The New CAPM 39-1 Now Available

Started by MisterCD, June 26, 2014, 05:25:56 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Eclipse

Ewww...

FYI - gouging your eyes out does >not< remove mental images.

"That Others May Zoom"

Storm Chaser

Quote from: CAPM 39-1, 26 June 2014, Page 116
CHARLES L. CARR, JR.
Major General, CAP
Commander

It seems to me that a decision about the uniform WAS made. Some/many members may not like it. Other decisions discussed here on this forum would cause similar reactions from the other side(s). I'm not sure CAP will ever please every member, but maybe a better solution can be reached.

That said, we just got a new uniform manual and a new National Commander. We should at least give our leaders a chance to succeed (or fail); see how things progress from here. Some members here are so discouraged, pessimistic or just cynical, that no matter what happens, the CAP glass is always "half empty".

I'm all for seeking solutions to improve CAP. But some of the comments here do a disservice to our organization. If you're not willing to be part of the solution, please step aside and leave room for those who are. We need leaders who can positively impact our organization; leaders who can help us accomplish our mission. We can do without the constant negativity. Solutions require action, not constant complaining and criticism.

Ned

Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2014, 05:15:12 AM

Now if I was the NHQ/CC some of the changes I would make in regards to uniforms would be:

[ . . .]
3) Require weigh-ins for all members above 18yo who desire to wear the AF style uniform until the implementation of a unified uniform.  Also members would be required to sign a form stating that they will comply with uniform policies or face some degree of personnel action.    [. . .]
Would these be popular, probably not but would help to bring a more firm identity to the org and allow for more enforcement of the publication.

As you may recall, one of the NUC's first drafts did have language about weigh-ins, but after  overwhelmingly negative reactions from the membership, it was removed from the final version.

(The language was included after a long discussion right here on CT, BTW.)

Of course, commander's do not need specific NHQ's permission to conduct weigh-ins anymore than they need written authorization to conduct uniform inspections or a gear check for ground team members.

One way to look at it, I suppose, is that NHQ did not feel the need to micromanage how commanders comply with their responsibility to ensure that members wear CAP uniforms correctly.

Bottom line, commanders may conduct weigh ins if they want to, or use any other reasonable method to enforce the regulations.


NIN



Quote from: Bobble on June 30, 2014, 03:59:05 PM

Also, nice to see that the Manual finally clears up the Blue Beret wear issue, only to open a whole 'nother can-o-worms with the 9.2.4 orange ball cap "may" goat-rope.  What, the fancy patch AND tab isn't sufficient to differentiate Hawk Mountain attendees from mere mortals?  Jeez, enough already.

Yeah nevermind different colored pistol belts, whistle chains, ascots, HMRS-specific hats that are different from the other orange had said the mere mortals have to wear, no tshirts under BDU shirts when wearing an ascot, etc.

Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Eclipse

#244
"Overwhelmingly negative reactions" to "following the regs".

Why.

Does.

Anyone.

Care?

That's cow-towing to people who are...disobeying the rules to the detriment of the organization.

Unit CCs clearly need Command Imperative, as well as repercussions to enforce this most basic rule.
When they can look around at their leadership, as well as photos posted by the NHQ PAO
and routinely see members, including their leaders, disregarding these rules, why should they care?

Bottom line, either the rule should go, or be enforced.

Typically CAP wants to have it both ways.

Pretend there are standards, but not enforce them, and then it doesn't like the dissent this engenders.

"That Others May Zoom"

sarmed1

What amazes me about the weight issue is,despite an effort to "follow the footsteps of the AFI", CAP perpetuated the height/weight chart rather than USAF updated thinking of "a reasonable military appearance while in uniform" or however the AFI words it.....
That simple change seemingly would solve most peoples angst over grey vs blue......with the exception of small section of the membership it would be a "choice" rather than the only choice.

MK
Capt.  Mark "K12" Kleibscheidel

sarmed1

Quote from: NIN on June 30, 2014, 04:26:03 PM


Quote from: Bobble on June 30, 2014, 03:59:05 PM

Also, nice to see that the Manual finally clears up the Blue Beret wear issue, only to open a whole 'nother can-o-worms with the 9.2.4 orange ball cap "may" goat-rope.  What, the fancy patch AND tab isn't sufficient to differentiate Hawk Mountain attendees from mere mortals?  Jeez, enough already.

Yeah nevermind different colored pistol belts, whistle chains, ascots, HMRS-specific hats that are different from the other orange had said the mere mortals have to wear, no tshirts under BDU shirts when wearing an ascot, etc.

I have yet to run into anyone there that truely wants to wear an ascot for any period of time longer than they absolutely have to, and certainly not long enough to justify not needing to wear a t shirt.  Especially in the summer time "scaves" are the first thing ordered off as the temp begins to rise, usually followed shortly by BDU blouse.....

MK
Capt.  Mark "K12" Kleibscheidel

Ned

Quote from: Eclipse on June 30, 2014, 04:28:47 PM
"Unit CCs clearly need Command Imperative, as well as repercussions to enforce this most basic rule.
When they can look around at their leadership, as well as photos posted by the NHQ PAO
and routinely see members, including their leaders, disregarding these rules, why should they care?

Bottom line, either the rule should go, or be enforced.

Typically CAP wants to have it both ways.

Pretend there are standards, but not enforce them, and then it doesn't like the dissent this engenders.

So, Bob, you've been a commander. 

Exactly how many weigh-ins did you conduct?

As a group commander, how exactly did you work with your squadron commanders to ensure that they enforced the regulation?


lordmonar

Eclipse.

The rule exists...the standard exists.

What the overwhelming outrage was about.......is that REQUIRING periodic weigh ins would just add more BS to what a squadron commander already has to do.

As for oversight and consequences.....I agree.....add a line to the SUI guidelines that requires a uniform inspection of say 20% of the squadron and see that the unit commander is maintaining standards.

Beyond that......even if we required weigh ins....how would it be tracked?

Making more rules is not going to make commanders follow the rules they are already over looking.

It is the same falacy that we full under with regards to safety compliance.   We now require training and tracking....but we are not really more safe and we can now argue that it affects are readiness as there is no way to fix non-compliance on the fly.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

LSThiker

Quote from: Ned on June 30, 2014, 04:18:47 PM
As you may recall, one of the NUC's first drafts did have language about weigh-ins, but after  overwhelmingly negative reactions from the membership, it was removed from the final version.

Out of curiosity, what were the arguments/negative reactions that caused its removal?

Eclipse

#250
Quote from: Ned on June 30, 2014, 04:46:34 PM
So, Bob, you've been a commander. 

Exactly how many weigh-ins did you conduct?

As a group commander, how exactly did you work with your squadron commanders to ensure that they enforced the regulation?

Interestingly, none were needed.

It was made clear that I didn't tolerate uniform issues (I can't use the term without invoking Godwin, but the term got stuck to me),
and it was also made clear to my CCs, and the staff of the encampments when I was CC of those.

I'm sure plenty happened outside my sight, but if I saw something in my AOR, I had the discrete conversation either directly
or allowed the Unit CC to have the chat.

There were also far too many times where I made note of something but the person was outside my AOR, so beyond
a chat with a CC, etc., I didn't have much choice but to FIMO, making note not to include them in anything I had control over.

It magically "worked itself out".

"Uncomfortable conversations" were something I got pretty used to, and apparently was also my legacy, as my successors
seem to have continued the practice.

"That Others May Zoom"

Eclipse

Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2014, 04:47:05 PM
Beyond that......even if we required weigh ins....how would it be tracked?

There's already a field in eServices, but it is self-filled by the member.

Just lock the field and make it CC-only.

Done.

"That Others May Zoom"

Garibaldi

Quote from: Eclipse on June 30, 2014, 04:14:24 PM
Ewww...

FYI - gouging your eyes out does >not< remove mental images.

I am laughing too hard to talk right now! bahahahahaha!!!!!!!

You're welcome.  >:D
Still a major after all these years.
ES dude, leadership ossifer, publik affaires
Opinionated and wrong 99% of the time about all things

lordmonar

Quote from: LSThiker on June 30, 2014, 04:48:46 PM
Quote from: Ned on June 30, 2014, 04:18:47 PM
As you may recall, one of the NUC's first drafts did have language about weigh-ins, but after  overwhelmingly negative reactions from the membership, it was removed from the final version.

Out of curiosity, what were the arguments/negative reactions that caused its removal?
Just more BS that we would have to track.

At some point we would have to produce a report that said we conducted weigh ins on the entire squadron....so that means everyone...even the guys you only see once in a while.

The squadron would have to get an "official" scale or you will have people arguing about "but my scale at home says 182.5 not the 183 here at the squadron".   

If it takes say 5 minutes to do each weigh in.....that's a whole hour hour gone for your typical squadron....not to include all the time it takes to get your entire squadron there for the weigh in.

Then what if you make weight in January......are you good for the whole period (six months, year, monthly)? 

What happens if you make weight at your squadron and then go to encampment and someone decides to weigh in everyone?   What do you do with your staff who then are now 1/4 pound over and they don't have corporate uniforms?

Who makes the call?   How much is mission accomplishment more important then regulation adherence?

Lots of cans of worms with that.....and IMHO not really worth the heart ache.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Phil Hirons, Jr.

Quote from: abdsp51 on June 30, 2014, 05:15:12 AM
Either way someone is pissed.  Honestly IMHO the org has done a good job of having some type of alternate uniform for all of membership. 

I'm throwing the BS flag on this.

G/W are not uniform. A few weeks ago I saw 12 people wearing them and 13 shades of medium gray.

Those of us stuck with the G/W all but got down on our knees and begged for a gray hat. That alone would have gone a long way toward feeling included. No hat for you!

Taking the Flight Cap from the Blue flight uniform. No hat for you!

Obesity caused by an underlying medical condition has been treated as a disability in some courts. I don't think the alternate uniform options are a reasonable accommodation.

The release of the new 39-1 would seem to reset the 60 day clock on a discrimination complaint.



Ned

Quote from: LSThiker on June 30, 2014, 04:48:46 PM
Out of curiosity, what were the arguments/negative reactions that caused its removal?

Privacy / Dignity ("I don't want to have to stand in some line so a CAP officer can weigh me and write down the results that go God knows where)
Fear that commanders would hound folks and only selectively enforce the weigh-in requirments
Additional record-keeping burders on the unit
Loss of training time for the unit
Lack of trust in accepting a member's word
Lot's of dicussion about how the scales would be standardized / calibrated - possibility of being stigmatized by a scale that was only 98% accurate
Expense to units to purchase an acceptable scale ("Unfunded mandates.")
Local unit members had little faith that higher headquarters staffers would be required to meet the same mandate


and probably some others that I can't recall just now.

Eclipse

Quote from: lordmonar on June 30, 2014, 05:00:24 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on June 30, 2014, 04:48:46 PM
Quote from: Ned on June 30, 2014, 04:18:47 PM
As you may recall, one of the NUC's first drafts did have language about weigh-ins, but after  overwhelmingly negative reactions from the membership, it was removed from the final version.

Out of curiosity, what were the arguments/negative reactions that caused its removal?
Just more BS that we would have to track.

At some point we would have to produce a report that said we conducted weigh ins on the entire squadron....so that means everyone...even the guys you only see once in a while.

The squadron would have to get an "official" scale or you will have people arguing about "but my scale at home says 182.5 not the 183 here at the squadron".   

If it takes say 5 minutes to do each weigh in.....that's a whole hour hour gone for your typical squadron....not to include all the time it takes to get your entire squadron there for the weigh in.

Then what if you make weight in January......are you good for the whole period (six months, year, monthly)? 

What happens if you make weight at your squadron and then go to encampment and someone decides to weigh in everyone?   What do you do with your staff who then are now 1/4 pound over and they don't have corporate uniforms?

Who makes the call?   How much is mission accomplishment more important then regulation adherence?

Lots of cans of worms with that.....and IMHO not really worth the heart ache.

Limit the weigh-ins to once a quarter or once a year, or for that matter...just once. ("Just Once" would fix 90% of the problems immediately).

Like safety compliance, if you're not weighed-in, you don't play until you are.

All pilots have medicals - they can use the weight from their Dr., an allowance you can make for everyone.

And I throw the flag on the "official scale" - just like our compass use, +/5 is fine, and let the "one guy" who wants to
file a complaint do it.  No one even reasonably passable is going to have an issue with +/- 5.

As a reminder, this isn't in place of the mission, it's part of it, and already a mandate of being a CC, yet laregly ignored.

Which then renders >all< the regs potentially "optional" at the whim of the person enforcing it, and frankly,
that's the situation we find ourselves in today, and that costs us time, money, member initiative, and actual members,
both experienced and especially new, when people get either fed up or don't' want to be involved with an organization
that can't get its membership to fall in line with even basic rules, but are somehow expected to save live and mold youth.

"That Others May Zoom"

Eclipse

Quote from: Ned on June 30, 2014, 05:10:47 PM
Privacy / Dignity ("I don't want to have to stand in some line so a CAP officer can weigh me and write down the results that go God knows where)

The don't wear the blues.

Done.

"That Others May Zoom"

Eclipse

#258
How about this:

Anyone accepting command, or a staff position at the wing level or higher is required to substantiate compliance.
This insures the people who make policy, enforce the rules, and present the example to the rank and file
are in proper uniform, but leaves the average member out of the discussion, at least initially.

They do a background check on most members who get eagles, a weigh-in shouldn't be a big deal.

"That Others May Zoom"

Ned

Quote from: Eclipse on June 30, 2014, 04:53:41 PM
Interestingly, none were needed.

It was made clear that I didn't tolerate uniform issues (I can't use the term without invoking Godwin, but the term got stuck to me),
and it was also made clear to my CCs, and the staff of the encampments when I was CC of those.

[. . .]

"Uncomfortable conversations" were something I got pretty used to, and apparently was also my legacy, as my successors
seem to have continued the practice.

Good for you, sir.

Sounds like the membership was correct, weigh ins are not necessary.  All it takes is commanders willing to have uncomfortable conversations.

If commanders won't do that, no regulation is going to help.