Military badges on CAP uniforms?

[Larry Mangum]

Ok, bringing us (and me  )back to the original line of questioning -

It seems to me that 39-1 needs a new revision that covers in depth the new corporate dress uniform. Since the new dress uniform is in fact a dress uniform and not an informal blazer / slacks combo like before, it seems like common sense would dictate that whatever the AF allows worn on the CAP AF "style" dress uniform should at least be allowed on the new corporate dress uniform.

If someone here is on one of the national uniform committees, please take this into consideration as an official suggestion.

Thanks!

It is my understanding that the uniform committee, wrapped up its work and submitted its recommendations to the powers that be. Wither that means we will see a new 39-1 is anyones guess though.

[RiverAux]

It seems to me that 39-1 needs a new revision that covers in depth the new corporate dress uniform

Probably the one thing that everyone on CAPTalk would agree on. 

[Prospector]

It is my understanding that the uniform committee, wrapped up its work and submitted its recommendations to the powers that be. Wither that means we will see a new 39-1 is anyones guess though.

Thanks for the response. All we can do is air what's on our minds and hopefully stay constructive while doing so. I think we can all agree that in all of these discussions all we want is for CAP to be the best and most professional organization posssible.

Thanks everyone for taking part in the discussion.

[winterg]

Personally, I think there would be a lot less hassle and confusion and really help the general membership solidify their identity if CAP only had one set of uniforms.

It should be easy.  If you're fat and/or fuzzy -> you don't get a uniform.  You get a blazer.  Problem solved.

[Eclipse]

Personally, I think there would be a lot less hassle and confusion and really help the general membership solidify their identity if CAP only had one set of uniforms.

It should be easy.  If you're fat and/or fuzzy -> you don't get a uniform.  You get a blazer.  Problem solved.

Awesome solution - will that be camo or blue for field use?

[winterg]

Personally, I think there would be a lot less hassle and confusion and really help the general membership solidify their identity if CAP only had one set of uniforms.

It should be easy.  If you're fat and/or fuzzy -> you don't get a uniform.  You get a blazer.  Problem solved.

Awesome solution - will that be camo or blue for field use?

Maybe we should stay in BDU's after everyone else has left them and keep em as a CAP uniform.  I think the availability argument is bunk. 

I've argued this before that a large portion of the problem would solve itself if we created a better environment of health conscientious adult membership

[Short Field]

 :clap: :clap: :clap: And if they smoke, are overweight, have long hair, or don't shave - just 2B them......  We also need to meet the same level of quality in our ranks as the USAF, so if a 2Lt or above doesn't have a BA or BS, then they don't get to be a CAP officer.

[Eclipse]

What we need is some acceptance by Big Bro Blue that our demographic is Joe Average, and Joe's gittin
a little heavy.  We also need the same allowances that the military is now giving for physicals - ability
vs. ht/wt.  Right now we're actually being held to a higher general standard than the USAF is for the same uniform.

Perhaps the compromise that we could all wear the ABU's and flight suits but reserve the blues for those in weight and the CSU for those that aren't - the fuzzies can just shave if it comes down to that being the only reason to keep the whites around.

That would get us most of the way to a more uniform look.

[SarDragon]

No one has answered this "elephant in the room" question yet - that of why there are two different uniforms for the organization? Is there some operational need for us to have 2 sets?

In a word, yes.

The AF has established specific criteria for wearing their uniforms. You must meet the weight and grooming standards.

We have more than a few members who, for whatever reasons, don't meet those standards. They need something to wear to participate, so we have the corporate/CAP distinctive uniforms - Blazer, CSU, aviator combination, golf shirt, and BBDUs.

Until such time as the AF decides differently on their rules, or CAP ditches the AF uniforms totally, this is what we have to work with.

[winterg]

:clap: :clap: :clap: And if they smoke, are overweight, have long hair, or don't shave - just 2B them......  We also need to meet the same level of quality in our ranks as the USAF, so if a 2Lt or above doesn't have a BA or BS, then they don't get to be a CAP officer.

If you don't want to take the argument seriously, fine.  Nowhere in my statement did I propose this.  I never said to get rid of anybody, I never said anything about education standards for rank.  Do we need to raise overall standards? You bet your sweet [explitive deleted]!

But now that you mention it....

If you do not have a college degree, maybe you should be wearing stripes.

[JohnKachenmeister]

No one has answered this "elephant in the room" question yet - that of why there are two different uniforms for the organization? Is there some operational need for us to have 2 sets?

In a word, yes.

The AF has established specific criteria for wearing their uniforms. You must meet the weight and grooming standards.

We have more than a few members who, for whatever reasons, don't meet those standards. They need something to wear to participate, so we have the corporate/CAP distinctive uniforms - Blazer, CSU, aviator combination, golf shirt, and BBDUs.

Until such time as the AF decides differently on their rules, or CAP ditches the AF uniforms totally, this is what we have to work with.

Actually, the weight standards was CAP shooting itself in the foot.  The AF just gave them the loaded gun.

The CAP height/weight standards were written by CAP in response to the AF telling us to improve our uniform image with regard to fat guys.  The standard was written at 10 percent over basic training entry weight.  No allowance for body fat and no modifications since it was written.

I do not know why body fat considerations were not written into the regulation.  In the Army, after a body fat determination, my weight of 216-220 was legal.  In CAP I top out at 199 to be legal.

[jimmydeanno]

...And if they smoke, are overweight, have long hair, or don't shave - just 2B them......

Not sure if this is sarcastic or not, but our Comm Officer of the Year last year was an overweight, long haired guy with a beard - I think he smokes too...

[Rotorhead]

Personally, I think there would be a lot less hassle and confusion and really help the general membership solidify their identity if CAP only had one set of uniforms.

It should be easy.  If you're fat and/or fuzzy -> you don't get a uniform.  You get a blazer.  Problem solved.

People are gonna look pretty odd wearing blazers while DFing in the mountains.

[winterg]

Personally, I think there would be a lot less hassle and confusion and really help the general membership solidify their identity if CAP only had one set of uniforms.

It should be easy.  If you're fat and/or fuzzy -> you don't get a uniform.  You get a blazer.  Problem solved.

People are gonna look pretty odd wearing blazers while DFing in the mountains.

Then look two messages after the one you quoted where we discuss a field uniform for all.

[Rotorhead]

Personally, I think there would be a lot less hassle and confusion and really help the general membership solidify their identity if CAP only had one set of uniforms.

It should be easy.  If you're fat and/or fuzzy -> you don't get a uniform.  You get a blazer.  Problem solved.

People are gonna look pretty odd wearing blazers while DFing in the mountains.

Then look two messages after the one you quoted where we discuss a field uniform for all.

You mean, like the post I made on the first page of the thread suggesting the same thing?

[ricks]

:clap: :clap: :clap: And if they smoke, are overweight, have long hair, or don't shave - just 2B them......  We also need to meet the same level of quality in our ranks as the USAF, so if a 2Lt or above doesn't have a BA or BS, then they don't get to be a CAP officer.

If you don't want to take the argument seriously, fine.  Nowhere in my statement did I propose this.  I never said to get rid of anybody, I never said anything about education standards for rank.  Do we need to raise overall standards? You bet your sweet [explitive deleted]!

But now that you mention it....

If you do not have a college degree, maybe you should be wearing stripes.

Really? First off the NCO Corps is laden with degreed individuals. I take issue with your statement. Second, perhaps we can have a promotion structure that relates to our mission. Oh wait, we do. Working through a specialty track is the way to get promoted. As you progress in your specialty, you gain rank. Pretty smart in my book. We focus on three missions. You can obtain rank by following specialty tracks in any of those three missions. It is good that we promote based on the missions we are apart of not on unrelated degrees. If we have an awesome A&P mechanic sans degree should he not be able to be maint. officer and attain rank? We are top heavy to be sure. However, we do not have the manpower to have an administrative officer overseeing enlisted workers.  I would like to see promotions based on the current system and augmented with some sort of peer review or promotion board.

BTW. If you really want to be all high-speed military and require degrees I guess you better have CAP funded schooling to attain those degrees. That is what the RM does.

I think we are in a drift.

[winterg]

Take issue with it all you want.  The bootom line is that our method of handing out rank like like a gumball machine needs a serious overhaul.  And it would not need CAP funded schooling.  And yes, I know we are in a drift.  Surprises it hasn't been locked yet.

[Eclipse]

To be clear there is no direct connection between grade and the mission, or a member's duties.

You could be the CDC and also the finance officer, never get a CPO rating and use the Finance Master to progress to Lt. Col.  These days, thanks to WBP, there's not a whole lot for FM's to do, and simple job performance is all that's really required to get to Master.

Same would be for ES, etc.

Were we really mission-focused for progression, there would be a mandate that your staff postings required progression in the related specialty.

[ricks]

To be clear there is no direct connection between grade and the mission, or a member's duties.

You could be the CDC and also the finance officer, never get a CPO rating and use the Finance Master to progress to Lt. Col.  These days, thanks to WBP, there's not a whole lot for FM's to do, and simple job performance is all that's really required to get to Master.

Same would be for ES, etc.

Were we really mission-focused for progression, there would be a mandate that your staff postings required progression in the related specialty.

I like that except for the logistics of it. At least in my squadron, there is quite a bit of turnover in staff positions with some folks wearing multiple hats. I know the argument will be related to retention and that is true. We are working to fix the retention and slow the turnover. However, we have had unforseen changes in leadership as volunteer organizations do, totaly out of our control. Looking at it from a national view, it would be a nightmare to implement, in my opinion.

[Eclipse]

To be clear there is no direct connection between grade and the mission, or a member's duties.

You could be the CDC and also the finance officer, never get a CPO rating and use the Finance Master to progress to Lt. Col.  These days, thanks to WBP, there's not a whole lot for FM's to do, and simple job performance is all that's really required to get to Master.

Same would be for ES, etc.

Were we really mission-focused for progression, there would be a mandate that your staff postings required progression in the related specialty.

I like that except for the logistics of it. At least in my squadron, there is quite a bit of turnover in staff positions with some folks wearing multiple hats. I know the argument will be related to retention and that is true. We are working to fix the retention and slow the turnover. However, we have had unforseen changes in leadership as volunteer organizations do, totaly out of our control. Looking at it from a national view, it would be a nightmare to implement, in my opinion.

I agree, and this comes back to the volunteer paradigm - military services and even to some extent private corporations can simply tell someone to do something, and require they complete the requisite training.

We're forever stuck in the "ask me nicely" mode, with a "You're lucky I showed up at all" response.  Unless NHQ is willing to accept the attrition which would come with raising expectations across the board, and consider billeting members, it will continue this way.