50 Shades of Grey

[Toad1168]

Full Disclosure....I tend to be a uniform Nazi myself.   I will point out infractions to the culprit ......

So before I happen to run your way ... which specific color gray will you be looking for?

Gray.

They point is that the Manual does not specify the shade of gray.....ON PURPOSE!  So if a reasonable person can tell that they are gray.....then they are good.

I'm 100% with Pat (who looks pretty darn good in his blues, by the way  ). My big beef is not built around Blues v. Corporate. I just hate it when people walk around looking like an unmade bed.

Yes, indeed, there are no "grooming standards" in the sense of the beard prohibition, etc., but that's not carte blanche to roll out looking like you fished your polo shirt out from under the back seat of your car. There are certainly basic appearance standards outlined in the 39-1 even for the Corporate uniforms and I think they should be followed.

You'll see sentences like "Shirt will be tucked neatly into trousers," or "Hair must be clean, well groomed and neat," or "All members must ensure uniform items and civilian clothing (when worn acting in an official capacity) are maintained, clean, and in serviceable condition (that is, not frayed, worn out, torn, faded, patched, etc.), correct in design and specifications, and fit properly."

So...tuck in the shirt, don't let your hair flop down over your eyebrows, and get the ketchup stain off your aviator shirt!

I've seen aviator shirts bulging so badly that I can see the member's navel, or shirt-tails dangling behind the back, or gray trousers wrinkled like prunes, or badges hanging askew on an aviator shirt, and yes it bugs me. To be fair, I've also seen myriad violations among Blues-wearers, so they're not off the hook. But when it comes to the Corporates, there's a difference between a relaxed standard and no standard.

"Medium Gray" means...anything that can reasonably be thought of as gray that doesn't look black and doesn't look white. Thumbs-up, you're in compliance, rock on.

But I can't help but look sideways at people who won't wear whatever uniform they choose -- corporate or blues -- neatly, cleanly and correctly.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:  Exactly the point I was trying to make.

[SarDragon]

Ah yes, RIP the CSU, that was a pretty good looking combo (IMHO.)

Yeah, it was an OK uniform, but poorly implemented. Only part of the people who needed it could wear it. Those of us with "grooming deficiencies" weren't allowed to wear it. Any alternate dress uniform needs to be all or none for those of us unable to wear the AF-style garb.

[blackrain]

Thanks to all for the replies. Can be frustrating over apparently trivial issues. Some time ago at a SAREX a rated AD Air Force CPT came straight from work in his AD flightsuit with sewn on AD rank but CAP patches in the place of his regular uniform patches. The officer was confronted by a portly CAP (and uniform Nazi) officer who had never worn other than a CAP uniform in his life and not knowing the AD officer stated that civilians had no business wearing real military rank. The AD officer told the portly CAP officer that he had no business being 50lbs overweight and looking like a sausage. Right or wrong on the uniform it was a [darn] funny moment and I thought of the not so long ago edict from my civilian leadership that made it mandatory to wear a tie while briefing at or above a certain level. Apparently these were magical ties that erased 50 plus pounds of belly fat and the accompanying unprofessional image that was projected by that same supervisor.

Maybe someone way up the CAP food chain will read the thread and interject just a little sanity/common sense. We can always hope

[Eclipse]

Ah yes, RIP the CSU, that was a pretty good looking combo (IMHO.)

Yeah, it was an OK uniform, but poorly implemented. Only part of the people who needed it could wear it. Those of us with "grooming deficiencies" weren't allowed to wear it. Any alternate dress uniform needs to be all or none for those of us unable to wear the AF-style garb.

Hippie.

[N6RVT]

Ah yes, RIP the CSU, that was a pretty good looking combo (IMHO.)

Yeah, it was an OK uniform, but poorly implemented. Only part of the people who needed it could wear it. Those of us with "grooming deficiencies" weren't allowed to wear it. Any alternate dress uniform needs to be all or none for those of us unable to wear the AF-style garb.

Hippie.

I had forgotten the days when we had triple standards.  As if double wasn't enough.

[N6RVT]

50 Shades of Grey, must be talking about my beard or the muzzle of my German Shepard.

How about the multitude of uniforms that CAP Members wear for a single event. I will use the last SAREX I went to as an example

Civilian Attire
"Taticool" BDU
"Taticool" ABU

Members were engaged in SAREX activity without being in any uniform at all?

[Alaric]

50 Shades of Grey, must be talking about my beard or the muzzle of my German Shepard.

How about the multitude of uniforms that CAP Members wear for a single event. I will use the last SAREX I went to as an example

Civilian Attire
"Taticool" BDU
"Taticool" ABU

Members were engaged in SAREX activity without being in any uniform at all?

Ive seen people show up in no uniform to drop off, or in the case of a Wing Commander, just to check on how things are going but never to participate

[Fubar]

Members were engaged in SAREX activity without being in any uniform at all?

Quick scan of CAPM 39-1 where uniforms are required for wear:

1.2.4.2. Members are normally required to wear a CAP uniform (either USAF- or Corporate-style) when working with cadets, when flying in a CAP aircraft (Corporate or member owned aircraft used in a CAP flight activity), or when conducting business under a CAP mission number (A, B, or C). Region commanders, wing commanders, and activity directors may stipulate appropriate civilian clothes while traveling to and from events by ground, or during events not involving flight where it is appropriate to wear civilian clothes.

Some less than strong language in there as normally required doesn't mean shall, will, or must, which is all defined one section before. Heck, it doesn't even mean should which is also defined.

After defining a bunch of directive terms, why not use one of them in the very next section?

[Eclipse]

^ As a "manual", 39-1 can't prescribe, only provide "guidance and procedures".

The uniform requirements for members during various operations are found in other publications such as 60-1.

[Fubar]

^ As a "manual", 39-1 can't prescribe, only provide "guidance and procedures".

So why does it define shall, will or must if it can't use them? Rhetorical for sure, I'm not here to shoot the messenger.

What a mess.

[SarDragon]

^ As a "manual", 39-1 can't prescribe, only provide "guidance and procedures".

The uniform requirements for members during various operations are found in other publications such as 60-1.

Wrong answer. Emphasis mine.

1.j. "Publication" means regulations, manuals, pamphlets, operating instructions, any other documented guidance and supplements thereto. A "directive publication" is a regulation or manual that establishes compliance standards.

CAPM 39-1 certainly establishes compliance standards.

Members were engaged in SAREX activity without being in any uniform at all?

Quick scan of CAPM 39-1 where uniforms are required for wear:

1.2.4.2. Members are normally required to wear a CAP uniform (either USAF- or Corporate-style) when working with cadets, when flying in a CAP aircraft (Corporate or member owned aircraft used in a CAP flight activity), or when conducting business under a CAP mission number (A, B, or C). Region commanders, wing commanders, and activity directors may stipulate appropriate civilian clothes while traveling to and from events by ground, or during events not involving flight where it is appropriate to wear civilian clothes.

Some less than strong language in there as normally required doesn't mean shall, will, or must, which is all defined one section before. Heck, it doesn't even mean should which is also defined.

After defining a bunch of directive terms, why not use one of them in the very next section?

Emphasis added above. SAREXs qualify under that portion of that paragraph. There may be instances where, due to the nature of the mission, a uniform might not be appropriate.

[Eclipse]

What a mess.

Seriously...

[Storm Chaser]

The "normally requires" language in CAPM 39-1 is there to account for the few instances when a uniform is not required, not desired, or not practical, most which are covered by regulation. A few come to mind, such as counterdrugs missions in which a law enforcement agency asks CAP not to wear a uniform (CAPR 60-6, Para. 2-8), glider or balloons flights (CAPR 60-1, Para. 2-3d(1)), and physical fitness training (couldn't find a reference, but there is no official CAP PT uniform).