Does the new Corporate Service Dress Uniform Violate the UCMJ and USC Codes?

[Guardrail]

I have been wondering, is the new corporate service dress uniform in violation of the UCMJ and USC codes?  I have heard both yes and no answers, so I figured it's time to find out once and for all. 

[Pylon]

I have been wondering, is the new corporate service dress uniform in violation of the UCMJ and USC codes?  I have heard both yes and no answers, so I figured it's time to find out once and for all. 

It may have violated statutes, for CAP members who were also members of the Uniformed Services/Armed Forces, in its original design.  The subsequent modifications of the uniform (new CAP distinctive nameplate, CAP cutouts - not US, no grade on flight cap, etc.) were done to bring the uniform in line with the UCMJ and/or USC and guidance from above.

So your answer:  It may not have been before; it is compliant now.

[AlphaSigOU]

Haven't we already discussed this in another similar thread?

With the latest tweaks done to it, I feel it doesn't violate US Code/UCMJ.

It's of a darker shade (AF 1625 polyester) than the current service dress (AF 1620 polyester/wool). The silver sleeve braid I could do without, as it is a big contrast with the blue and may be mistaken for sleeve rank.

I would have rather seen them bring back the CAP blue shouldermarks for wear with the TPU shirt instead of the USAF officer ones.

[Eclipse]

As we are not bound by UCMJ, no.

And otherwise, I would imagine no more than any police or fire uniform.

It is the uniform of a civilian organization.  Nothing more.

[mikeylikey]

No.....not sure how it would or could violate the UCMJ though.  People violate the UCMJ, and since CAP members are civilians, the UCMJ does not apply.  I also do believe I read somewhere (not sure where, but will try to find it) that the secretaries of the military departments and the secretary of defense can allow civilians to wear military uniforms as long as there are enough changes in appearance as so the civilian will not be mistaken as being in the military.

Short answere no.  They could have left the "US" cutouts on the TPU jacket, it was already distinctive enough with the silver braid and new nameplate.   

[Pylon]

As I said in my first post:  The original UCMJ compliance concern was directed at CAP members who are also members of the Armed Forces, and in that Armed Forces capacity they are subject to the UCMJ.  For them, it may have been too similar (i/e: nothing distinctive that says "CAP" and not "Uniformed Services"). The reasoning behind the changes was to bring the TPU in line with those needs.

[Eclipse]

I also do believe I read somewhere (not sure where, but will try to find it) that the secretaries of the military departments and the secretary of defense can allow civilians to wear military uniforms as long as there are enough changes in appearance as so the civilian will not be mistaken as being in the military

Yes, in fact there a lot of civilians in the sandbox right now wearing BDU's with "DOD CIVILIAN" on the nametape...

[davedove]

Since the TPU does not, to my knowledge, duplicate an existing US military uniform, there are no violations.  As has already been said, we are not subject to the UCMJ anyway.

Actually, the Service Dress uniform would violate the US Code, except that the Air Force has specifically allowed CAP members to wear it, with appropriate modifications.  This is similar to the US Army allowing the different State Defense Forces to wear the Army uniform with modifications.

[davedove]

I also do believe I read somewhere (not sure where, but will try to find it) that the secretaries of the military departments and the secretary of defense can allow civilians to wear military uniforms as long as there are enough changes in appearance as so the civilian will not be mistaken as being in the military

Yes, in fact there a lot of civilians in the sandbox right now wearing BDU's with "DOD CIVILIAN" on the nametape...

Yes, this is done in operational environments where it is better for the military and civilians to blend together.  Up close, they are still identified as civilians; from farther away, it is harder to tell them apart.  Terrorists, being the cowards they are, would rather target civilians than military, so this provides another layer of protection to civilians.

[lordmonar]

I have been wondering, is the new corporate service dress uniform in violation of the UCMJ and USC codes?  I have heard both yes and no answers, so I figured it's time to find out once and for all. 

UCMJ only applies to military personnel so...no the CAP uniforms (of any type) do not violate them.  USCs?  Again the answer is no because no one is trying to impersonate a commissioned officer.

[Guardrail]

UCMJ only applies to military personnel so...no the CAP uniforms (of any type) do not violate them.  USCs?  Again the answer is no because no one is trying to impersonate a commissioned officer.

So, if I understand correctly, the corporate service dress uniform (in its original design) violated UCMJ codes for members who were also in the military.  But now that the appropriate changes have been made, it doesn't violate the UCMJ for CAP members who are also members of the military.  And for CAP members who choose to wear the uniform, and do not serve in the military, it's never been an issue.   

[Pylon]

UCMJ only applies to military personnel so...no the CAP uniforms (of any type) do not violate them.  USCs?  Again the answer is no because no one is trying to impersonate a commissioned officer.

So, if I understand correctly, the corporate service dress uniform (in its original design) violated UCMJ codes for members who were also in the military.  But now that the appropriate changes have been made, it doesn't violate the UCMJ for CAP members who are also members of the military.  And for CAP members who choose to wear the uniform, and do not serve in the military, it's never been an issue.   

That seems to be my summary take of it, yep.

[Eclipse]

I disagree only in that I don't see how it could violate UCMJ for anyone as it does not apply.

IMHO the changes were mae to pacify the USAF, not for legal reasons.

[Pylon]

I disagree only in that I don't see how it could violate UCMJ for anyone as it does not apply.

The UCMJ doesn't apply to service members, as long as they join CAP? 

[lordmonar]

UCMJ only applies to military personnel so...no the CAP uniforms (of any type) do not violate them.  USCs?  Again the answer is no because no one is trying to impersonate a commissioned officer.

So, if I understand correctly, the corporate service dress uniform (in its original design) violated UCMJ codes for members who were also in the military.  But now that the appropriate changes have been made, it doesn't violate the UCMJ for CAP members who are also members of the military.  And for CAP members who choose to wear the uniform, and do not serve in the military, it's never been an issue.   

No I don't think it was ever a UCMJ issue.  The USAF was concerned that the blue corporate uniforms was too close to USAF uniforms for their comfort.  They were worried that some CAP officer would impersonate an USAF officer (either intentionally or by accident).  Yes that would be a violation of the UCMJ for military people and a violation of the USCs, however, the uniform itself was technically not a USAF uniform and therefore does not violate anything just in wearing it.

It is sort of like the toy gun laws.  They are not really guns, but they look enough like them that they could cause problems....so they passed laws to make the look less like real guns.   Same deal with the uniform.

From the USAF's point of view (I am surmising) the less we look like USAF officers the better.

[Eclipse]

I disagree only in that I don't see how it could violate UCMJ for anyone as it does not apply.

The UCMJ doesn't apply to service members, as long as they join CAP? 

Well, for starters, the UCMJ doesn't really have anything to do with uniform wear, per-se.  Its the the basis for military law.

Improperly wearing YOUR military uniform while on duty could be a violation charged under the UCMJ, but the UCMJ itself isn't going to define what that uniform is.

Nor, would I think, could it prohibit you from wearing a different uniform while participating with a different, civilian organization.

I suppose if you were ORDERED for whatever reason by your CC to not wear a CAP uniform (for whatever reaason) it could be an article 91, but otherwise I don't see how the UCMJ, in and of itself would be an issue.

Now, it could possibly be a problem with the Geneva Convention with regards to uniformed non-combatants, which might be why the yanked the US, but that won't let those of us in blues off the hook, when the enemy comes storming through Wheeling, IL and attackes Palwaukee.

[lordmonar]

Now, it could possibly be a problem with the Geneva Convention with regards to uniformed non-combatants, which might be why the yanked the US, but that won't let those of us in blues off the hook, when the enemy comes storming through Wheeling, IL and attackes Palwaukee.

No such provision in the Geneva Convention.  We as CAP members are legal combatants by the GC no matter what uniform we wear.  We are NOT non-combatants under the GC.  We may be relegated to non combat duties...but if Mexico or Canada ever invaded....it would be legal under the GC for them to attack our CAP bases and take us as POWs.

[Al Sayre]

Thats why we've got these guys:  http://www.geocities.com/cap7sos/

[DNall]

I have been wondering, is the new corporate service dress uniform in violation of the UCMJ and USC codes?  I have heard both yes and no answers, so I figured it's time to find out once and for all. 

It may have violated statutes, for CAP members who were also members of the Uniformed Services/Armed Forces, in its original design.  The subsequent modifications of the uniform (new CAP distinctive nameplate, CAP cutouts - not US, no grade on flight cap, etc.) were done to bring the uniform in line with the UCMJ and/or USC and guidance from above.

So your answer:  It may not have been before; it is compliant now.

Actually, those changes were ordered to bring it into compliance with the Geneva Conventions. Which is to say we could be taken as POWs but would not be treated as commissioned officers.

No such provision in the Geneva Convention.  We as CAP members are legal combatants by the GC no matter what uniform we wear.  We are NOT non-combatants under the GC.  We may be relegated to non combat duties...but if Mexico or Canada ever invaded....it would be legal under the GC for them to attack our CAP bases and take us as POWs.

That's 100% correct. The Congressional provisions of non-combat missions does NOT make us non-combatants, it accepts that we are combatants & instructs AF not to assign us direct action combat jobs. However, just as the unarmed transport plane is a valid target, so is the CAP plane w/ a radio.

The uniform still violates USC/UCMJ in a couple ways. Objectively, according to the UCMJ, enlisted service members cannot wear the AF officer slides in any form regardless of the shirt color. It also states that Military uniform items may not be worn in combination w/ civilian apparel. Subjectivly, by USC & for civilians, if it can be confused with a military officer than you are impersonating an officer & that's a crime. Hence there's silver sleeve braid. Still a lot of people are not real happy with it in these terms.

[mikeylikey]

The uniform still violates USC/UCMJ in a couple ways. Objectively, according to the UCMJ, enlisted service members cannot wear the AF officer slides in any form regardless of the shirt color. It also states that Military uniform items may not be worn in combination w/ civilian apparel. Subjectivly, by USC & for civilians, if it can be confused with a military officer than you are impersonating an officer & that's a crime. Hence there's silver sleeve braid. Still a lot of people are not real happy with it in these terms.

I have to call BS on this one!  I hope someone can produce the ucmj articles and case law that back this up.  Since the AF allows CAP members to wear thier uniform there is no problem.  There is no issue of UCMJ violations or USC violations or anything else. 

HOWEVER, there could be problems when a CAP member starts going around saying " I am Major Jones, Air Force"  I have corrected this issue before, the member is no longer a member and he is forbiden on the Air Force base where we meet.