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

[NAYBOR]

Now that I have seen it more, I like the TPU service coat.  I'd like to see the US-cutouts back on the lapels, and the CAP-cutouts on the shoulder epaulets, midway between the metal rank and button--like the TPU [Army officer] black windbreaker has.  I'd also like to see the silver braid removed from the service cap and service coat too (and replaced with "CAP grey"--a darker shade of grey).  This would make it distinctive enough for Title 10 USC regs (with the two line name tag--which could also bechanged from silver to a "CAP grey as described above), which is what we REALLY should be concerned with.  AD CAP members should check with there commanders to check on the whether THEIR wear of any TPU combo is a violation of UCMJ.  It's that simple [to me], really.  We can debate here all we want on UCMJ--when the pavemewnt hits the road, though, it's really up to each AD person's commander whether the wear of the TPU is and Article 15 or 16.

Also while I personally like being able to buy AF shoulder marks off-the-shelf at an AAFES outlet on base for wear with the TPU combo, I agree that maybe the shoulder marks should have the CAP cutouts on them two to be more distictive.  But, as I said, I like the simplicity of wearing the AF shoulder marks off-the-shelf.

[Hawk200]

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.

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.

What I found disturbing is a photo with Pineda at some function, and a senior member wearing what appears to be the white/blue with an Air Force nametag. It was taken outside, so the blue shirt may be washed out by the sun, but it is enough to bother me.

I'll post the photo if anyone is interested.

[Guardrail]

What I found disturbing is a photo with Pineda at some function, and a senior member wearing what appears to be the white/blue with an Air Force nametag. It was taken outside, so the blue shirt may be washed out by the sun, but it is enough to bother me.

I'll post the photo if anyone is interested.

Yes, please post the photo.  I'm interested.

[NAYBOR]

I'm curious--I have not read where the USAF has gotten "steamed" by our TPU, thus being the reason why the US-cutouts were removed from the TPU.  Also, as Hawk references in his post above (he himself did not state it--I don't know who did), he states that a 3-star got upset at Pineda's wearing the TPU at the Pentagon.  Any sites on these?  Where can I confirm this?  Or is it all hearsay?

I did have a senior member attmept to mix and match the AF blue slides with the AF shirt, and wore the blue tag also.  He also put the a "mini rank" Captains bars on his flight cap. Being the commander at the time, I showed him the regs, expalined that his wearing the AF slides, metal rank, and blue name tag was only for the TPU (at the time), he'd have to go home and change.  He did go home immediately (if somewhat unhappy), and wore the correct uniform.  So yeah, I've see the "mix and match" too.  People just have to be diligent and correct that stuff as soon as they see it.  Mistakes will happen--just don't keep letting it happen.

[Hawk200]

What I found disturbing is a photo with Pineda at some function, and a senior member wearing what appears to be the white/blue with an Air Force nametag. It was taken outside, so the blue shirt may be washed out by the sun, but it is enough to bother me.

I'll post the photo if anyone is interested.

Yes, please post the photo.  I'm interested.

OK.

[NAYBOR]

This picture was taken before the PA Wing Conference was held.  I know for a FACT that that CAP officer was wearing the TWO LINE CAP name tag, as he should have been.  He wore the same uniform to the PA Wing Conference.  He seemed to be a very helpful, nice guy, and is an active CAP'er.

The tall, big guy holding the balloons in the blazer uniform is the PA Wingfcommander, Col. Appelbaum.  In talking with him (Col. Appelbaum) a few times, I'm pretty sure he would've corrected such a thing right, quick, and in a hurry.

And, well, TP was there too.  Don't you think HE would've said something?

[Hawk200]

This picture was taken before the PA Wing Conference was held.  I know for a FACT that that CAP officer was wearing the TWO LINE CAP name tag, as he should have been.  He wore the same uniform to the PA Wing Conference.  He seemed to be a very helpful, nice guy, and is an active CAP'er.

Just looks awfully thin to me. The problem is that if it looks that way to me, I'm probably not the only one. One way that perception, even if wrong, can create problems for us.

[NAYBOR]

You're right, it does look thin, and I may have thought the same thing had I not known he was wearing a two-liner.  But he is, and it's a moot point.  The picture is taken at a distance.  If you compare his name tag to one of the cadets (which is a 3-liner), the sizes are practically the same.

[carnold1836]

What I found disturbing is a photo with Pineda at some function, and a senior member wearing what appears to be the white/blue with an Air Force nametag. It was taken outside, so the blue shirt may be washed out by the sun, but it is enough to bother me.

I'll post the photo if anyone is interested.

Yes, please post the photo.  I'm interested.

OK.

What seems to be the problem here. From what it looks like this individual is wearing the Blue/White uniform to regs, the name tag looks to be a 2 line CAP distinctive tag. And although he is not wearing it while outside he does have the appropriate cover with proper cap device.

[DNall]

What was the site again where three star general post their personal comments & feelings? I hadn't heard that story till this thread, but ask around any AFB & you'll get the same answers. Literally the most common reaction I've seen with the coat on is to think it's a wer test of some new design (that they hate by the way).

I did have a senior member attempt to mix and match the AF blue slides with the AF shirt, and wore the blue tag also.  -snip- So yeah, I've see the "mix and match" too.  People just have to be diligent and correct that stuff as soon as they see it.  Mistakes will happen--just don't keep letting it happen.

What's CAP's record like on keeping senior members in correct uniforms again? Cause I'm trying to think how we can keep from pissing off the AF & damaging CAP & I can't seem to recall if our "diligence" on this issue has been sufficient at any point in our history so that raising the stakes in their face is something we can long pull off. /sarasam off

Looks like you're right on that pic, but hard to tell, hard to tell shirt color in a lot of pics actually, and sometimes in real life too.

[Hawk200]

Looks like you're right on that pic, but hard to tell, hard to tell shirt color in a lot of pics actually, and sometimes in real life too.

Hence the problem. It's basically the "appearance of evil" issue, not an actual violation.

In my opinion (which is not a fact or any such thing), it seems like Pineda did an end run around the Air Force in creating the TPU. And wearing it for a Armed Services Hearing Comittee for the first time was a serious problem. It seemed like the Air Force was unaware of it before that (from what I've been reading). I think that was one of the major problems.

Please, notice that I said "It appears to be an end run". I'm not stating that it is one, just that it looks like it. And I don't think I'm alone in these thoughts.

[gallagheria]

We have people arguing that it violates federal law when federal law clearly authorizes military uniforms to be worn by anyone the secretary of each respective branch authorizes. CAP is  is governed by a Board of Governors: four Civil Air Patrol members (currently the National Commander, National Vice Commander, and two members-at-large appointed by the CAP National Executive Committee), four Air Force representatives appointed by the Secretary of the Air Force, and three members from the aviation community jointly appointed by the CAP National Commander and the Secretary of the Air Force.

Seems to me that they would have authority to authorize various uniforms, just as the National Guard Bureau authorizes SDF uniforms.

As for

[DNall]

The BoG does not hear or authorize uniform items. I'm sure it has beena  topic of conversation, but Congress specifically established BoG to provide fiscal & strategic oversight where AF did not have the legal authority. The BoG in your example would merely be the commander of the SDF that still has to get clearance form the state board & the NGB board to make a uniform change. At least in the area of using military uniform items CAP can't just go off & do as it pleases.

CAP is authorized to wear certan specified elements of the AF uniform as specified by AETC (who has been delegated that power by the SecAF). CAP made a mistake in assuming that because corporate-style uniforms are not approved by AETC that they were rfree to do whatever they pleased, and that is not the case. If the AETC CC issues a letter stating that use of AF grade slides, ties, belts, etc are authorized for wear with CAP corporate-style uniforms, then they are, until then it is not legal. Just cause the issue hasn't been forced yet doesn't mean that's not the case. You can only try someone's patience for so long before they run out of good will & snap back.

[Dragoon]

As an interesting aside,

The BOG controls CAP's constitution and bylaws.  So far, they have not altered those to take power away from the NB (like the power to write regs) and give it to themselves.

But they could.

[mikeylikey]

I would think that the legal counsel at NHQ studied every aspect of the TPU before it was introduced.  I am sure legally we can wear the US cutouts and rank on the flight cap, but when the AF asked us not to, NHQ agreed.  This uniform was not just put together spur of the momnet, it was signed off on by various departments at NHQ.  I am also aware that it did make its way to CAP-USAF and they had no problem with it initially in its first version.  They came back and asked for changes (not demanded). 

Although the CAP-USAF/CC may say "its corporate, so we have no care or say", trust me, it was presented to them before it was "officially" introduced for their opinion.

Come on, NHQ and CAP-USAF staffers share space and most are friends.  If the AF objected to anything on the uniform or its mere presence, we would have never seen it.

The AF does have their hands in CAP more than is widely known!   

As for those who say we should replace the AF blue slides with blue slides that have an embroidered "CAP" on them, I say wake up!  IF you can't distinguish between the two line CAP nameplate and the AF nameplate, how the heck are you going to see the letters "CAP" on the slides.  Unless you are standing next to the person or close enough, you will not even notice.  Heck even the SM flight cap device looks like Lt Col from a distance.  Even in the AF style service dress a 2nd Lt when wearing his flight cap looks like a Lt Col from a distance.  If anything they should remove that "distinctive" item.  Don't want some Airman to mistake the person for a Lt Col now do we?

RANT OVER

[A.Member]

Does it violate the UCMJ or USC?  I don't know but none of that changes the fact that the TPU is much better suited for the formal at the ex-tugboat captains association. 

I'm no uniform expert but it also has no history behind it other than TP himself.  I can't think of any air force or related service in the history of aviation that wore a double breasted service coat.  I'd rather go back to a WWII style tan service coat than wear that silly thing.   

[DNall]

The civilian attorney at NHQ that tries to protect us from lawsuits & manage our risk mgmt policy & response is not exactly the person you ask for a legal ruling on UCMJ, USC, or the Geneva Conventions. No AF JA has been consulted & provided an opinion on this, certainly not the ones tapped by uniform boards for their expertise in this area. The changes that were ordered were only to address concerns over the Genevea conventions. That obviously came from a good bit higher than CAP-USAF.

I'll say this again... because CAP-USAF is in the position to speak for the the AF, they are not allowed to state opinions outside the areas where AF has authority. In otherwords, if you ask them about a corporate uniform change, they have to say it's a corporate matter that's your thing. That doesn't meant they personally agree with it or that the AF approves, or more specifically that the AF doesn't disapprove. NHQ staff didn't have anything to do with this. It's not called the TPU for nothing.

The idea of embroidering CAP on the blue slides has nothing to do with it being distinguishable up close or from a distance. It's about what happens to CAP when someone puts the blue slides & two line nameplate on the blue shirt & goes walking around in front of people in the AF, which most people believe is only a matter of time. Because AF can't order this uniform changed but can order the other one changed, and because spats of silly issues like this lead to problems in the greater relationship... there's a lot of reason to change it.

[mikeylikey]

It's about what happens to CAP when someone puts the blue slides & two line nameplate on the blue shirt & goes walking around in front of people in the AF, which most people believe is only a matter of time.

I forsee all of us in a few years being forced into the grey pants and CAP polo.  Ground teams get to choose whatever suits their taste and comfort off the rack at say Gander Mountain or EMS or some other outdoor adventurer type store.  Members that fly get the polo shirt and grey pants too. 

I am also missing the whole "change the TPU because of Geneva Conventions" thing to I guess.  Can someone explain it to me in more of an elementary school way?

If we wear the AF style service dress does that make us CAT 3 under the Geneva conventions because of the rank slides and "US" cutouts.  If we wear the TPU we are just civilians because the "US" cutouts are not there?  So if I get this straight, an example would be (heaven forbid) some future enemy invades across the Mexican border, and they capture a group of CAP Senior Members.  Half the group is wearing the AF style Service Dress, the other half is wearing the TPU.  Accordingly they take the half wearing the AF style service dress and throw them into a POW camp with other military officers and Senior NCO's.  BUT they release the members wearing the TPU because they are considered civilians because the "US" cutouts are missing and the "CAP" cutouts are on.

[lordmonar]

I am also missing the whole "change the TPU because of Geneva Conventions" thing to I guess.  Can someone explain it to me in more of an elementary school way?

Well it is simple...it is a non issue...an urban legend....a myth...it never existed and was not a USAF concern.

If we wear the AF style service dress does that make us CAT 3 under the Geneva conventions because of the rank slides and "US" cutouts.  If we wear the TPU we are just civilians because the "US" cutouts are not there?

Not so.  Under the Geneva convention we are legal combatants no matter what uniform you wear.  Legal combatants are defined by the GC as

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." (From Article 4)

So...we have a command structure.  We have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (uniforms, CAP markings on planes and vehicles).  We carry arms openly (our aircraft are defined as weapon systems...ergo they are arms) and finally we conduct our operations IAW the laws and customs of war...as enforced by US law and the USAF.

So....it does not matter if we wore green fatigues, blue BDU's or even t-shirts and geans...we are and will always remain lawful combatants in the eyes of the GC.

  So if I get this straight, an example would be (heaven forbid) some future enemy invades across the Mexican border, and they capture a group of CAP Senior Members.  Half the group is wearing the AF style Service Dress, the other half is wearing the TPU.  Accordingly they take the half wearing the AF style service dress and throw them into a POW camp with other military officers and Senior NCO's.  BUT they release the members wearing the TPU because they are considered civilians because the "US" cutouts are missing and the "CAP" cutouts are on.

Nope...they would all be lawful combatants and would all be accorded POW rights.  The alternative is that the "illegal combatants" would not be subject to the GC and they could be thrown into jail or other prisons and would not be allowed POW rights. (such as the detainees at GITMO).  In no case...would we ever be considered non-combatants if we were captured while doing CAP buisness....we would either be legal or illegal combatants because we operate weapon systems (our airplanes).

[Eclipse]

You're right, it does look thin, and I may have thought the same thing had I not known he was wearing a two-liner.  But he is, and it's a moot point.  The picture is taken at a distance.  If you compare his name tag to one of the cadets (which is a 3-liner), the sizes are practically the same.

Zooming the picture clearly shows two lines of text.