Where are squadron patches allowed on flight suits?

[Blues Brother]

Where are squadron patches allowed on flight suits?  what is the approved location to put them on flight suits and flight jackets??

I have to get some velcro sewn on my flight suit and jacket and want to make sure its in the correct location before its done.  THanks in advance for any input! 

[Shotgun]

The short answer is they are not.

[Eclipse]

On the right shoulder as one of the optional patches, only if your wing has an approved supplement allowing them to be worn, otherwise they are not allowed.

[Blues Brother]

OK  thanks for the info.  I was mistaken on this one.  I thought that one squadron patch was approved on a flight suit.  my mistake.  thanks for the feedback!

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

On the right shoulder as one of the optional patches, only if your wing has an approved supplement allowing them to be worn, otherwise they are not allowed.

Which is where I wear mine, attached with Velcro.

[Blues Brother]

OK so you CAN wear one, but in place of a wing patch then??

[Eclipse]

OK so you CAN wear one, but in place of a wing patch then??

On the right shoulder as one of the optional patches, only if your wing has an approved supplement allowing them to be worn, otherwise they are not allowed.

[Larry Mangum]

Actually, you can not and the wing is not allowed to supplement what is worn on the flight suit. See figure 2-19 in CAPM 39-1, note 6. Also see table 2-4. 

[Eclipse]

Actually, you can not and the wing is not allowed to supplement what is worn on the flight suit. See figure 2-19 in CAPM 39-1, note 6. Also see table 2-4.

Cite please.

The wing is, of course, allowed to supplement most regulations, including 39-1.  Mine has, as have many others.

[Larry Mangum]

See Chapter 1-1, paragraph 1-1.
"Wear of the AF-style uniforms, as well as the insignia, badges, and devices worn on these uniforms are as prescribed by the Commander, CAP-USAF, with the approval of Headquarters USAF." Therefore a wing commander cannot supplement a uniform controlled by the Air Force.

" Table 1-3 describes items that may be authorized by wing/region commanders."


Table 6-4 also  clearly delinates what patch can be worn on what uniform.

[Eclipse]

You can quote that text all you want, or accept the fact that even the most current uniform ICL from NHQ conflicts with the regulation.

There are a number of wings with properly approved supps to 39-1 and other regulations.

If you're trying to make an academic argument, so be it, but reality conflicts with your assertions about what Wing and Region CC's can and have done.

[Larry Mangum]

Eclipse, I do not know of any approved supplement anywhere in the country that changes what can be worn on the flight suit. Do you?  Yes CAPM 39-1 has been supplements by many wings, but only on things the regulation says wing and region commanders are authorized to approve changes. The Air Force has been mores strict about what can be worn on that particular uniform than any other uniform. 

[Eclipse]

Yes.  Mine. 

I have no idea where the assertion about the the USAF being more concerned about the flight suit, specifically, comes from, other then then
questions about still wearing plastic-encased grade, I don't think there's been much, if any, discussion on anyone's part about the flight suit(s)
for a decade.

[Larry Mangum]

Which is what wing or region?

[SARDOC]

Eclipse you asked Larry Mangum to cite his argument and he did.  Just because other's choose to ignore the letter of the regulation doesn't make it right.  The Regulation clearly identifies the items that Region and Wing Commanders have the latitude to approve. 

You can't supplement or alter a regulation that specifically prohibits that alteration.  If you want to make those changes they should follow the process identified in the regulation.

As far as wearing Squadron Patches on Flight Suits...I don't really care.  If you have a Supplement that was submitted and eventually approved by CAP-USAF as stated in the process identified in the regulation then I think that NHQ failed to publish that authorized change to everyone. 

The Interim Change Letter that was issued 17 Dec 2012 to CAPM 39-1 is in effect, however, I would challenge the validity of the ICL from 12 Mar 2012.  Just because another ICL says it is in effect until further notice actually violates the CAPR 5-4. 

[Cool Mace]

The Interim Change Letter that was issued 17 Dec 2012 to CAPM 39-1 is in effect, however, I would challenge the validity of the ICL from 12 Mar 2012.  Just because another ICL says it is in effect until further notice actually violates the CAPR 5-4.

Just another example on how ICL's can mess up a lot of stuff.

[Eclipse]

You can't supplement or alter a regulation that specifically prohibits that alteration.  If you want to make those changes they should follow the process identified in the regulation.

39-1 does not prohibit it being supplemented.

It also asserts that it is the only and sole authority on uniform wear, which it clearly is not.

The Interim Change Letter that was issued 17 Dec 2012 to CAPM 39-1 is in effect, however, I would challenge the validity of the ICL from 12 Mar 2012.  Just because another ICL says it is in effect until further notice actually violates the CAPR 5-4.

No argument there.

[SARDOC]

You can't supplement or alter a regulation that specifically prohibits that alteration.  If you want to make those changes they should follow the process identified in the regulation.

39-1 does not prohibit it being supplemented.

It also asserts that it is the only and sole authority on uniform wear, which it clearly is not.

I have a working understanding of Parliamentary Procedure.  I agree, I made some mistakes in my previous assertion.  The real problem is that CAPM 39-1 is that it is NOT a regulation.  It's a Manual.  A Manual by definition is to announce procedures and guidance for performing standard tasks and usually contain examples.  A Procedure is a step by step process in order to perform a task.  Guidance is just that Guidance on how something SHOULD be done.

It does declare that Compliance with Publication is Mandatory.  This is similar to my problem with the ICL.  Just because they state a condition that isn't supported by regulations doesn't make it so.  A Manual, OI, ICL, Supplement, etc...That Contradict established regulations should be immediately declared invalid.

The Fix to that would be to actually create a Regulation that adopts the CAP Manual 39-1 by reference.

[Pylon]

The National Commander has the authority to change any part of the regulation or manual, at their pleasure.  So if the National Commander (or his delegated authority) approves a wing supplement that contradicts something in the regulation, he or she is in effect approving a change to the regulation for that wing or region.  If the regulation/manual says "Wing and region commanders may approve X, Y, and Z" that doesn't bind the national commander's hands as the approving/change authority for the reg.

[JeffDG]

The National Commander has the authority to change any part of the regulation or manual, at their pleasure.  So if the National Commander (or his delegated authority) approves a wing supplement that contradicts something in the regulation, he or she is in effect approving a change to the regulation for that wing or region.  If the regulation/manual says "Wing and region commanders may approve X, Y, and Z" that doesn't bind the national commander's hands as the approving/change authority for the reg.

Bingo.

If it says Wing Commanders may do x,y,z, that's pre-permission for them to do so without higher-approval.  If they want to do w, then they need permission.

[Eclipse]

The National Commander has the authority to change any part of the regulation or manual, at their pleasure.  So if the National Commander (or his delegated authority) approves a wing supplement that contradicts something in the regulation, he or she is in effect approving a change to the regulation for that wing or region.  If the regulation/manual says "Wing and region commanders may approve X, Y, and Z" that doesn't bind the national commander's hands as the approving/change authority for the reg.

Bingo.

If it says Wing Commanders may do x,y,z, that's pre-permission for them to do so without higher-approval.  If they want to do w, then they need permission.

Agreed, and I think the new governance clarifies and strengthens the NHQ/CC's authority in a lot of these cases, which means that
generally the approval by NHQ for "x" is all that is needed.

In this case, the uniform already allows for "optional" insignia in a specific area of the flight suits and field uniforms.  CAP defines what is acceptable.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

See Chapter 1-1, paragraph 1-1.
"Wear of the AF-style uniforms, as well as the insignia, badges, and devices worn on these uniforms are as prescribed by the Commander, CAP-USAF, with the approval of Headquarters USAF." Therefore a wing commander cannot supplement a uniform controlled by the Air Force.

Ever since the CSU debacle, and General Courter's ruling on the subject, the AF has control of ALL our uniforms, including corporate ones.

• Directed that all future corporate uniforms to be vetted through USAF, too. (to ensure distinctiveness)

That word "distinctiveness" sticks in my throat, because it is undefinable and unenforceable.

• Corporate style uniforms do not exist to allow those who may not wear the USAF‐style to have a military‐looking alternative.

So, you get to look like a member of the Air Force Auxiliary, or you get to look like a mall cop, or a Realtor if you wear the blazer (no offence to either of those professions).

– As the USAF "owns" the approval of military‐styled uniforms, they could have done anything to any and all uniforms.

None of our uniforms is "safe" from a ticked-off E-1 who cannot read "CAP" on epaulets, does not know what CAP is, and complains to the first shirt about it.

Standardized Grey
• Future needs:
– A consistent grey for pants/skirts – all sizes
– A consistent blue for blazers – all sizes
– Heavyweight and lightweight fabrics
– For all of the above, need to be readily available
• Considerations:
– Review what's readily available (lowers costs)
– Corporate uniform may not be military in style
– Must de‐conflict with any other organizations, too

So there you have it...we cannot have a uniform that "conflicts" with ANY other organisations.

That includes the BSA, USCGAUX, Girl Scouts, Canadian Forces, police/fire departments, Royal Observer Corps, U.S. Ranger Corps...which is why I believe 39-1 will always be CAP's 1,000 pound gorilla in the room, whether it's flight suits (for the record: I wear the blue one) or any other CAP uniform.

[Eclipse]

I think the majority of the "distinctiveness" is from the USAF, not other organizations, and while I feel your pain, I seriously
doubt CAP-USAF is considering unrelated, non-military organizations that have no affiliations whatsoever with CAP.

As long as CAP uniforms include military-style grade and decorations, the uniform will always be at risk from  poorly informed
members of the public and other services.

The real question is when, or if, the USAF will give honest consideration to the negative effect on morale and spirit that restricting
at least 1/2 the volunteer membership from participating in the affiliation and esprit-de-corps from wearing the same and
equal uniform of their peers, based primarily on an irrelevant appearance standard not recognized by similar auxiliary and cadet organizations.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I think the majority of the "distinctiveness" is from the USAF, not other organizations, and while I feel your pain, I seriously
doubt CAP-USAF is considering unrelated, non-military organizations that have no affiliations whatsoever with CAP.

As long as CAP uniforms include military-style grade and decorations, the uniform will always be at risk from  poorly informed
members of the public and other services.

The real question is when, or if, he USAF will give honest consideration to the negative effect on morale and spirit that restricting
at least 1/2 the volunteer membership from participating in the affiliation and esprit-de-corps from wearing the same and
equal uniform of their peers, based primarily on an irrelevant appearance standard not recognized by similar auxiliary and cadet organizations.

Paragraph 1: "Distinctiveness" needs to be better defined.

Paragraph 2: Their problem, not ours.

Paragraph 3: I hope so, but not bloody likely.

[RiverAux]

Okay, someone tell me why CAPM 39-1 Table 6-4 isn't the applicable part of the regulation.  It governs wear of patches on flight suits and under line 10 it discusses organizational emblems (i.e., squadron patches).  Here is what it says:

centered on the lower portion of the right breast pocket of BDU or field uniform shirt or BDU or dark blue field jacket between left and right edges and bottom of flap and pocket. (See note 2.)

There is no provision for wear of this type of patch on the flight suit.  Please note that on many other lines of this table flight suits are mentioned, so if they intended to have a squadron (or group) patch worn, they could easily have inserted "flight suit" into the sentence above. 

Fig. 2.19, which is also applicable, allows the wear of optional patches, but limits them to

wing, region or National
shoulder patch.

So, I don't see any way one could say that the squadron patch is authorized.

That being said, they should modify the regs to allow it to be worn on the sleeve as one of the optional patches. 

[Eclipse]

Table 6-4 calls out at least 18 different patches that may be worn on the flight suit as an option to the wing / region patch.

Aerial Radiological Monitoring Patch

Pilot Proficiency Patch

National SAR Competition Patch

National Flight Academy Patch

AFSC FC Patch

Cadet Officer School Patch

AETC FC Patch

National Emergency Services Academy Patch

Pararescue Orientation School Patch

Blue Beret Patch

National Encampment Patch

Hawk Mountain Patch

National Honor Guard Academy Patch

National Check Pilots Patch

Membership 2000

Wing / Region

Cadet Orientation Pilot Patch

AFRCC SAR School Patches

NASAR Qualification Patches

[Blues Brother]

well can you wear a squadron patch on the MA1 flight jacket??

[SarDragon]

well can you wear a squadron patch on the MA1 flight jacket??

Well, did you look at that section of the 39-1?

Just in case you didn't, here's the governing text:

The green flight jacket is the only outer garment authorized for wear with the green AF-style flight suit. Grade insignia, CAP command patch, American flag and leather name patch are worn. The member has the option of wearing the same optional patches on the flight jacket as worn on the flight suit.

My emphasis.

[RiverAux]

Meaning no, since the squadron patch isn't one of the authorized optional wing or national patches. 

[SarDragon]

Hey, lighten up. I was trying to let him think on his own for a bit, and let him connect things together. Now you've spoiled it all.