Uniforms and Rank/Grade

[Ned]

On a personal level, I am satisfied that CAP has a large number of uniform combinations because we need a large number of uniform combinations to do our job, given real-world constraints.

The main reason we have so many combos is not "need", it's the USAF's stance that auxiliary members can't wear military style uniforms if they weigh too much or have a beard.  A stance
which make them an outlier in this regard.

I thought I was being clear.  The AF standards are indeed a "real world constraint," that drives part of our uniform needs.

Furhter, I think it grossly mischaractorizes the AF stance to apply the term "outlier."

They are simply holding us to the same standards to which they hold themselves (plus a little slack.)

How does that make them an "outlier?"  I can only think of one other military auxiliary that has a different rule.  If that's true, it is hardly the weight of authority necessary to justify the term "outlier" as applied to the AF.  It makes just as much sense to call the USCG the "outlier."

Individually we can agree or disagree with the Air Force standards, but all the discussions here are misplaced because they will never be seen or heard by the AF officers with the responsibility for their decisions in this area. 

[Storm Chaser]

I don't disagree with that but you do understand that one of CAP's recruitment tools for Senior Members is to sell veterans on is reliving some of their "glory days" in the military again? Teamwork, comardship, telling sea stories to young cadets, etc.

Take away the prior Service incentives (ie retain your rank, get to wear your bling) and you will lose membership.

If that's good or bad will be up to you.

I know that's probably true, but I would venture to say that most veterans who join CAP because they want to serve and contribute to our mission and organization are not that concerned with military rank and insignias.

[Eclipse]

Yes, they are a real-world constraint, they are not a "need", nor are they based on mission requirements.  In fact, they are a detriment to
the mission and arguably to the USAF purpose in the restriction in the first place.

They are an outlier in that none of the other services spend any effort in C&D'ing other organizations from wearing variants of their uniforms,
not the only other uniformed auxiliary, and not similar organizations such as the Seacadets, ACA, or the eleventy twelveteen SDFs and
similar, many of which are literally wearing the USAF uniform.

Seriously, we have organizations all over the country wearing the USAF uniform with impunity, but we, as the aux, have fully 1/2 the membership
not allowed to.

[Storm Chaser]

On a personal level, I am satisfied that CAP has a large number of uniform combinations because we need a large number of uniform combinations to do our job, given real-world constraints.

The main reason we have so many combos is not "need", it's the USAF's stance that auxiliary members can't wear military style uniforms if they weigh too much or have a beard.  A stance
which make them an outlier in this regard.

I thought I was being clear.  The AF standards are indeed a "real world constraint," that drives part of our uniform needs.

Furhter, I think it grossly mischaractorizes the AF stance to apply the term "outlier."

They are simply holding us to the same standards to which they hold themselves (plus a little slack.)

I agree. I've seen CAP members mistook for Air Force personnel many times. I'm sure that's one of the reasons the Air Force wants certain weight and grooming standards for those CAP members wearing the AF-style service uniform.

[RogueLeader]

Speaking for myself.  I joined as a way to serve my country.  I was proud to wear the uniform that my Country wore (even if I thought the colors were off.)  It made feel that I was part of something bigger than myself.  It irritates me when I see people wanting to distance us (figuratively or literally) from the AF.  It may not mean very much to some of you; but this means a lot to me.  The AF style uniforms ARE a line in the sand for me.  It's not that I'm a wannabe, or to relive my "Glory Days" (there's not much glory in my brief service;) but it's that VISIBLE connection to the AF that I find to be absolutely critical to what we do.  I'm proud of what I have accomplished, and the grade I have earned.

For most of the vets that are in CAP I have found that they are in to give back, and to still serve in a meaningful way.  Whether it be in mentoring cadets or younger adults, to helping in Emergency Services.  There are, of course, vets that want to relive (or continue in their minds) their Military Duties, but I have found those to be very few.  There are even a few current AD Military that only use CAP to further their Military aspirations.

[ColonelJack]

Col. Lee ...

If you haven't figured it out by now, I think it is safe to say that there is absolutely no consensus amongst CAPTalk participants about CAP uniforms.

I knew that going in, sir.  I simply wanted to gauge the thoughts of the members of this forum.

Having watched these discussions for a number of years, my personal opinion is that it is unlikely that we will have one here anytime soon.

As you have seen, the opinions on what we should or should not wear vary widely, and the reasons given vary even more widely.

Perhaps more importantly, many who hold polar opposite opinions are firm (even passionate) in their opinions.  And nobody seems to be able to convince anyone from an opposing camp of the correctness of their opinions.  So we go around and around.  And around.  Sometimes it gets rather heated and feelings get hurt.

My initial interest wasn't in the number or variety of uniforms we wear, it was rather in whether we should have any kind of uniform at all.  And even in the vast differences of opinion expressed here, I can safely assume that the answer to my initial question is, "yes, we should have a uniform."  The other half of the question - the usefulness of rank/grade - is another of those topics we've argued unto death, but there isn't really a consensus about it.  Some say yes, some say no, some say change it, some say leave it as is.  Quite the variety of responses there!

But despite the endless discussions, nothing ever changes.

Nor did I really expect anything to change.  My interest was purely scholarly; as you point out, nobody in a position to actually care about what we might think reads this forum (or, if they do, they're not really all that concerned).

On a personal level, I am satisfied that CAP has a large number of uniform combinations because we need a large number of uniform combinations to do our job, given real-world constraints.  I note parenthetically, that our AF colleagues have roughly the same number of uniform combinations as we do.  And for the same reason -- they need them to do their job.

I concur.  And you're right about the number of uniforms the AF has to deal with, and I have no doubt that there is plenty of internal debate about that amongst them as well.

And in response to your origninal question ; "why"- the answer is always going to be elusive and nuanced because there are multiple reasons why we have arrived at our current uniform constellation.  Some of the decisions were made 70 years ago by officers who are no longer able to answer the question.  Some of the decisions have been made more recently, of course, but were made by a group decision-making process (e.g. the former NEC & NB) which means there could be as many reasons as there were voters.

Here, the discussion skewed in a direction I anticipated but hoped wouldn't happen.  I didn't want it to get into the number of uniforms, or the style of them; I was interested, as I said, in whether we should have any kind of uniform at all.  As the discussion went, your estimation of "why" is spot on.  But I didn't get too much of the "why" regarding uniforms as an overall topic, and again, rank/grade wasn't dealt with as I'd hoped it would be.

Finally, it is worth remembering that our uniforms are not an end in themselves; they are not a mission.  Uniforms are just a tool to help us perform our missions.  If our mission effectiveness is affected, we can and should change our uniforms.  Otherwise, perhaps not.  Change for change's sake is expensive for our volunteers.

But for some folks "what we wear" will always be more important than "what we do."

Sigh ... you're 100% correct again, my friend.  And with that, we're right back where we started.

But thank you for your insightful reply ... and to everyone else who humored this old man, I thank you as well. 

Jack

[Storm Chaser]

So unless the Air Force relaxes its weight and grooming standards for CAP members, it seems that these are our only options:

• We get rid of all uniforms (I doubt that most CAP members want that)
  
• We continue to have two types of uniforms; the Air Force-style and the corporate uniforms (and continue the uniform debates we've had for years)
  
• We go to a single corporate uniform that every member can wear (we may lose some members who feel the AF uniform is the main reason they joined/stayed in)
• We go to the AF-style uniform as our only uniform and enforce weight and grooming standards on all of our members (we may force some members out and prevent others from joining; definitely not a practical option)

It seems obvious to me that unless the Air Force changes its uniform policy, which is doubtful (at least not any time soon), we will continue with the status quo of having multiple style uniforms (Air Force and corporate) and everything else that goes with that.

[Eclipse]

But for some folks "what we wear" will always be more important than "what we do."

I'm going to take exception to this as well.

Saying it in this context implies that our uniforms and appearance are unimportant and have no bearing on the mission.

We, and the USAF, can't have it both ways.  If appearance is unimportant, then their stance seems somewhat arbitrary.

If it is important, then their stance seems counterproductive.

Either way, our uniform is not more important then the mission, however it is a part of it, and the amount of discussion both here and
at units is primarily attributable to the self-conflicting ambiguous mess of the regulations and uniform instructions, not to mention the
nearly complete lack of the enforcement of standards.

[RiverAux]

• We go to a single corporate uniform that every member can wear (we may lose some members who feel the AF uniform is the main reason they joined/stayed in)

Leaving aside cadets (where uniforms are generally believed to be a major motivation for joining), I don't think very many seniors joined in order to wear a uniform.  However, as one of the very few visible links between CAP and the AF, the uniform is an important symbol of the relationship and many would see it as a massive sign of disrespect for our volunteer service were it to be taken away.  Frankly, I continue to believe that the AF would be more than happy to see us go if they could figure out a way to manage it.  If that doesn't change I probably am going to go from not-very-active member to former member pretty soon.  With a membership renewal pending, it may not be long. 

[SARDOC]

On a personal level, I am satisfied that CAP has a large number of uniform combinations because we need a large number of uniform combinations to do our job, given real-world constraints.

The main reason we have so many combos is not "need", it's the USAF's stance that auxiliary members can't wear military style uniforms if they weigh too much or have a beard.  A stance
which make them an outlier in this regard.

Fix that, and honestly, it's a fix, and our "need" for so many combos drops by 1/2 overnight.

I absolutely agree.  I'd even be willing to come into compliance as far as the grooming standards were concerned for Civil Air Patrol uniforms if that were required for the adopted uniform approved for everybody.  I don't care if it's AF blue, Blue BDU, Woodland BDU, Khaki... I don't really care.  Just adopting the uniformity aspect to identify our organization.  There are people who always shout that we should match our parent service and I'm okay with that tradition if it is allowed for everybody.  If not I think that our uniform should reflect the Civil Air Patrol heritage and take pride in our organization.  We are after all older than the Air Force itself.  Where's our Tradition represented?

[SunDog]

Probably best to keep the options open, then? Keep RiverAux and the pro-USAF uniform folks in the fold, and also have the less formal combos available, as well?

There is some passion about the clothes. We have some uniformity, without requiring what would traditionally be called a uniform. I spend many/most of my CAP hours in a polo shirt - not what most people consider a uniform, but close enough for CAP culture. Leaves room for beards, bellies, and long hair, for those that want or have them.

I could probably get in a USAF combo legally (barely!) - but it's not on my bucket list, nor is wearing my USAF ribbons and badges on a CAP corporate uniform.  I don't even know if I've done any of the paperwork for a CAP ribbon - I think my original CC did, way, way back, for my first find. That was probably the last thing documented for ribbons - I don't know where to look, to find out. . .

For other folks, the ribbons and badges have more import, and no harm in that.  They earned 'em. . .I still can't tell MO wings from Pilot wings from across the room. . .

My guess is about 50% of us don't much care, 15% would prefer we drop uniforms altogether, and maybe 35% would prefer to stay as close to USAF in appearance as possible. I imagine that will change with time, as the pool of veterans is reduced - military service as a percent of the population is dropping - the new blood may be less interested in tight USAF affiliation, or uniform wear.

I'm very near a USAF base, but we don't cross paths with them often - just not much regualr interaction, other than some occasional work for them in the air, and the face-to-face on that is done by one guy at Wing. I don't feel a particular affinity for USAF via my CAP activity. I imagine USAF types think about us about as often as we think about them, or maybe a little less? Other than the HQ "overhead", we aren't tightly coupled with USAF at the operational level. . .

I worked for the USCG, and their Aux is very present at CG locations, frequently intermingled with AD and Reserves. My organization used them quite a bit, even arranging and paying for travel on occasion. Very diffrent from CAP and USAF. Not better, or worse, but diffrent.  Some of them were subject matter experts in their areas, after long, long involvement - they tended to wear the uniforms with attnetion to correctness. If you wern't paying careful attention, they blended in with the AD.

For CAP uniforms, I'd prefer to get it right, but I follow the herd - someone mentioned earlier we shouldn't wear baseball caps w/rank with the polo combo - heck, everyone in my Wing does that!  Not gonna worry about it until Wing makes a case. . .sure would like a tactical/cargo khaki pants combo, though.

[Eclipse]

heck, everyone in my Wing does that!  Not gonna worry about it until Wing makes a case. . .sure would like a tactical/cargo khaki pants combo, though.

Then everyone in your wing is breaking the regs.  Selective attention to detail, isn't.  Take the grade off of yours, and discreet mention it when you see it,
eventually someone will crack 39-1 and tell the rest to knock it off. It's one thing not to know, something different once you know and you continue anyway.

And we can already wear tac pants with the golf shirt, so there you go.

[Ned]

Yes, they are a real-world constraint, they are not a "need", nor are they based on mission requirements.

Wow, I thought I was the recovering lawyer here.  So, your argument is based on how you define the word "need?"  OK. 

In fact, they are a detriment to the mission [ . . .]

OK, I'll bite.

Please lay out the "facts" that show how our current uniform constellation negatively has affected the mission negatively.  Please be as specific as you can to show that some emergency services were not performed (or performed less efficiently) because of the clothing members were wearing.  Ditto for cadets who were not trained, or persons who remain uneducated about aerospace.

They are an outlier in that none of the other services spend any effort in C&D'ing other organizations from wearing variants of their uniforms,
not the only other uniformed auxiliary, and not similar organizations such as the Sea Cadets, ACA, or the eleventy twelveteen SDFs and
similar, many of which are literally wearing the USAF uniform.

I'm glad we agree that among the uniformed auxiliaries, it is 50/50 when it comes to enforcement of the parent service's H/W restrictions.

I'm curious, why do you think that the military has the authority to enforce their uniform regulations on civilians participating in organizations that have no ties to the military?  I can only agree that there are laws concerning the wearing of military uniforms by civilians, but absent martial law these are enforced by the civil authorites, not the military services themselves.  Besides, they have other priorities beyond chasing down 12 year old Sea Cadets or ACA members that they think are wearing the uniform improperly.

I'm going to take exception to this as well.

Saying it in this context implies that our uniforms and appearance are unimportant and have no bearing on the mission.

We, and the USAF, can't have it both ways.  If appearance is unimportant, then their stance seems somewhat arbitrary.

If it is important, then their stance seems counterproductive.

Either way, our uniform is not more important then the mission, however it is a part of it, and the amount of discussion both here and
at units is primarily attributable to the self-conflicting ambiguous mess of the regulations and uniform instructions, not to mention the
nearly complete lack of the enforcement of standards.

Come on, Bob.  Please don't put words in my mouth, and I'll try to return the favor.

Take a look at my post above and you will see that I said that "uniforms are a tool to help us perform our missions." Heck, I even put it in italics for emphasis.

Take a moment, use the search function and check my posts for the last five or six years and see if I ever said "appearance is unimportant."

(While you are doing the research, you might also want to check out the excellent Wikipedia article on the The Straw Man Argument which is a classic example of an argument fallacy.)

But if it is instructive, any of us are free to look at the CAPTalk board index.  There are over 10 thousand more posts in the Uniform category than the ES, AE, and CP categories combined.

[Майор Хаткевич]

For CAP uniforms, I'd prefer to get it right, but I follow the herd - someone mentioned earlier we shouldn't wear baseball caps w/rank with the polo combo - heck, everyone in my Wing does that!  Not gonna worry about it until Wing makes a case. . .sure would like a tactical/cargo khaki pants combo, though.

Thanks for being part of the problem!

[SarDragon]

Only with the field uniforms - members out of weight or grooming could wear camo BDUs without grade insignia on the collars until the early 2000's.
Flight suits and blues were still restricted.

Actually, green flightsuits had the same rules as the camo BDUs - permitted for wear without grade insignia.

[RogueLeader]

For CAP uniforms, I'd prefer to get it right, but I follow the herd - someone mentioned earlier we shouldn't wear baseball caps w/rank with the polo combo - heck, everyone in my Wing does that!  Not gonna worry about it until Wing makes a case. . .sure would like a tactical/cargo khaki pants combo, though.

There is a handy piece of Level 1 that should come in handy, and its in a subsection of CAP core values.  It's called "[lmgtfy]Integrity[/lmgtfy]"

If I recall correctly that you were prior Air Force (If I'm wrong, please disregard this paragraph,) I'm pretty sure they used that one as well.

[Critical AOA]

Imagine the sight.  CAP is enlisted to participate in an emergency.  A slew of CAP members show up.  Some are wearing BDUs.  Some are wearing BBDUs.  Some are wearing the golf shirt.  Some are wearing flight suits.  Some are wearing the white aviator and still others are wearing AF blues.  Some of the ones in either the golf shirt or aviator are wearing dress slacks while others are wearing Dockers and others wearing cargo pants; all in different shades of grey. Do we present ourselves well?  I think not.  Sure other groups, agencies, departments, etc. might not demonstrate 100% uniformity in their uniforms but would any group present such as disparate appearance as CAP? 

I believe that in order to present ourselves as a professional and well organized organization that the number of uniform options be greatly reduced and are options that all members can wear regardless of size, hairstyle and facial hair.

[lordmonar]

A)  That assumes that the IC did not set the uniform of the day.   On any given Monday on any give USAF base.....you will see blues (short sleeve and long sleeve), ABU, FRABU (the new combat ones), hospital whites, food service whites, polo and khakis, flight suits, desert flight suits, work coveralls, (at Nellis) T-bird personnel in blue fatigues, T-bird pilots in red, white, or blue flight suits (depending on the day of the month), etc, and so on.  We solve that problem with "Report to the mission base in BDU/BBDU or green/blue Flight suits.  90% of the problem solved.

b)  Having been to incidents where many different orgs are called out.....90% of the time they don't care what you wear....but what and how you do it.

c) Having said all that.....the real reason why we look unprofessional is when you got the one or two yahoos.....that simply refuse to wear the uniforms rights....which ever one they choose.  That's the bozos who stand out.  It is not so much the many different uniforms that hurts us....but that one or two guys who look like a dufflebag or are sporting something that is so different from everyone else that it is immediately noticeable by outsiders.

[Ned]

Do we present ourselves well?  I think not.

And that's the problem.  And why it defies easy resolution.

Until someone can articulate how our current uniform constellation measurably affects our ability to get our job done, what we are talking about are aesthetics:  what one member or another thinks "looks better / more professional" or whether we are "presenting ourselves well."

Aesthetics are admittedly important, but we will never, ever have an agreement about what looks better or more professional.  Aggravating this is the cost to our volunteers of any change.

But if someone can show us how having our current uniform set measurably affects the mission, than we can and should discuss it and change them.

But until then, we will fill tens of thousands of posts with endless (sincere and passionately held) personal opinion about how things look.

[Eclipse]

Yes, they are a real-world constraint, they are not a "need", nor are they based on mission requirements.

Wow, I thought I was the recovering lawyer here.  So, your argument is based on how you define the word "need?"  OK. 

In fact, they are a detriment to the mission [ . . .]

OK, I'll bite.

(etc., etc.)

Just because we're able to accomplish the mission(s) doesn't mean they are not negatively affected.

We hear all the time, albeit anecdotally, that we show up looking like a hodge-podge.  Further to that, we have nearly zero internal enforcement of existing regs,
and the regs we have are a mess - so not only don't we have a uniform, what we do have is confusing, at best, for new members.

You knew very well that I was using the comparisons to demonstrate the point of who else is in military uniforms, but thank yo for helping with my earlier point which is,
essentially, the USAF restricts our wear of their uniform simple "because they can", and though I ma won't to spread urban legends about this stuff, there is likely some
"genetic memory" about past foibles that doesn't help the equation, including conspicuous ignoring of the regs by a number of national staffers in recent memory.

Detriment to the mission?  How about seniors charged with charged with training and being knowledgeable about a uniform they can't wear.  Loss of credibility.
How about the hundreds of photos with a senior in a formation or presenting awards dressed like a real estate salesman while surrounded by subordinate staff in
their plumage?

How about fully 1/2 the membership who do an equal, if not higher share of the heavy lifting who simply aren't allowed to be honored and recognized as the other half
of the organization?  You really think at the end of the day that doesn't quietly chip away at morale and spirit?  Seriously?  Now the adults in that group press on
and get it done, but the uniform situation goes on the pile with all the rest of the ills of CAP, and unlike a lot of things, it pops up at every activity and event, because its
visible and called out everywhere.

How about new members wandering into a meeting an seeing that literal hodge podge with no discernible ryhme or reason to what people are wearing, and a general lax attitude.

The uniform is not the top problem in CAP, but it's high on the list, if, for no other reason, then it shouldn't even be a discussion point, ever, except perhaps at
the national level for occasion, mission-related changes.  The uniform should be "set it and forget it", but in its zeal to please everyone, CAP, as is a regular occurrence,
basically defeats the very purpose they aspired to.

We have no uniformity, no organizational identity, to literal and philosophical camps in clothing, and no one working on the root of the problem.
Affinity is a factor to deal with, but mission needs, uniformity, and identity should be higher on the list.

CAP needs a UNIFORM not a menu.