If you were a gambling man...

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

CAP needs to come up with one service/dress uniform, one feild/working uniform, and one flight uniform for ALL senior members. This two class system needs to end... its just wrong.

Agreed.  However, it is not going to happen, because positions have hardened, even calcified, into the status quo.  The chances are, if such a thing were to happen, that the "single uniform" would just be the current "corporate" non-uniforms as they now stand and all USAF uniforms would be deleted.

At my relatively-brief tenure at a flying club senior squadron, where uniforms were (cough) optional, I was virtually ridiculed for wearing the AF blue uniform...I remember being asked "why do you have that getup when you could just have a polo shirt and grey slacks?"

Conversely, and as has been documented here on CT, there are those who wear the G/W kit (many not out of choice) who stick out like the proverbial sore thumb at Wing activities in a roomful of blue.

And finally, there are those who wear the "corporate" uniform (usually the polo shirt) and say "I don't need to play at looking like the Air Force.  I'm about the mission (as if those who wear the USAF uniform aren't)."

Trying to distill that down into one set of uniforms that everyone will be able to wear with some sense of pride will be like herding rattlesnakes.

[arajca]

I actually saw some coming together with the CSU. I know a several 'fuzzies' got un-fuzzied to wear it and a few AF-style wearers made the transition to the CSU. Of course that last one may have been what killed off.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I actually saw some coming together with the CSU. I know a several 'fuzzies' got un-fuzzied to wear it and a few AF-style wearers made the transition to the CSU. Of course that last one may have been what killed off.

Now you see what happens in this organisation when something that actually begins to work comes down the pike.

[Ned]

You have hard working volunteers, who put in hundreds of hours, but get treated like second class citizens. Why? Because of weight issues or grooming issues? Seriously?

I agree that we have tens of thousands of hard-working volunteers.  And they are terrific.

But it goes too far to suggest that a minority are treated as "second class citizens" simply because of the required duty uniforms.  There is no limitation on awards, promotions, duty assignments, or anything else in CAP that are based on h/w or grooming issues. 

Heck, our last national commander wore corporates.  I don't remember anyone calling her a second class citizen.  Certainly, she never self-identified as such.  Last time I looked at a command council meeting, almost half of the wing commanders were wearing corporates.  I've never heard them complain about being second class citizens.

The "dual track" uniforms are a direct result of the USAF holding us to the same standards they hold themselves (plus some slack.)  No more, and no less.

You or I might have made a different choice about that, but neither of us is the AF Chief of Staff.  And in any event, it is certainly not an unreasonable decision, and one that they are absolutely entitled to make.


(If you take our maximum h/w for males from the 39-1 and track it against the CDC BMI standards, you will find that only men classified as "obese" (their definition; BMI 30 and above) are restricted from AF-style uniforms.)

The AF separates airmen who cannot come into [their equivalent of h/w] within a reasonable period of time.  We, OTOH, allow our volunteers to serve and contribute regardless of h/w & grooming.  And we always have, since CAP was created.  Indeed, there is a good argument to be made that CAP exists only because of the ability and willingness to serve of heroic volunteers that were unable to meet the military's age & physical requirements of the era.

The CAP leadership -- rather than being the villains in this drama -- actually deserve credit for creating professional, military style uniforms for members restricted from the AF-style.  For most of the history of CAP, the only alternative to the AF-style was the blazer uniform, which did not accommodate badges, awards, etc.  (At the time, however, most members were not required to wear a uniform unless flying or dealing with cadets, and further there were no h/w restrictions in either the AF or CAP.)  Shortly after the AF imposed h/w restrictions on themselves, they imposed them on us.  Rather that leave the large and hirsute members in civvies, the leadership created the aviator shirt combination which allowed all members to wear their grade on the shoulders, as well as their earned CAP badges and decorations.

And at least partly in response to member concerns that the aviator shirt combination did not have a "formality equivalent" to service dress, the CAP leadership created the CSU. which when created allowed members to wear metal grade and other desired details.

But because of competing concerns (see the comments about this being a "wicked problem," above), the leadership deauthorized the CSU (with a sunset provision).

The leadership has tried very, very hard to balance competing (and some would say irreconcilable) concerns.

And the fact the CAP continues to function much as we always have (lives saved, cadets trained, aerospace educated) without a significant change in membership numbers suggests that they have been able to walk the tightrope fairly well.
 

CAP needs to come up with one service/dress uniform, one feild/working uniform, and one flight uniform for ALL senior members.

Well, that's the problem, isn't it?  Assuming that you don't mind wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars that the majority of CAP members have invested in AF-style uniforms, and assuming for the sake of argument that you can get a rough consensus on the aesthetics of any new uniform (both huge assumptions),

No other organization on Earth has come up with any sort of professional appearing uniform set that supports their mission (identifies their members, not too similar to other organizations, and professional in appearance) that looks acceptable on members:

12 - 90 years of age
weighing 85 - 385 pounds (or more)
4 feet to 6.5 feet tall
at least two genders
with varying disabilities and capabilities

who perform duties in

climates from tropical to arctic with sun, rain, snow
office work, field work, and flying
and occasional formal events.

For bonus points, it should have a military type appearance, perhaps even identifiable as an aviation-centric organization.

If you can do that with just three uniforms (service, field, and flying), you will have done a better job than any of our armed forces (who each have about the same number of uniform combinations as we do).

Bottom line - we have a lot of uniform combinations precisely because we need a lot of uniform combinations to do our Congressionally assigned missions, and given our outside constraints (AF policy, costs, etc.)

Until a change in our missions or AF policy, there isn't much to be done, except to concentrate on doing our jobs as best we can.

Oh, and debating uniform policy here on CAPTalk when we should be BBQ some animal and enjoying our long weekend.

[NIN]

Oh, and debating uniform policy here on CAPTalk when we should be BBQ some animal and enjoying our long weekend.

"Shack"

[Eclipse]

But it goes too far to suggest that a minority are treated as "second class citizens" simply because of the required duty uniforms.  There is no limitation on awards, promotions, duty assignments, or anything else in CAP that are based on h/w or grooming issues. 

It's >not< a "minority", it's at least 50% of the adult membership, and probably more if the rules were actually enforced.

No limitation on awards?  Which service coat can you wear your ribbons on with the whites?

How about medals on the corporate equivalent for mess dress?

Let's not play pretend there aren't two groups in CAP.

The "dual track" uniforms are a direct result of the USAF holding us to the same standards they hold themselves (plus some slack.)  No more, and no less.

Not.  True.

The USAF has one uniform, and there are thousands of airman and officers serving in it that
are well outside the H/W.  They may be an a reduction program, they may be waiting on
separation, but they have a single uniform.

But again, the worst part of this is seeing people charged with enforcing the
regulations receiving a flag or decoration from the national commander when
they, themselves, are not in compliance.

Fix that, and you'll have a lot less heartburn from the masses (pun intended).

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Heck, our last national commander wore corporates.  I don't remember anyone calling her a second class citizen.  Certainly, she never self-identified as such.

General Courter also wore the CSU until that was kiboshed.

The CAP leadership -- rather than being the villains in this drama -- actually deserve credit for creating professional, military style uniforms for members restricted from the AF-style.  For most of the history of CAP, the only alternative to the AF-style was the blazer uniform, which did not accommodate badges, awards, etc.  (At the time, however, most members were not required to wear a uniform unless flying or dealing with cadets, and further there were no h/w restrictions in either the AF or CAP.)  Shortly after the AF imposed h/w restrictions on themselves, they imposed them on us.  Rather that leave the large and hirsute members in civvies, the leadership created the aviator shirt combination which allowed all members to wear their grade on the shoulders, as well as their earned CAP badges and decorations.

Sir, can you actually call the grey-and-white "military-style?"  Perhaps only in relation to the previous grey-and-white, which only allowed the blazer nameplate.

I know of no airline/air force/civil air organisation in the world that wears grey and white, except for the Swiss Luftwaffe.


Generalleutnant Aldo C. Schellenberg

And, there is still no equivalent of a service dress, with the blazer remaining the only choice.  No badges, awards, etc, except for a single miniature medal, can be worn with that.

And at least partly in response to member concerns that the aviator shirt combination did not have a "formality equivalent" to service dress, the CAP leadership created the CSU. which when created allowed members to wear metal grade and other desired details.

But because of competing concerns (see the comments about this being a "wicked problem," above), the leadership deauthorized the CSU (with a sunset provision).

Not to doubt you, sir, but unless it is classified, I would like to see the Air Force's "wicked letter" on the subject.  I know we have discussed this privately, but unless it is classified or NTKB, I think we deserve to be able to see it.

The leadership has tried very, very hard to balance competing (and some would say irreconcilable) concerns.

Again, not to doubt or impugn your word, sir, but how is leaving a status-quo "uniform" that many only wear because they have to and has no aviation flavour to it doing that?

What concerns are "irreconcilable?"

For bonus points, it should have a military type appearance, perhaps even identifiable as an aviation-centric organization.

Which the current kit does not.

Sir, I have an on-paper proposal that I have posted on here, a minimum-change to the current kit.  I will post it here again for all to see, critique and review.



[attachment deleted by admin]

[Eclipse]

Heck, our last national commander wore corporates. 

She also wore the USAF-Style uniform well past being in grooming compliance.

[Ned]

It's >not< a "minority", it's at least 50% of the adult membership, and probably more if the rules were actually enforced.

Yeah, you keep saying that.  But it isn't true.  To adopt your oft-used phrase, "Cite, please." 

I've shown you why it is almost certainly less than 50%.  The average American male BMI is 26.6, according to the CDC, well below the CAP max weight standards for AF-style (which calculate out to 30.5 to 34.3 when converted to BMI).  Unless you can show that CAP members, are somehow on average significantly larger than the average American, most adult CAP members are perfectly good to go with the AF style.

But I don't mean to suggest that it is not a significant number of our members.  But it is a minority of seniors, and a relatively small minority of the overall membership when you include cadets.  (Who are members, after all, some of whom are subject to the same h/w restrictions as the seniors.)

No limitation on awards? 

Yup, no limitation on awards.  Which award can you not receive because of your size?  Which CAP ribbons can you not wear on your corporate uniform shirt?

Let's not play pretend there are[. . .] two groups in CAP.

FTFY.

The USAF has one uniform, and there are thousands of airman and officers serving in it that
are well outside the H/W.  They may be an a reduction program, they may be waiting on
separation, but they have a single uniform.

Actually, the AF has nearly two dozen uniform combinations.  And every single airman is tested and measured twice a year.  Any service member will tell you that being outside of their h/w equivalent issues has a severely negative effect on their career.  Their very livelihood.  They get a chance to come into standard, but if they don't they become "former airmen."

Unlike our paid colleagues in the AF, our dual track uniform system allows larger members to continue their service. 

She also wore the USAF-Style uniform well past being in grooming compliance.

Really?  Based on your calibrated eyeball?  Even assuming you meant h/w, I don't think you are in a position to be tossing stones, sir.

But I assume we can agree that compliance and enforcement are critical for all CAP rules, including uniforms.

[lordmonar]

But it goes too far to suggest that a minority are treated as "second class citizens" simply because of the required duty uniforms.  There is no limitation on awards, promotions, duty assignments, or anything else in CAP that are based on h/w or grooming issues.

Just a minor point of order....there is a weight restriction for the Green Flag West mission.....due to limitations of the aircraft and the duration of the mission.....but that is the only one I know of.

[lordmonar]

Heck, our last national commander wore corporates. 

She also wore the USAF-Style uniform well past being in grooming compliance.

And stopped...when she was call out on it.   Yes...even our leaders fail sometimes.

[Eclipse]

Unlike our paid colleagues in the AF, our dual track uniform system allows larger members to continue their service.

How nice...for the service.  You say that as if it was some advantage or benefit for those members.
CAP would fold the next day if it said only those who could wear USAF-Style uniforms could serve.
Those people with an itch to serve would move on to "other", with CAP smoldering behind them.

Ned, giving people awards and bling they can't wear, or wear equally is the issue, not whether they can earn them.
The next thing you'll assert is that wearing them isn't really the point, yet it seems to
be somewhat "important" to those with the choice, and a significant source of revenue
for that vendor we all use.

For those forced to wear the Realtor jacket, they are restricted from wearing their
grade, awards, and badges of office in the same way as others.  If that's not a separate class,
I don't know what is. 

And frankly, I don't care what "other organizations", including the USAF wear.  This is a
conversation about CAP, and the CAP multiform mess.  What other organizations wear is irrelevant,
since, as you state, CAP is unique in the universe.

Really?  Based on your calibrated eyeball?  Even assuming you meant h/w, I don't think you are in a position to be tossing stones, sir.

I do not live in a glass house, you held her as the example, not I. 

But I assume we can agree that compliance and enforcement are critical for all CAP rules, including uniforms.

Agreeing on this is meaningless in the face of the overwhelming evidence that it is lip service only.
We're not supposed to post "bad uniform photos" anymore, but Google is your friend here, it won't take more then
a single search. In many cases Wing & Region CCs, not to mention national staff, are the worst offenders in
regards to uniform wear, both in regards to grooming and also proper wear.

If you are really going to assert that the majority of adult CAP members are allowed to
wear the USAF-style combinations, I will take that bet any day of the week.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

How nice...for the service.  You say that as if it was some advantage or benefit for those members.
CAP would fold the next day if it said only those who could wear USAF-Style uniforms could serve.
Those people with an itch to serve would move on to "other", with CAP smoldering behind them.

Some already have, to places like the CGAUX and NSCC.

Ned, giving people awards and bling they can't wear, or wear equally is the issue, not whether they can earn them.
The next thing you'll assert is that wearing them isn't really the point, yet it seems to be somewhat "important" to those with the choice, and a significant source of revenue
for that vendor we all use.

For those forced to wear the Realtor jacket, they are restricted from wearing their grade, awards, and badges of office in the same way as others.  If that's not a separate class,
I don't know what is. 

Said quite well, sir.  I have had university-level courses in logic and to try and equate the Realtor jacket with "service dress" is at best, commission of false equivalence and false analogy fallacies.

And frankly, I don't care what "other organizations", including the USAF wear.  This is a conversation about CAP, and the CAP multiform mess.  What other organizations wear is irrelevant, since, as you state, CAP is unique in the universe.

I think some, maybe not Colonel Lee, but some, would try and justify the current "uniformess" with an appeal to argumentum ad temperantiam (which, oddly enough, is sometimes called in English the "grey fallacy!"), suggesting that what we have now is the only possible "middle ground/compromise."  Some may suggest an appeal to the "low-light/at-a-distance" undefineable/unenforceable fallacy (causal oversimplification) that the Air Force has set down.  It is unenforceable and undefineable for the following reasons:

1. How "low" is "low-light?"
2. How far is "at-a-distance?"
3. Who is making the determination of "distinctive?"  Is it an E-1 fresh out of Lackland who knows nothing of CAP or CC AETC?
4. What is the visual acuity of the person making the observation?

Agreeing on this is meaningless in the face of the overwhelming evidence that it is lip service only.  We're not supposed to post "bad uniform photos" anymore, but Google is your friend here, it won't take more then a single search. In many cases Wing & Region CCs, not to mention national staff, are the worst offenders in regards to uniform wear, both in regards to grooming and also proper wear.

I personally know a CAP Lt. Col. who wears the blue windbreaker and rank shoulder marks with the grey/white.

[Ned]

Ned, giving people awards and bling they can't wear, or wear equally is the issue, not whether they can earn them.

OK, let's take you at your word, and define the issue as "whether or not members get awards they can't wear or wear equally."  (I don't think that is anywhere near the most important uniform issue, but let's go with it for the moment.)

If that is what we are really talking about -- if that is what all of this continuing angst is really about -- let's take a close look.



As near as I can tell, we are talking about  roughly 4% of seniors (or about 2% of the entire membership) that are affected by the issue as you define it.


Stay with me for a bit, and let's assume a round number of 30,000 seniors and 26.000 cadets to make the math easy for a lawyer like me.


We start with the best evidence that suggests that significantly less than 50% of seniors are so large that they cannot wear the AF-style uniform.  (See previous CDC data).  I don't have a good way to refine that further, so let's spitball and call it 40% of the seniors, or roughly 12,000 members.  Still a pretty big number, to be sure.

It sounds like we agree that all members wearing the aviator shirt can wear their earned CAP decorations, badges, and awards.  So that isn't the problem.  Clearly, the problem only affects the seniors who need or would wear the service dress coat (or equivalent).

So what percentage of "AF-style capable  seniors" do you think need or own a service dress coat?  Obviously there is no data, but I would be very surprised if the figure is over 10%.  Most of us simply don't need the coat, and it is rather expensive for something that gets worn very rarely.  I certainly didn't have one for at least 10 years after turning senior.  The overwhelming majority of us perform our duty in long/short sleeve shirt combinations when not wearing a field or flight uniform.  Or polos.

And there is certainly no reason to believe that "non AF-style capable" seniors need a service dress coat equivalent at a higher rate than AF-style eligible members.

So assuming a 10% "service dress coat" rate of the 12,000 seniors restricted from AF-style uniforms, we are talking about 1,200 senior members out of 30,000 total seniors that face the issue that you are concerned about.

Restated, that is about 4% of the seniors, and a little over 2% of the total membership.




But I can only agree that my figures are (charitably put) rough estimates.  If we adopt your assertion that a majority of seniors are restricted, that sets the universe of affected members at something like 16,500.  And let's be generous and assume that 20% of them would go out and buy whatever service dress coat equivalent we could imagine.  Then we are talking about 3,300 seniors that are potentially affected.

(30,000 * .55 * .20 = 3,300)

Or about 11% of seniors.

Or about 6% or the total membership.



Now I don't mean to suggest for a moment that every single member does not deserve a professional uniform, and the ability to wear their earned CAP awards, badges, and decorations.  Those are important to all of us, regardless of size.

But before making wholesale changes in our uniform policy, we should carefully consider the size and scope of the problem.

The next thing you'll assert is that wearing them isn't really the point, yet it seems to
be somewhat "important" to those with the choice, and a significant source of revenue
for that vendor we all use.

It is clearly important to many CAP members, regardless of uniform style.  Which is why our leadership has provided a uniform that allows the wear of all CAP badges, awards, and decorations regardless of the wearer's eligibility for the AF-style uniform. 

If you are really going to assert that the majority of adult CAP members are allowed to
wear the USAF-style combinations, I will take that bet any day of the week.

So I take it you do not accept the CDC evidence.  How do you propose to find some alternative data to settle the bet?

[abdsp51]

I'd like to chime in and state that there are no H/W for USAF personnel.  There is a H/W matrix for initial entry but once you are in and have graduated basic then they no longer apply. 

The AF separates personnel who fail their pt tests 4 times within 2 years.  And while for the longest time the waist measurement was a huge killer for many that has since changed.  Currently if failing the waist measurement is the only failing factor the member then does a BMI.

The AF has not had the weight management program for 10 years or more as a result of the pt test that was implemented back in 2004. 

[Matt Kenyon]

18.5% of those voted have faith... Eighteen point Five percent have faith National will do something "right."

scary

[Майор Хаткевич]

Ned...not taking into account empty shirts and 000 (10% of SMs)...you really think only 10% have a need for a service coat?

[lordmonar]

18.5% of those voted have faith... Eighteen point Five percent have faith National will do something "right."

scary

No....18% have said that it will get done my 1 june.

"right" is a value loaded statement.

I would rather NHQ get it right....then get it "on time".

74.1% thing that NHQ is working hard at at...and with either be published 1 June or come back to field for more comments....Oh! And another 18.4% think it will happen....they just don't want to.

So...that is over 92.6% think NHQ is going to do it "right".

[Ned]

Ned...not taking into account empty shirts and 000 (10% of SMs)...you really think only 10% have a need for a service coat?

Actually, I think 10% is generous.  I didn't get one until I was an encampment commander.  Certainly few, if any, members need it at the squadron level, and over 90% of our seniors work at the squadron level.

It is expensive, about $180 at the exchange website.  Of course, some folks get it for free from a friend or a CAP source.  And how often would the average squadron person wear it, even if they bought one?  Three time a year, maybe?

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

It sounds like we agree that all members wearing the aviator shirt can wear their earned CAP decorations, badges, and awards.  So that isn't the problem.  Clearly, the problem only affects the seniors who need or would wear the service dress coat (or equivalent).

There is no equivalent.

So what percentage of "AF-style capable  seniors" do you think need or own a service dress coat?  Obviously there is no data, but I would be very surprised if the figure is over 10%.  Most of us simply don't need the coat, and it is rather expensive for something that gets worn very rarely.  I certainly didn't have one for at least 10 years after turning senior.  The overwhelming majority of us perform our duty in long/short sleeve shirt combinations when not wearing a field or flight uniform.  Or polos.

I bought one (old "Tony Nelson" style) when I first joined CAP in 1993.  I have a current style one hanging in my closet that I desperately wish I could wear, but I cannot currently do so.

I avoid "formal" type activities because I don't want to wear that bloody horrible blazer...and I do not own a civilian suit, nor do I plan to.

And there is certainly no reason to believe that "non AF-style capable" seniors need a service dress coat equivalent at a higher rate than AF-style eligible members.

Colonel, there are different levels of "need."  I'm sure you have heard of Maslow's "self-actualisation" pyramid.  At this level esprit de corps comes into play.  I do not claim to speak for anyone else, but I certainly do not feel much of that, being a member of the AF's Auxiliary, forced to wear a uniform I loathe (say at a Wing banquet) while many, many of my colleagues are resplendent in their AF blues...as I used to be.

Now I don't mean to suggest for a moment that every single member does not deserve a professional uniform, and the ability to wear their earned CAP awards, badges, and decorations.  Those are important to all of us, regardless of size.

Which we currently do not have.

But before making wholesale changes in our uniform policy, we should carefully consider the size and scope of the problem.

Without wishing to sound like a broken record, that certainly did not seem to be the case with the CSU.  NEC said it was gone, and it was given a sunset date, later extended, but gone nonetheless.  That is a "wholesale change."

I wish to know why so many seem to be resistant to (for example) changing the white shirt to a blue, civilian, Van Heusen aviator shirt, which costs exactly the same as the white one, and devising some sort of headgear.