wear of the flight suit

[jacklumanog]

If you don't yet have an aeronautical rating like Observer, are you prohibited from wearing the flight suit? 

On a web order form, I saw that you could order flight suit badges with emblems other than observer & pilot wings.  There were options for Christian, Jewish or Muslim Chaplains and a bunch of other emblems to go above the name and rank info. 

[ELTHunter]

You are not prohibited, however, you are really only supposed to wear a flight suit when you are engaged in flying activities.  It's not meant for general wear in place of the other types of uniform.  For flying activities, you can wear it before you get a rating.  You can just put your name and grade on the leather patch, or you can put "Mission Scanner" or something similar.

[DNall]

Anyone on flying duty can wear flightsuits, and you should if flying, it's required in many wings, and should be nationally. You shouldn't wear it for ground team or just any other time, but I really don't have a problem with it at mtgs from time to time for active crew members.

You should have chaplain insignia over the wings, especially if you're a mission type chaplain &/or involved w/ CISM. It's normal in the mil to have jump wings under (they are an aeronautical rating also), but not other badges, which would include ground team or the new IC badge when it gets approved. The reg doesn't really say it's limited to one or what's allowed, but I'd stick pretty strictly to the culture on this one.

[MIKE]

2. Leather Name Patch: Will include name, grade, and aeronautical rating. Patch will be centered on
left breast above pocket. Cloth name patch is not authorized. If no aeronautical rating, a title such
as "Mission Scanner" may be used.

2. Leather Name Patch: Will include name, grade, and aeronautical rating. Patch will be centered on
left breast above pocket. Cloth name patch is not authorized.

2. Leather Name Patch: Patch will be centered on left breast above pocket. Will include name, grade,
and aeronautical rating. Cloth name patch is not authorized.

It's all in the wording.

[DNall]

The last version of an AF reg I read on the subject says the same thing, yet the practice is as I described. This is another case where I don't think they thought it all the way thru & culture exceeds the reg. In other words, I don't think those sections (especially not it being singular or plural) are determinative.

[Pylon]

The last version of an AF reg I read on the subject says the same thing, yet the practice is as I described. This is another case where I don't think they thought it all the way thru & culture exceeds the reg. In other words, I don't think those sections (especially not it being singular or plural) are determinative.

CAPM 39-1 says it is determinative.  One set of wings = "aeronautical rating."  That's it.  Nothing else is officially authorized on the leather flight badge.  "Aeronautical ratings" and other duty or qualification badges are not mentioned there.  We know CAPM 39-1 is exclusionary in nature, so if doesn't say you can do it, you can't.

If people want NHQ to consider alowing Chaplain's devices, and Ground team badges, and authorizing multiple devices at once, send a proposal up the chain of command for consideration instead of just skirting the rules.

However, since a duty title is allowed in text, one without a rating could have "Chaplain" or "Mission Chaplain" or "Mission Staff Assistant" put onto the leather flight badge in text.  That is allowed and would allow anybody to show their qualifications in a regulation-approved manner.

[Hawk200]

The last version of an AF reg I read on the subject says the same thing, yet the practice is as I described. This is another case where I don't think they thought it all the way thru & culture exceeds the reg. In other words, I don't think those sections (especially not it being singular or plural) are determinative.

CAPM 39-1 says it is determinative.  One set of wings = "aeronautical rating."  That's it.  Nothing else is officially authorized on the leather flight badge.  "Aeronautical ratings" and other duty or qualification badges are not mentioned there.  We know CAPM 39-1 is exclusionary in nature, so if doesn't say you can do it, you can't.

If people want NHQ to consider alowing Chaplain's devices, and Ground team badges, and authorizing multiple devices at once, send a proposal up the chain of command for consideration instead of just skirting the rules.

However, since a duty title is allowed in text, one without a rating could have "Chaplain" or "Mission Chaplain" or "Mission Staff Assistant" put onto the leather flight badge in text.  That is allowed and would allow anybody to show their qualifications in a regulation-approved manner.

I think that putting "Chaplain" (or any wording) when a badge exists would simply further the derision that some of the military has for us. Why should we set ourselves up to look like fools? It wouldn't take a lot of imagination to figure out what the "bigger boys on the playground" would say.

You're right, we should send up such suggestions. But who do you think has the clout? Apparently, you had to be pretty high up and make a lot of noise to get them to approve something from the field.

Although, the same suggestion from multiple sources might bear fruit......

[Chaplaindon]

As a chaplain, I wear my chaplain's badge beside (that's the way the USAF does it ... the USAF Chief of Chaplains is a rated aviator) --to the inside-- of my aero rating badge.

As a chaplain, in uniform, I must wear my chaplain's insignia ... the aero rating is secondary.

The USAF has a procedure for it. It is --unlike the other CAP insignia and devices the USAF Chaplain's Badge --- NOT a CAP creation. The USAF has a procedure for wearing THEIR badge and I'm following it.

CAPM 39-1 has missed at least one other chaplain insignia issue as well ...

It has not added the embroidered chaplain's badge to the soft BDU cover, however, per the verbal instruction of the CAP Chief of Chaplains we are supposed to wear it there nevertheless.

Sadly, those people who feel compelled to hold CAPM 39-1 as absolutely authoritative in all circumstances will find --to their frustration- that it is neither absolute nor fully authoritaive --and rarely even current.

Regardless, chaplains --in the military and in CAP-- are different (just check the Genevea Conventions). In fact, they are the only CAP officers who stand available to the SECDEF's discretion to be called to active service. See: Chapter 909, Title 10, USC § 9446, "The Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of Civil Air Patrol chaplains in support of the Air Force active duty and reserve component forces to the extent and under the conditions that the Secretary deems appropriate."

CAPR 265-1 (E), §A, 2b adds, "In anticipation of this requirement the CAP Chaplain Service will ... provide appropriate training to prepare [CAP chaplains] for domestic, non-combat ministries."

With the added complication of an increasing plurality of MLO's  permeating CAP(MLO's who are often confused for chaplains, at times with VERY negative repercussions) -- chaplains need to be CLEARLY and unambiguously identified in all operational settings.

Chaplains are chaplains FIRST and mission staff or crew (etc.) as a distant second. Their uniforms --even the overpriced green bag-- need to clearly identify that fact.

[ELTHunter]

As a chaplain, I wear my chaplain's badge beside (that's the way the USAF does it ... the USAF Chief of Chaplains is a rated aviator) --to the inside-- of my aero rating badge.

The USAF has a procedure for it. It is --unlike the other CAP insignia and devices the USAF Chaplain's Badge --- NOT a CAP creation. The USAF has a procedure for wearing THEIR badge and I'm following it.

You might find further guidance in how the regulations say military badges may be worn.  I don't know, I've never paid particular attention to it before because it didn't effect me.

Sadly, those people who feel compelled to hold CAPM 39-1 as absolutely authoritative in all circumstances will find --to their frustration- that it is neither absolute nor fully authoritative --and rarely even current.

I would respectfully disagree with you on this point.  A regulation is as close to absolute as you can get unless there is a policy letter or other form of written guidance to the contrary.  Especially where uniform wear is concerned.  Otherwise it wouldn't make the uniform a uniform.

You may feel like it is not the absolute authority in all cases, but then you would technically be out of uniform and should be prepaired to have someone point it out to you.

[Chaplaindon]

ELT Hunter

Although having a regulatory function 39-1 is a MANUAL and NOT a CAP REGULATION.

[Pylon]

ELT Hunter

Although having a regulatory function 39-1 is a MANUAL and NOT a CAP REGULATION.

It doesn't matter what it's classification is.  Read Paragraph 1-1:

COMPLIANCE WITH
THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY. Any variation from this publication is not authorized.
Items not listed in this publication are not authorized for wear.

I'm not necessarily a uniform Nazi, and I understand your need as a Chaplain to be identified.  I certainly don't disagree with you on that important need.  However, your National Chaplain staff ought to be putting in requests to the National Board for the appropriate changes to be made into a Policy Letter for chaplains.  Started at the National level, that could be taken care of at the next NEC meeting in March!

Have you expressed these needs for uniform changes to your National chaplaincy staff?  If it truly is an important need to have these insignia uses authorized, they would probably have little issue getting the appropriate approvals in line quickly.

We should do things by the book because it's the right thing to do, in most circumstances.  Even when we know NHQ overlooked a bunch of stuff in the manual.

[ELTHunter]

OK, I'll give you a for instance.  CAPM 39-1 states that the blue golf shirt is to be worn with " gray trousers or slacks".  The dictionary defines "trousers" as "pants".  Yet when our Wing LG asked NHQ if gray BDU's/cargo/six pocket pants were OK to wear with it, she was told no.  That seems to be a pretty definite answer on a point that seemed fairly open to interpretation.  What exactly to you feel is open to your interpretation about the document?

Not to be argumentative, but I'll stand by my earlier comment.  If you don't follow CAPM 39-1, be prepaired to have a fellow member point it out to you.

[RiverAux]

There may certainly be discrepancies in the manual (I've pointed out at least one) but it is by definition "current" unless modified in accordance with other CAP regulations.  There is no such thing as "verbal authority" of anyone to modify it. 

I very rarely say anything about someone else's uniform but I personally try very hard to keep myself in accordance with the regulations.  If it isn't in the regulation its just rumor or someone is either intentionally or unintentionally getting it wrong by telling you to do something different. 

[Chaplaindon]

I appreciate all of your admonishments to the contrary. Thanks!

However, I stand unconvinced and wholly and happily unrepentant.

As to my "be[ing] prepaired to have a fellow member point it out to [me], I am most polite. I say, "Thank you, for being so diligent. However I have been directed explicitly by the Chief of Chaplains to wear my BDU cover this way (or if it's my chaplain's badge worn upon the leather green bag patch that's at issue, "I cannot definitively discern from CAPM 39-1 another way to comply with the regulation that I wear my chaplain's badge when in uniform while wearing the flight suit --and wear my aeronautical rating badge as mandated-- and this is how the rated USAF chaplain's do it").

In truth one cannot absolutely determine that a chaplain is not to wear a chaplain's badge upon the patch ... it simply isn't explicitly authorized.

I think some modicum of the now increasingly UN-common virtue of "common sense" should apply in all things a person does in their life ... CAP uniform wear NOT excepted.

In this matter, chaplains are put in an unavoidable corner. Maybe CAP wishes chaplains wouldn't/couldn't fly ... who knows?

Why don't you all "point out" to me exactly how I am to wear the chaplain's badge while wearing the flight suit. And "point it out" using actual statements of INCLUSION and not the absence of reference to prove your point. 39-1 says one set of wings ... and I am only wearing one set. It say nothing explicitly PROHIBITIVE of wearing an additional badge. Perhaps it should.

In my case, until CAPM 39-1 explicitly prohibits wearing the chaplain's badge on the BDU cover or upon the FS leather patch concurrently with an aero rating badge, I consider it IMPLICITLY permitted.

Just another way of looking at things ... and "yes" looking at uniform wear this way does potentially "open a Pandora's box" but that's where common sense should prevail.

[lordmonar]

Not to be argumentative, but I'll stand by my earlier comment.  If you don't follow CAPM 39-1, be prepaired to have a fellow member point it out to you.

Even when you follow it you may have a fellow member point it out to you!

I was wearing short sleeve blues last meeting with all my authorized CAP ribbons and I had some old officer tell me that they were not authorized on the blues shirt.

There is a LOT of things not written in 39-1....there is a lot of simple ignorance and willfully ignoring of the manual and a lot of missing guidance from national about how and what you should wear.

For my money....if a chaplain want his cross (or other authorized symbol) on his aircrew name patch.....go for it!  It is at least in the spirit of the regulation if not the letter.

[arajca]

In my case, until CAPM 39-1 explicitly prohibits wearing the chaplain's badge on the BDU cover or upon the FS leather patch concurrently with an aero rating badge, I consider it IMPLICITLY permitted.

CAPM 39-1 expressly prohibits anything not authorized in it.

Any variation from this publication is not authorized. Items not listed in this publication are not authorized for wear.

[Al Sayre]

You know there is a simple solution to this controversy.  Spend an extra $7.00 and get a spare name tag that says whatever you want it to and carry it in your pocket.  One for aircrew, one for chaplain or other function, wear the one appropriate for the task you are performing, change as needed...

[RiverAux]

2. Leather Name Patch: Will include name, grade, and aeronautical rating. Patch will be centered on left breast above pocket. Cloth name patch is not authorized. If no aeronautical rating, a title such as "Mission Scanner" may be used.

I see no provision for putting a Chaplain badge on the leather name patch or anywhere else on the flight suit, but the regulation above would clearly let you put "Chaplain" there.  It does not limit what titles could be put there it just uses Mission Scanner as an example.    

As a chaplain, in uniform, I must wear my chaplain's insignia ... the aero rating is secondary.

If 39-1 doesn't say that you are required to wear the chaplain insignia, then it isn't a requirement.  If another CAP regulation says you must wear it, then that is a contradiction between 2 different regulations that needs to be cleared up at the National level and in that case I would take verbal direction from a superior on what to do.  

Regardless, chaplains --in the military and in CAP-- are different (just check the Genevea Conventions). In fact, they are the only CAP officers who stand available to the SECDEF's discretion to be called to active service. See: Chapter 909, Title 10, USC § 9446, "The Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of Civil Air Patrol chaplains in support of the Air Force active duty and reserve component forces to the extent and under the conditions that the Secretary deems appropriate."

This is factually incorrect.  Any CAP member can be used for any noncombat mission of the AF.  This entire passage is redundant as the use of Chaplains, as is the use of other CAP members, is already authorized by other federal codes.  

39-1 only allows putting aeronautical ratings on the name badge.  It doesn't need to specificaly prohibit putting the Chaplain insignia there any more than it does to explicitly prohibit putting the New York Yankee insignia on it.  

I'm actually fine with making any changes to the manual to get CAP Chaplains identified on their uniforms in the same way that AF Chaplains are.  But, until that is made OR unless there is a clear contradiction between two CAP manuals you shouldn't wear the insignia on the name badge or on your hat.  

Is this a big deal?  Not really, but you dared to bring it up in the Uniform forum....

[ELTHunter]

I should probably point out here that I have been known a time or two to willfully deviate from the uniform manual.  Specifically with regards to outerwear (a black fleece top similar to what the army uses, and on occasion, my blue Cabala's Gore-Tex parka).  So, in case anyone reads these posts that knows me personally, yes, I know I was out of uniform.  On these occasions, I have usually been either in the field or not wearing anything visably identifying myself as CAP.

Then there was the time or two that I violated the sacred prohibition on wearing my brown A-2 to a squadron meeting with my Class B's.

So, I am guilty, but also prepaired to be admonished.

In the Chaplains case, I might also wear my insignia in whatever way the USAF does and see what happens.

OK purists, start casting stones

[MIKE]

OK purists, start casting stones

We don't wear Class B's in CAP.