"Corporate Uniform" Gone!!

[Major Carrales]

Major carrales,
   Like I have said before, my sources behind the air force not being happy, was the at the time command chief of Whiteman AFB, Chief Hornbeck who is now the command chief 8th AF. Now I know what you will say, that it is speculation, but I have to trust my command chief. It's not like he hunted me down to tell me this, he was on post checks as part of our NORE, and when he found out I was a cap member he asked me my opinion on it (to which I told him I don't think it was my part to stress one to him) and then told me that he along with others in the higher commands were receiving complaints about the CSU on military installations. Now is this officially from cap-usaf, nope but like I said I have to trust the command chief on this one, can't really think of a reason for him to lie.....

All you have said is that a Command Chief Master Sgt of a USAF facility stated that "he along with others in the higher commands were receiving complaints about the CSU on military installations."  That does not equate to the whole of the USAF having an official opinion on the matter.  I think you are correct to trust your Command Chief on the matter, but what you have relayed is not the same as the USAF Command frowning on the CSU.

For that matter, the same statement could be better made for inappropriate wear of the USAF style uniform, a complaint that USAF personnel have relayed to me and we don't meet on any sort of Federal Reserve, as do some 85% of all CAP units.

[SarDragon]

Where did you get that 85% figure?

[Major Carrales]

Major, how would you feel if you gave an order and a reason for that order to your second in command at your squadron, your 2nd in command then tells everyone else the order and a reason for it, yet some of your people refuse to believe it because it didn't come from your mouth?

Totally different animal to this...

In this situation there is no "direct" chain of command at work.  There is an ambiguous letter from a region commander stating that the number of uniform combination is to be reduced not stating that the CAP-USAF requested or ordered the CSU gone for any reason.

If the letter in question said exactly what is being proported and was from the Commander of CAP-USAF to the NEC, NB or National Commander-CAP then your analogy would have merit.

In addition, any member of my unit could ask me directly my reasons, which I usually give or post in our newsletter.  Those not believing me only have to ask. Can we do that this occasion?

And,  by the way, what "orders" can a CAP Squadron commander issue that anyone is bound to follow?  Only Corporate Officer in CAP can issue edicts of the sort you imply.

[Eclipse]

And,  by the way, what "orders" can a CAP Squadron commander issue that anyone is bound to follow?  Only Corporate Officer in CAP can issue edicts of the sort you imply.

Commanders at each echelon have command authority over their respective people, within the bounds of the program, and for any facilities or resources they may have under their control.

Corporate officers are the only ones who can make legal commitments to other organizations or businesses, change regulations, and execute other actions specific to their station, but I can think of a lot of things I can tell my subordinates that they are bound to follow.

As long as a directive doesn't violate a regulation or go outside the scope of my AOR, there's no limitation to command authority internal to CAP.

[Major Carrales]

Where did you get that 85% figure?

So, you are wishing to make the argument that most CAP units meet on a USAF Federal Reserve?

Let's take just the units in my Group of my Wing...

LACKLAND CADET SQDN- USAF FEDERAL RESERVE
CORPUS CHRISTI COMP SQDN- International Airport
BROWNSVILLE COMP SQDN- International Airport
RANDOLPH COMP SQDN-USAF FEDERAL RESERVE
ALAMO COMP SQDN- Brooks City Base- No longer USAF FEDERAL RESERVE
WILD HORSE DESERT COMP SQDN-  International Airport
VICTORIA COMP SQDN- International Airport
BEXAR COUNTY SENIOR SQDN- Stinson Airport
DAVID LEE "TEX" HILL COMP SQDN- Municipal Airport
KERRVILLE  COMP SQDN-Kerrville-Kerr County Airport at Louis Schreiner Field
MID VALLEY SENIOR SQUADRON- Edinburg Airport
BANDERA CADET SQDN- School

2 our of 12 units do not meet at a USAF Installation, that is actually 83.3%.  My bad!!!

[Earhart1971]

This all comes down to whether CAP is in control of a NON Air Force Uniform. It still seems the Air Force pulls the strings on our choice of Corporate Uniform.

The AF does have control of the wearing of their uniform items, which the trousers were.

The Air Force cannot own the blue trousers.

Why not? They have a specific design and fabric that are part of the applicable Mil-Spec.

Coast Guard wears the same trousers.

And they have the same control of their version.

Whenever I have worn a "military-style" uniform, I have always been aware of the limitations and restrictions of wear defined by the regulations.

When it came to transgressions by individuals, enforcement has been selective, as it is even today in CAP. In the case of CAP's wholesale violation, the AF finally decided that it was time to do something about it.

YMMV.

What transgressions? The Air Force having a problem in the first place is a little over reaching. Its not an Air Force Uniform. Trousers are not a Uniform combination. Color is not exclusive.

The Air Force did not decide. It was CAP Leadership.

Our Leadership decided, and for what reasons not completely explained.

Let them explain it.

[Major Carrales]

And,  by the way, what "orders" can a CAP Squadron commander issue that anyone is bound to follow?  Only Corporate Officer in CAP can issue edicts of the sort you imply.

Commanders at each echelon have command authority over their respective people, within the bounds of the program, and for any facilities or resources they may have under their control.

Corporate officers are the only ones who can make legal commitments to other organizations or businesses, change regulations, and execute other actions specific to their station, but I can think of a lot of things I can tell my subordinates that they are bound to follow.

As long as a directive doesn't violate a regulation or go outside the scope of my AOR, there's no limitation to command authority internal to CAP.

Thanks Eclipse, I guess I have always worked off the the idea that we work together to accomplish the mission.  I have never once had to give a "direct order" to anyone in the style of a "swagger stick carrying" sort.

I have always issued the necessary directives with reasons given based on the cadet airman lesson that says that good attitude comes from knowing the reasons "why."  This occasion goes against that...if the reason truly the USAF requested we remove that uniform item and the authority makes that known to us, then all is resolved.

I do not know why that is so hard for people here to understand.  How is it so difficult to expect people to be upfront in their dealings this occasion?  The matter is simple, until someone from CAP-USAF, the NEC/NB as a whole or the National Commander confirms these reasons, they are not possessing of the level of standing that the same people who are clamouring against this demand of everything else.

If I accept this based on those standings, then I must also accept any other speculations of that same style and modus operandi.  I just have to be able to apply the same "rules" to all...not some...beliefs.

[RiverAux]

I see no reason why someone who refuses to take the word of a region commander would accept the word of the national commander.  The region commander was sitting right there at the SAME TABLE as the national commander when it was discussed and voted upon. 

[EMT-83]

Gentlemen, please.

It's difficult to read these posts from members, whose opinions and experience I've come to respect, sniping at each other over... uniforms.

The horse was dead on page 12 – time to end the flogging.

[Major Carrales]

I see no reason why someone who refuses to take the word of a region commander would accept the word of the national commander.  The region commander was sitting right there at the SAME TABLE as the national commander when it was discussed and voted upon.

So, you are asserting that a discussion saying that the USAF requested or ordered the removal of the CSU took place at that time?  Did you make that up as a work of historical fiction or are you the liar?

I think you are making the assumption that I don't consider the removal of the CSU valid?   You must be blinded by emotionalism if that is the case.

My assertion is that the idea that we know the "reasons" behind the removal are suspect and the result of speculation, hearsay and fictional account based on what people "want to have" happen instead of what did is not fact.

By the way, I have spoken with my Region Commander about this and nothing of what you are saying, CAP-USAF conspiracy, was mentioned.  Was he not at that "table" as well?

[SarDragon]

Where did you get that 85% figure?

So, you are wishing to make the argument that most CAP units meet on a USAF Federal Reserve?

Let's take just the units in my Group of my Wing...

LACKLAND CADET SQDN- USAF FEDERAL RESERVE
CORPUS CHRISTI COMP SQDN- International Airport
BROWNSVILLE COMP SQDN- International Airport
RANDOLPH COMP SQDN-USAF FEDERAL RESERVE
ALAMO COMP SQDN- Brooks City Base- No longer USAF FEDERAL RESERVE
WILD HORSE DESERT COMP SQDN-  International Airport
VICTORIA COMP SQDN- International Airport
BEXAR COUNTY SENIOR SQDN- Stinson Airport
DAVID LEE "TEX" HILL COMP SQDN- Municipal Airport
KERRVILLE  COMP SQDN-Kerrville-Kerr County Airport at Louis Schreiner Field
MID VALLEY SENIOR SQUADRON- Edinburg Airport
BANDERA CADET SQDN- School

2 our of 12 units do no meet at a USAF Installation, that is actually 83.3%.  My bad!!!

... we don't meet on any sort of Federal Reserve, as do some 85% of all CAP units.

Well, you made a general comment, apparently encompassing the entirety of CAP, and, in the bargain, it was unclear, and subject to misinterpretation. I took it to mean that, while your unit doesn't meet on a Federal Reserve, most of the rest of CAP does.

Additionally, the bolded text above, especially the underlined part, is equally unclear, and appears to conflict with what you have detailed in the list.

[Major Carrales]

Where did you get that 85% figure?

So, you are wishing to make the argument that most CAP units meet on a USAF Federal Reserve?

Let's take just the units in my Group of my Wing...

LACKLAND CADET SQDN- USAF FEDERAL RESERVE
CORPUS CHRISTI COMP SQDN- International Airport
BROWNSVILLE COMP SQDN- International Airport
RANDOLPH COMP SQDN-USAF FEDERAL RESERVE
ALAMO COMP SQDN- Brooks City Base- No longer USAF FEDERAL RESERVE
WILD HORSE DESERT COMP SQDN-  International Airport
VICTORIA COMP SQDN- International Airport
BEXAR COUNTY SENIOR SQDN- Stinson Airport
DAVID LEE "TEX" HILL COMP SQDN- Municipal Airport
KERRVILLE  COMP SQDN-Kerrville-Kerr County Airport at Louis Schreiner Field
MID VALLEY SENIOR SQUADRON- Edinburg Airport
BANDERA CADET SQDN- School

2 our of 12 units do no meet at a USAF Installation, that is actually 83.3%.  My bad!!!

... we don't meet on any sort of Federal Reserve, as do some 85% of all CAP units.

Well, you made a general comment, apparently encompassing the entirety of CAP, and, in the bargain, it was unclear, and subject to misinterpretation. I took it to mean that, while your unit doesn't meet on a Federal Reserve, most of the rest of CAP does.

Additionally, the bolded text above, especially the underlined part, is equally unclear, and appears to conflict with what you have detailed in the list.

I may have been confused in my original postings, the result of some miss-written syntax.

Should read...

... we don't meet on any sort of Federal Reserve, which is the same for some 85% of all CAP units .

What I mean to say is that, in my area (and I expect in a majority of CAP) some 85 percent or so of CAP units do not meet at a USAF reservation.  Due to base closures and the abundance of CAP units in areas far removed from USAF posts, the vastly greater majority of units never step foot on a USAF post.

As a matter of fact, in 12 years of CAP service I have never stepped foot on a USAF installation (unless you count Brooks-City Base which is transitioned out of Federal service in favor or Municipal use) for a CAP activity.  I have spent lot of time on Naval Air Stations...but those personnel have nothing to say about CAP uniforms.

[MIKE]

Coast Guard wears the same trousers.

Wrong.

Air Force trousers are not authorized for men or women.

[Earhart1971]

Not wrong, where do you think the double breasted coat came from?

[Major Carrales]

Not wrong, where do you think the double breasted coat came from?

You may be mistaken on this point.

[Ned]

'm call you people out now.  We are either going to adhere to CAP policy and the established standards of objectivity or we are not.

Fair enough, Joe.

Although I'm not sure exactly what "CAP standards of objectivity" are, I assume they have something to do with following our established rules and regulations in a fair and objective manner.

Which can only be a Good Thing.

The NEC made a decision.  Although they haven't published the minures or an ICL yet, I was in the room when the vote was taken and assure you that they did so.

It seems clear that the NEC has the authority to make such a decision, whether or not your or I agree with it.  And whether or not they explain the reasons for their decision to us.

But beyond that, we have two separate communications that purport to explain some or all of the reasons.  The aforementioned region commander email, and the MG Courter ppt set, both published in this very thread.

I can only agree that NHQ needs to publish the ICL that implements the decision, and I expect that they will do so shortly.

But as long as we are discussing "standards" allow me to remind all of us of a couple:

(Under "Service Before Self")

• Rule Following. To serve is to do one's duty, and our duties are most commonly expressed through rules.  While it may be the case that professionals are expected to exercise judgment in the performance of their duties, good professionals understand that rules have a reason for being, and the default position must be to follow those rules unless there is a clear, operational for refusing to do so.
  
  
• Faith in the System. To lose faith in the system is to adopt the view that you know better than those above you in the chain of command what should or should not be done.  Leaders can very influential in this regard: if a leader resists the temptation to doubt "the system", then subordinates might follow suit.

[/list]

Major, may I respectfully suggest that you and all of the other leaders in this thread are not displaying much "faith in the system."

A decision has been made.  We may not all personally agree with it, and may personally wish that there had been a better statement of reasons.

But it is now time for us to salute and assist our leadership in implementing their decision.

I would expect nothing less of a field grade officer.

Wouldn't you agree?

[RiverAux]

Ned, as you were in the room, would you also attest that this vote was made in part due to AF concerns? 

[NIN]

<snip>
A decision has been made.  We may not all personally agree with it, and may personally wish that there had been a better statement of reasons.

But it is now time for us to salute and assist our leadership in implementing their decision.

I would expect nothing less of a field grade officer.

Wouldn't you agree?

Wow. That was.. magical.

[Major Carrales]

'm call you people out now.  We are either going to adhere to CAP policy and the established standards of objectivity or we are not.

Fair enough, Joe.

Although I'm not sure exactly what "CAP standards of objectivity" are, I assume they have something to do with following our established rules and regulations in a fair and objective manner.

Which can only be a Good Thing.

The NEC made a decision.  Although they haven't published the minures or an ICL yet, I was in the room when the vote was taken and assure you that they did so.

It seems clear that the NEC has the authority to make such a decision, whether or not your or I agree with it.  And whether or not they explain the reasons for their decision to us.

But beyond that, we have two separate communications that purport to explain some or all of the reasons.  The aforementioned region commander email, and the MG Courter ppt set, both published in this very thread.

I can only agree that NHQ needs to publish the ICL that implements the decision, and I expect that they will do so shortly.

But as long as we are discussing "standards" allow me to remind all of us of a couple:

(Under "Service Before Self")

• Rule Following. To serve is to do one's duty, and our duties are most commonly expressed through rules.  While it may be the case that professionals are expected to exercise judgment in the performance of their duties, good professionals understand that rules have a reason for being, and the default position must be to follow those rules unless there is a clear, operational for refusing to do so.
  
  
• Faith in the System. To lose faith in the system is to adopt the view that you know better than those above you in the chain of command what should or should not be done.  Leaders can very influential in this regard: if a leader resists the temptation to doubt "the system", then subordinates might follow suit.

[/list]

Major, may I respectfully suggest that you and all of the other leaders in this thread are not displaying much "faith in the system."

A decision has been made.  We may not all personally agree with it, and may personally wish that there had been a better statement of reasons.

But it is now time for us to salute and assist our leadership in implementing their decision.

I would expect nothing less of a field grade officer.

Wouldn't you agree?

I do agree, however, y'all are missing my point.  My point, for the third time, is not that the removal of the CSU is not valid; but rather, that the speculations being offered as to "why" are not valid unless they are from an official source.

The CSU is canned, unless it is revisited, it will remain so.  Yes, I know some hated the uniform and that I have voiced my opposition to the action since it deemed expensive CAP purchases moot. 

But my point has not been that this removal of the uniform is not REAL, but rather that there is no proof of this "speculation turned fact" that people are proposing as a FACT (you know, that the USAF was so disgusted they ordered it removed).  Until some statement on that issue is made in a public  first person (not hearsay, "smoky backroom" discussion or creative interpretation of some thing provided)

What is happening here to me is scary.  I am pointing out things and, instead of people counting my points, they are attacking what they think I have said.  Either they are not reading my posts or they are consistently drawing the wrong conclusion.

[RiverAux]

Well, when you refuse to accept an official communication from a region commander or a powerpoint originating from NHQ as "official", how are we supposed to counter your point that no offiicial reasoning has been provided? 

I suppose that in a few months the minutes of this meeting will be posted and I'm fairly sure that like with most proposals, reasons will be given for it and they will include "AF concerns" as one of them.  Will that be enough?  Because we never get much more than that in terms of an explanation for any change in CAP regulation, nor is any required.