to put anything you want on that uniform. The AF has specific control over all military insignia items worn on any real military uniform or appearing similiar enough to those items that they might reasonably be confused.

Quote from: Guardrail on February 07, 2007, 06:12:24 PM
Quote from: DNall on February 07, 2007, 08:39:56 AMSeems pretty simple. The slides are an official military uniform item. No question of that. And because they are on a corporate-style uniform no uniform board was consulted & no permissions attained. Again, that's perfectly clear facts of the case. AF has not & would not grant permission for this if allowed to rule on it.
Then why has the Air Force allowed for the production and wear of the TPU?  Something doesn't add up here.
I wonder if anyone out there has any evidence that a uniform board was never consulted and no permissions attained.  I don't doubt it, I would just like to see some proof.
Allowed for? As a corporate uniform, it would not go thru the AF approval channel, because they have no authority over it. They do however have authority over actual AF uniform items & were not consulted in that regard. I'm not sure they've realized they could use that angle to fix this thing, nor do I think they've looked at the UCMJ ramifications for current service members.
QuoteI doubt any AF JA has been consulted about it, too.  I feel that every proposed CAP uniform needs to go through the AETC & AU Uniform boards - no exceptions.
The real problem with this is you understand there's not just a full-time uniform board. AETC puts one together every few years to make minor practical changes. The AF uniform board on top is the one that makes big changes, but we don't deal with them. When CAP proposes a change to the AF-style between boards, it has to be approved by CAP-USAF CC (no big deal), then gets staffed at AU & AU CC has to approve, then the same process at AETC. Now that's fine, but you understand those folks have some kind of important non-uniform & non-CAP things to spend their time on. I think it would be appropriate to have a CAP uniform board that builds a package & meets with the AETC board every 4-5 years to have changes made, and asking for their endorsement on corporates, even if they don't have veto power, would be a nice way to help the relationship & gain official feedback. It'd also keep us from changing things every five minutes.

Quote
Quote from: DNall on February 07, 2007, 08:39:56 AMHonestly I don't care that it's an AF uniform item or if it violates the UCMJ. My problem with it is the risk of someone mixing up shirts & slides as I've seen now several times & having the wrong person see it, then it comes down on all of us.
I'm concerned about this, too.  I think it will happen sooner than we all think.  Maj Gen Pineda's appearance at the Pentagon in the Corporate Service Dress Uniform has already sparked controversy, with one AF Lt Gen getting pretty steamed about it.
I hadn't heard that, but it doesn't suprise me. I have a guy here that I wear repeatedly puts the blue slides on the blues shirt. He hadn't been to a meeting in blues since last tiem I warned him, till last night, but he didn't take off his jacket all night, still wearing the enlisted flight hat though. I've seen it at a couple events as well where I made people go in the bathroom & take them off. Amazingly, in each of these cases the people have had the gray set in the car or a jacket pocket. I'm telling you it's a matter of time before someone does that in front of AF personnel, & it didn't take anything nearly that bad to get marroon slides.

Quote from: DNall on February 07, 2007, 08:39:56 AMgallagheria.... CAP goes thru the AU & AETC uniform boards, SDFs go thru a state board & then the NGB board, each SDF having dif uniforms, and don't forget the State Air Guards in that mix either. The point being made is that the USAF slides are a military uniform item not authorized for wear by CAP members, this rule only being enforcable in the UCMJ, & therefore only applicable to members of the armed forces.
I believe that is correct.  I have a friend in the AF who has told me he would be subject to an Article 16 if he were to wear the TPU, and I believe it is all because of the AF officer shoulder marks on the aviator shirt.

I used to think that the TPU originally contradicted the UCMJ, but now doesn't because of changes that have been made.  However, if no AF approval was sought for this uniform, then it still contradicts the UCMJ.  Therefore, it has not been made an official uniform of an organization recognized by the SECAF.[/quote]
Well it has been made an official uniform of an org recorgnized by the SecAF. That just means you can wear a uniform at all. That doesn't mean use of military insignia & uniform items w/o authorization is okay.