Eliminate ugly and expensive Cadet Officer shoulder boards

[dogboy]

I know it's been discussed peripherally before but I suggest that the ugly and expensive Cadet Officer shoulder boards on the service dress jacket be eliminated.

I was one of the first to wear them in 1965 (if I remember correctly, they were worn on the khaki shirt as well) and they were as weird and silly then as they are now.

Cadets can wear their blue shoulder marks with pips. It would look far neater.

[gallagheria]

I've always thought CAP cadets should just wear Air Force JROTC uniforms. That would solve that.

[MIKE]

Cadets can wear their blue shoulder marks with pips. It would look far neater.

Provided their service coat has epaulets... Note that the "new" style enlisted version does not and is significantly cheaper.

[SDF_Specialist]

Why not just make the service coat epaulets for cadets grey? I mean, they still show their rank, and you can't confuse a cadet 2nd Lt. with a senior 2nd Lt. That is, unless you are a moron. That's always the first thing I look for. Is the member a cadet or senior? If it's a senior, what's their rank?

[Cadet Tillett]

I don't think they are ugly, but you're darn right about the price.  A cheaper alternative would be nice.

[Al Sayre]

I just had to buy a set for my daughter last week.  I almost fell over.  IIRC back when I got mine they were $12.95.

[JayT]

There's nothing wrong with the shoulderboards except how much they cost.

[dogboy]

I don't think they are ugly,

IMHO they are cartoonish and childish looking. SIX colors on a single epaulet. Possibly designed by Liberace.

The whole design concept of the Air Force uniform was to make it clean and simple with a minimum of colors and patches.

[Pylon]

I don't think they are ugly,

IMHO they are cartoonish and childish looking. SIX colors on a single epaulet. Possibly designed by Liberace.

The whole design concept of the Air Force uniform was to make it clean and simple with a minimum of colors and patches.

Don't forget they've got glitter, too! 

[LtCol White]

Provided the cadet has an officer's service coat, the cadet officers could wear a blue epaulet with embroidered cadet rank on it. Same principle as our gray eps but I don't think the cadets should wear the gray. It would probably constitute harassment and violate CPPT for giving them a uniform coat as ugly as ours. 

[Pylon]

Provided the cadet has an officer's service coat, the cadet officers could wear a blue epaulet with embroidered cadet rank on it. Same principle as our gray eps but I don't think the cadets should wear the gray. It would probably constitute harassment and violate CPPT for giving them a uniform coat as ugly as ours. 

Non concur.  Embroidered grade on epaulet sleeves for cadets is a no go because of the cost.  Remember that cadets regularly promote... sometimes as often as 2 to 4 months between promotions.  The current pin on system lets them buy metal insignia for a few bucks and switch it out (maybe even trade it up in the squadron supply box).  They just pop one set off and pin the next on.  Embroidered epaulet sleeves would mean a new $7/set of epaulets everytime he or she promotes.  For a cadet going from Mitchell to Spaatz, that would equal $42 assuming they could get by with only one set of epaulet sleeves.

[jimmydeanno]

^That would be about the same for the two sets of shoulder boards you need as a Cadet Officer.  $7.00 item + $7.50 shipping = 14.50 per promotion * 6 = $87.00

At $30/pair that's $60.00 (2 sets) + $15.00 (shipping) = $75.00 in shipping (You need two pairs because once you make C/Maj there are bullet holes in the boards from the C/1st Lt and C/Capt Insignia visible.)

[Flying Pig]

Just pin the full size metal emblem to the shoulder epaulets.

[Grumpy]

"I was one of the first to wear them in 1965 (if I remember correctly, they were worn on the khaki shirt as well) and they were as weird and silly then as they are now."

I left the cadets for the AF in June of 1963.  In 1965 we were wearing 1505s in the Air Force and they were short sleeved with no epaulets.  At that time were the cadets wearing long sleeve khaki or 505s, which didn't have epaulets either.

Not a challenge, just trying to get it straight, I'm curious.  I just hope the same thing that happened to the cat doesn't happen to me.

[Cecil DP]

Just pin the full size metal emblem to the shoulder epaulets.

Thats the way they were worn prior to the boards and wow it would even cut the cost to the cadets (and parents).

[MIKE]

Not really, since they would have to get a jacket with epualets... Serious coin for a new one.

[Eagle400]

Not really, since they would have to get a jacket with epualets... Serious coin for a new one.

And the prongs on the backs of the regular size cadet rank insignias aren't long enough to reach the other side of the epaulets, anyway. 

[PA Guy]

"I was one of the first to wear them in 1965 (if I remember correctly, they were worn on the khaki shirt as well) and they were as weird and silly then as they are now."

I left the cadets for the AF in June of 1963.  In 1965 we were wearing 1505s in the Air Force and they were short sleeved with no epaulets.  At that time were the cadets wearing long sleeve khaki or 505s, which didn't have epaulets either.

Not a challenge, just trying to get it straight, I'm curious.  I just hope the same thing that happened to the cat doesn't happen to me.

The Shade 1 khakis were largely gone and the 505s were being phased out.  The shoulder boards were worn on the 505/1505 shirts and were attached with little snaps that were a pain to sew on, this was pre velcro.

[Grumpy]

Yuk!!

[JCJ]

"I was one of the first to wear them in 1965 (if I remember correctly, they were worn on the khaki shirt as well) and they were as weird and silly then as they are now."

I left the cadets for the AF in June of 1963.  In 1965 we were wearing 1505s in the Air Force and they were short sleeved with no epaulets.  At that time were the cadets wearing long sleeve khaki or 505s, which didn't have epaulets either.

Not a challenge, just trying to get it straight, I'm curious.  I just hope the same thing that happened to the cat doesn't happen to me.

The Shade 1 khakis were largely gone and the 505s were being phased out.  The shoulder boards were worn on the 505/1505 shirts and were attached with little snaps that were a pain to sew on, this was pre velcro.

Yep - and the first generation of light blue shirts (1550's) also had no epaulets, and you had to sew the snaps on for the shoulder boards as well  We absolutely hated 'em for short sleeved shirts, and many cadet officers in our wing just refused to wear them for everyday wear and instead adopted the (illegal) practice of CAP cutout on the left collar, cadet grade insignia on the right (similar to the pickle suits)

You also had to buy new boards when going from C/Capt to C/Maj because the pins on the C/Capt grade insignia left unsightly holes in the shoulder boards that the C/Maj insignia didn't cover up.

[ZigZag911]

Agreed...the darn things looked ridiculous WIWAC, and have not improved with age!

[Cadet Tillett]

I agree that the shoulderboards do look a little cheesy, but I don't think that substituting epaulets would be a satisfactory solution.  I would personally like a cheaper, simpler shoulderboard design.
Comments?

[dogboy]

I wrote:

"I was one of the first to wear them in 1965 (if I remember correctly, they were worn on the khaki shirt as well) and they were as weird and silly then as they are now."

The Shade 1 khakis were largely gone and the 505s were being phased out.  The shoulder boards were worn on the 505/1505 shirts and were attached with little snaps that were a pain to sew on, this was pre velcro.

Thankfully, I have apparently successfully repressed this part.

[Grumpy]

Let them wear a blue sleeve with their cadet rank on it (like our gray ones).  Cost is about $6.00 as opposed to $29.00.  They buy the first one and swap at the squadron as they progress.

If they want to go "formal" like a cadet form of Mess Dress, they use the boards on the service coats.
You don't have to redesign anything and you get the cost down like right now.

[mikeylikey]

Just pin the rank on the coat like JROTC, or if the coat has epaulets, then on the epaulet.  Simple.....right?

[SJFedor]

Just pin the rank on the coat like JROTC, or if the coat has epaulets, then on the epaulet.  Simple.....right?

I actually almost recommended just doing the metal grade on the epaulets, but then I remembered that some cadets have the enlisted jacket w/ no epaulets, which leaves them up the creek.

They're expensive as anything, but, personally, I liked my boards.

[Robert Hartigan]

Okay interesting topic , but let me set this one on fast forward>>

2008: cadet officer boards are an issue for the National Board.
The issue is voted down and the boards stay because there is a ready supply that needs to be worked through.
2009: Issue revisited and a phase out date is established three years from then.

2012: cadet officer boards are phased out.

2025: cadet officer boards are re-introduced in an effort to get back to a heritage uniform and the National Cadet Advisory Council thinks they look cool! New price $99. New old stock is used until a suitable vendor can be contracted.

2025: CAP membership sharply declines because all your heads explode when you realized I was right!

[Grumpy]

Grrrrrr 

[Major Carrales]

Okay interesting topic , but let me set this one on fast forward>>

2008: cadet officer boards are an issue for the National Board.
The issue is voted down and the boards stay because there is a ready supply that needs to be worked through.
2009: Issue revisited and a phase out date is established three years from then.

2012: cadet officer boards are phased out.

2025: cadet officer boards are re-introduced in an effort to get back to a heritage uniform and the National Cadet Advisory Council thinks they look cool! New price $99. New old stock is used until a suitable vendor can be contracted.

2025: CAP membership sharply declines because all your heads explode when you realized I was right!

Truer words have never been spoken.  It should remain as it is, there is no need wasting time discussing such ancillary issues as this at any CAP National Level.  Since it represents one of the ad nauseum uniform items to which many here see as "wastes of time and energy" or as a otherwise distractor.

As for the price of them, chalk it up to a sacrifice for being a cadet officer.  If I am not mistaken, even in the military persons of a certain rank are required to own certain uniform items...sabres, service caps, dress uniforms etc.

I see it as one of those "it  comes with the office deals."

There are some that would say that making such a sacrifice is necessary, it shows that one is committed to their position.  I have been criticized in the past because I have a practice of purchasing cadets their name tags with my own personal funds.  The idea is that they must "invest" in the system and my doing so is wrong.  I purchase them said items as twofold, 1) new cadets get their stuff at the same time, 2) I'm a freakin' nice guy and it's my money to do with as I see fit.

Now, for other items (such as cadet officer shoulder boards, boots, shoes and the like) I subscribe to the idea of investing.  If one makes the purchase of these types of items it's a lot harder for parents to merely allow their children to leave willy-nilly.

[Grumpy]

Good thought.  Now, since we will never solve this "problem", can we close it?

[Major Carrales]

Good thought.  Now, since we will never solve this "problem", can we close it?

Agreed!

[ZigZag911]

We should leave this to the National CAC, if they see it as an issue at all.

[BillB]

With all the cadet offiers dropping from the program or turning senior, why don't Squadrons buy their shoulkder boards? I see them on eBay for $10. There must be thousands of shoulder baords in closets gathering lint and dust. Several times (I can remember at least three times) over the past, I can remember dropping the shoulder baods brought to the Ntional CAC and the decision was to retain them

[Grumpy]

Not on the subject; but I was wondering.  I notice on a lot of signatures for these blogs, that say So and So, Gil Robb Wilson #84, Gil Rogg Wilson #201 for the same person.

What do you do, earn the same award over and over again?

Thanks,

Brian Billing
Cadet COP, 1963 (no number, just the year)

[Cecil DP]

There were two Gill Robb Wilson Awards,. Until 1983 it was the second highest award, after the National Commander's Citation, which was abolished. So the individual who has two numbers earned the award under two different criteria

[Pylon]

Truer words have never been spoken.  It should remain as it is, there is no need wasting time discussing such ancillary issues as this at any CAP National Level.

It's not worth discussing it because you're not a cadet forced to shell out $40 for a set of service coat rank insignia, but it's okay to beat to death discussions on tweaking, modifying, and downright recreating senior member uniforms?

Since it represents one of the ad nauseum uniform items to which many here see as "wastes of time and energy" or as a otherwise distractor.

Yeah, we discuss uniform items over and over here.  But there's a difference here.  Almost all of the senior member uniform threads (which we've all participated in, you and me included Joe) have been arguments to create a more aesthetic uniform.  Maybe you like your senior member uniform with blue epaulets, or without the silver sleeve braid, or with a darker color of nametapes, or with a different style badge... ALL of those threads are about ideas for the sake of making the uniforms look better in somebody's opinion.


Here the discussion is bringing up the Cadet Officer shoulder boards because they're unbelievably expensive (which on its own merits the discussion), and they're difficult to use, and they're aesthetically unpleasant to many.  So don't dismiss the thread simply because you believe it to be another thread on just aesthetics.

I have cadets who can't afford $40 for training, or field equipment, or encampment let alone one set of rank insignia.

As for the price of them, chalk it up to a sacrifice for being a cadet officer.  If I am not mistaken, even in the military persons of a certain rank are required to own certain uniform items...sabres, service caps, dress uniforms etc.

Excuse me?  I think you forget we're talking about cadets here.  Not senior members with jobs.

Don't even bring into the discussion military officers buying most of their uniforms out of pocket.  They get paid to be in their organization.  They traditionally pay for their own uniform items because they traditionally get paid more than enlisted, who get their uniforms issued to them or get allowances to cover it.  See the difference?   They're expected to pay because they get paid well.

A cadet officer may not even be old enough to hold a job in his or her state.   So what's chalking it up to being a cadet officer mean?  "Hey cadet, you promoted, congratulations!  You need to buy about $12 - $15 minimum in insignia just to get your basic blues shirt and BDUs up to snuff, and you'll also need to get a new set of books... - let's add $40 on to that for one single set of rank insignia, simply because senior members don't find it worth our time to discuss it amidst our discussions of demanding blue epaulets for ourselves and arguing over nametape colors."


Say you don't agree with changing it, but just don't dismiss it as a frivilous issue because people are looking to change how pretty their uniform is.  When I was a cadet, the boards cost $17 a set (plus the cost of metal pin on rank to be added to it).  Now that the cost has consistently increased (more so than just about any other piece of insignia I can think of) and total cost nears $40 (without counting in the $7 shipping from Vanguard), yes, I think it warrants discussion.




My opinion?  Find a way to make the same epaulets they already use on their blues shirts work. 

Reason #1:  No new products need to be created.
Reason #2:  Cadet officers already get these for their blues shirts.  Consolidating is a good thing.
Reason #3:  Cost is much more reasonable.
Reason #4:  AFROTC wears blue epaulets on their service dress and it looks fine. 

Con #1: Yes, I get the enlisted jackets don't have epaulets.  That's why I said we'd need to find a way to make it work.  At least this suggestion has a lot fewer cons to it than the current system.

[Eagle400]

The CAP cadet shoulder boards are gawdy, bulky, and unnecessary for anything other than a mess dress uniform.  And since CAP cadets aren't allowed to wear the mess dress, the shoulder boards must go.  This is coming from someone who used to wear them. 

Economically and professionally, blue epaulets on the service dress coat is the best way to go.  And I'm not buying all this whining about epaulets not being compatible with the enlisted service dress coat.  Got a problem with the epaulets not working with the enlisted service dress coat?  Buy an officer coat in the first place so you won't have to worry about the problem!  If I had my way, the enlisted service dress coat wouldn't be authorized for CAP cadets. 

By the way, the epaulets worn by AFROTC cadets are black, not blue. 

[MIKE]

And now I will present the following:  Cadets are not required to posses service dress/semi-formal, therefore they are not required to purchase shoulder boards which are only worn on the aforementioned uniform.  Don't like them or don't want to to shell out the coin for 'em... wear your short sleeved shirt/blouse and shoulder marks.

[mikeylikey]

^  Wow....that totally eluded all of us.  Thanks Mike.  I can't believe no one brought that up yet.

PROBLEM SOLVED!

[Pylon]

^  Wow....that totally eluded all of us.  Thanks Mike.  I can't believe no one brought that up yet.

PROBLEM SOLVED!

I guess then we can consider it "problem solved" for any and all future CAP senior member uniform issues, ideas, changes, or problems since a senior member can just choose to wear a different combination or uniform?

Got it.

[MIKE]

My opinion?  Find a way to make the same epaulets they already use on their blues shirts work. 

Reason #1:  No new products need to be created.
Reason #2:  Cadet officers already get these for their blues shirts.  Consolidating is a good thing.
Reason #3:  Cost is much more reasonable.
Reason #4:  AFROTC wears blue epaulets on their service dress and it looks fine. 

Con #1: Yes, I get the enlisted jackets don't have epaulets.  That's why I said we'd need to find a way to make it work.  At least this suggestion has a lot fewer cons to it than the current system.

IMO requiring cadets have coats with epaulets to make it work is a bad idea for a number of reasons.  AFJROTC has their cadet officers wear their insignia on the lapels of the enlisted style new style service dress.  Admittedly their insignia would seem to work better for this than ours might.

[Major Carrales]

Truer words have never been spoken.  It should remain as it is, there is no need wasting time discussing such ancillary issues as this at any CAP National Level.

It's not worth discussing it because you're not a cadet forced to shell out $40 for a set of service coat rank insignia, but it's okay to beat to death discussions on tweaking, modifying, and downright recreating senior member uniforms?

Since it represents one of the ad nauseum uniform items to which many here see as "wastes of time and energy" or as a otherwise distractor.

Yeah, we discuss uniform items over and over here.  But there's a difference here.  Almost all of the senior member uniform threads (which we've all participated in, you and me included Joe) have been arguments to create a more aesthetic uniform.  Maybe you like your senior member uniform with blue epaulets, or without the silver sleeve braid, or with a darker color of nametapes, or with a different style badge... ALL of those threads are about ideas for the sake of making the uniforms look better in somebody's opinion.


Here the discussion is bringing up the Cadet Officer shoulder boards because they're unbelievably expensive (which on its own merits the discussion), and they're difficult to use, and they're aesthetically unpleasant to many.  So don't dismiss the thread simply because you believe it to be another thread on just aesthetics.

I have cadets who can't afford $40 for training, or field equipment, or encampment let alone one set of rank insignia.

As for the price of them, chalk it up to a sacrifice for being a cadet officer.  If I am not mistaken, even in the military persons of a certain rank are required to own certain uniform items...sabres, service caps, dress uniforms etc.

Excuse me?  I think you forget we're talking about cadets here.  Not senior members with jobs.

Don't even bring into the discussion military officers buying most of their uniforms out of pocket.  They get paid to be in their organization.  They traditionally pay for their own uniform items because they traditionally get paid more than enlisted, who get their uniforms issued to them or get allowances to cover it.  See the difference?   They're expected to pay because they get paid well.

A cadet officer may not even be old enough to hold a job in his or her state.   So what's chalking it up to being a cadet officer mean?  "Hey cadet, you promoted, congratulations!  You need to buy about $12 - $15 minimum in insignia just to get your basic blues shirt and BDUs up to snuff, and you'll also need to get a new set of books... - let's add $40 on to that for one single set of rank insignia, simply because senior members don't find it worth our time to discuss it amidst our discussions of demanding blue epaulets for ourselves and arguing over nametape colors."


Say you don't agree with changing it, but just don't dismiss it as a frivilous issue because people are looking to change how pretty their uniform is.  When I was a cadet, the boards cost $17 a set (plus the cost of metal pin on rank to be added to it).  Now that the cost has consistently increased (more so than just about any other piece of insignia I can think of) and total cost nears $40 (without counting in the $7 shipping from Vanguard), yes, I think it warrants discussion.




My opinion?  Find a way to make the same epaulets they already use on their blues shirts work. 

Reason #1:  No new products need to be created.
Reason #2:  Cadet officers already get these for their blues shirts.  Consolidating is a good thing.
Reason #3:  Cost is much more reasonable.
Reason #4:  AFROTC wears blue epaulets on their service dress and it looks fine. 

Con #1: Yes, I get the enlisted jackets don't have epaulets.  That's why I said we'd need to find a way to make it work.  At least this suggestion has a lot fewer cons to it than the current system.

Pylon,

I should think that if a cadet has made it to CAP CADET Officership that it took dedication.  We can assume this because such an act takes a good deal of time, energy and money.  We can also assume that...a cadet would be proud of the accomplishment.

This would require some sort of support...a parent, a unit or some other entity ( a sponsor).  They would have been to schools and encampments that created a cost that would have had to have been mitigated.  WHERE THERE EXISTeth  WILL there EXISTeth a WAY.

I may not be a cadet that has to shell out $40, but I am a CAP Officer that often finds funds and support, sometimes from his own funds, to provide for the cadets.  That is because I believe in the Cadet Program and that those that would need my help would be those that need the program the most.

You say that "they're aesthetically unpleasant to many," many could say the same about the shape of a state like Kansas.  Is that enough to make a discussion on chaning it's shape valid?  I should think not.  Additionally, the shoulder boards in question, as pointed out by MIKE, are not even mandatory.   I will go as far as to say that they are of the same traditional vein as such things as black robes for judges, 4ft 8 1/2 inch wheel bases on vehicles and even long time military uniforms like the Army Blue Uniform.

I mean, really, one person says they were from the 1960s...that's a mere 20 some years into CAP history.  We have few pure CAP traditions and there are those that would strip the remaining ones.  Sorry, Micheal, I can't see losing this tradition for a mere matter of $40 dollars.

I harbour a great deal of respect for you and your opinon's, Pylon, however, I think this is as much a non-issue as the TPU disscussions, discussions on CAP Spec Track Insignia or any of the other "distractor" discussions that end up with 12 pages.

In anycase...I am torn here.  Save money or save tradition?

[Major Carrales]

^  Wow....that totally eluded all of us.  Thanks Mike.  I can't believe no one brought that up yet.

PROBLEM SOLVED!

I guess then we can consider it "problem solved" for any and all future CAP senior member uniform issues, ideas, changes, or problems since a senior member can just choose to wear a different combination or uniform?

Got it.

In a bit of a ranting mood, I see.  It's OK, I often get into moments of hyperbole.

You know I am the biggest proponent of a 5-10 year moratorium on CAP Uniforms, come what may.  It took me a while to realize this, but I consider myself a creature of growth.... 

The discussion on uniforms...ranging from the "SERVICE COAT" meshegas, to the "CLASS A terminology" skirmishes all the way to classics like the "RIBBONS...yes/NO!" fluffernutter and "INCORRECT UNIFORM PICS" free-for-alls have created some of the worst vitriolic unbecoming exchanges to date.  And you would defend them?  Et tu, Pylon?

[dogboy]

It should remain as it is, there is no need wasting time discussing such ancillary issues as this at any CAP National Level.  

I find this a very odd argument on a section of this board devoted to "Uniforms & Awards: Ask questions about and discuss the wear of the various CAP uniforms, for both Senior Members and Cadets."

If you do not wish to participate in the discussion, that's your privilege. Don't criticize others for discussing something because you don't consider it important. It you don't have anything constructive to add to a discussion, please just stay out of it.

As for the price of them, chalk it up to a sacrifice for being a cadet officer. 

There are lots of Cadets with limited financial resources. I was one of them. We ought to strive to make the Cadet program fully available to all. 

IMO, most important is that the things are simply unbelievably ugly and bad design. They make Cadet officers look childish. The fact that they have been in use for 40 years makes it all the important that they be eliminated. Let's not make another 40 years of Cadet officers look stupid.

[MIKE]

My solution:

[Eagle400]

My solution:

You know, I agree with that 100%.  I agree because the cadet officer insignia would mirror the Air Force, not the Army. 

I know... I'm going to make Spaatz awardees mad... but it's time for the pips and diamonds to go.  Seriously.   

[Hawk200]

My solution:

One major problem with that line of thinking.

It makes sense.

And you know we just can't have any of that now, can we?   

[dogboy]

My solution:

Is this what AF Jr ROTC uses? If so, I agree. Maybe put the letters "CAP" on it also.

[Hawk200]

You know, I agree with that 100%.  I agree because the cadet officer insignia would mirror the Air Force, not the Army. 

Then again, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to eliminate the AFJROTC rank insignia, and go the same way across the board for all branch of service JROTC. The insignia would end up cheaper, there would be a lot more of it available.

Of course, Vanguard would lose a lot on cadet rank insignia.

[Major Carrales]

It should remain as it is, there is no need wasting time discussing such ancillary issues as this at any CAP National Level.  

I find this a very odd argument on a section of this board devoted to "Uniforms & Awards: Ask questions about and discuss the wear of the various CAP uniforms, for both Senior Members and Cadets."

If you do not wish to participate in the discussion, that's your privilege. Don't criticize others for discussing something because you don't consider it important. It you don't have anything constructive to add to a discussion, please just stay out of it.

As for the price of them, chalk it up to a sacrifice for being a cadet officer. 

There are lots of Cadets with limited financial resources. I was one of them. We ought to strive to make the Cadet program fully available to all. 

IMO, most important is that the things are simply unbelievably ugly and bad design. They make Cadet officers look childish. The fact that they have been in use for 40 years makes it all the important that they be eliminated. Let's not make another 40 years of Cadet officers look stupid.

I didn't say it was unimportant, I said it was ancillary.  

Simply put, any and all "uniform" discussion here...save for discussion of historical issues en re uniforms, is moot since this is no place to effect any change.  (Note: this person's above post us is one of the "vitriolic posts" I mentioned earlier.  Was that really necessary?  Could it not have been said in PM?  Is my opinion any less vaild because I expressed it different from what your's may be?)

[Eagle400]

My solution:

Is this what AF Jr ROTC uses? If so, I agree. Maybe put the letters "CAP" on it also.

No need - cadet officers already wear the "CAP" cutouts on the lapels of the service dress coat. 

[Cadet Tillett]

My solution:

Is this what AF Jr ROTC uses? If so, I agree. Maybe put the letters "CAP" on it also.

No need - cadet officers already wear the "CAP" cutouts on the lapels of the service dress coat. 

Yah, I say keep it simple and cheap.

[ZigZag911]

OK, I'm a "NO" vote on the funky stripes, no matter who uses them....they look too much like Soviet Union era Red Army noncom insignia!

[Eagle400]

OK, I'm a "NO" vote on the funky stripes, no matter who uses them....they look too much like Soviet Union era Red Army noncom insignia!

Why should that bother you... CAP has an award called the Red Service Medal!!!

[CASH172]

My 2 cents on this whole using AFJROTC insignia, CAP was founded before the USAF.  Plus CAP was the Army Air Corps Aux before the USAF Aux, so our roots are back to the Army style of things.  I say keep it because it's been a tradition for so long.  Plus, I know plenty of three diamonders that would get furious. 

[ZigZag911]

OK, I'm a "NO" vote on the funky stripes, no matter who uses them....they look too much like Soviet Union era Red Army noncom insignia!

Why should that bother you... CAP has an award called the Red Service Medal!!!

You have a good point there, but I still think the darn stripe things look ridiculous, sorry!

[Major Carrales]

OK, I'm a "NO" vote on the funky stripes, no matter who uses them....they look too much like Soviet Union era Red Army noncom insignia!

Why should that bother you... CAP has an award called the Red Service Medal!!!

You have a good point there, but I still think the darn stripe things look ridiculous, sorry!

'Tis a Question of aesthetics...I say keep them as they are.

[Eagle400]

My 2 cents on this whole using AFJROTC insignia, CAP was founded before the USAF.  Plus CAP was the Army Air Corps Aux before the USAF Aux, so our roots are back to the Army style of things.

Oh no, not the "Army traditions" argument again!   

Look: the AFJROTC cadet officer insignia looks better than the pips and diamonds.  This is coming from someone who wore pips in CAP.  Admittedly, it is different.  However, change is a good thing.   

It doesn't make much sense for the USAF Auxiliary to be wearing the cadet officer insignia of the Army, just like it doesn't make much sense for the USAF Auxiliary to be wearing the Army's reverse American Flag patch on the BDU.  See the connection? 

I say keep it because it's been a tradition for so long.

Just because it's been a tradition for so long doesn't mean it shouldn't change.  There used to be a time when ultramarine blue was actually in style.  That time was long ago.  Now it's really old hat and a number of people think it looks unprofessional on the BDU.  Well, I don't think the pips and diamonds look unprofessional on the uniform, but do you see my point?  Things change. 

There used to be a time when the pips and diamonds weren't out of place on the CAP uniform.  That was when CAP was under the Army.  Now that CAP is under the Air Force, it's time CAP adopted the cadet officer insignia of the Air Force (specifically, AFJROTC).  Besides, CAP's cadet airman insignias closely resemble those of AFJROTC, so why not use the same cadet officer insignia?     

Plus, I know plenty of three diamonders that would get furious.

Well, what can I say.  Change doesn't come easy.   

[Major Carrales]

My 2 cents on this whole using AFJROTC insignia, CAP was founded before the USAF.  Plus CAP was the Army Air Corps Aux before the USAF Aux, so our roots are back to the Army style of things.

 
Oh no, not the "Army traditions" argument again!   

Look: the AFJROTC cadet officer insignia looks better than the pips and diamonds.  This is coming from someone who wore pips in CAP.  Admittedly, it is different.  However, change is a good thing.   

It doesn't make much sense for the USAF Auxiliary to be wearing the cadet officer insignia of the Army, just like it doesn't make much sense for the USAF Auxiliary to be wearing the Army's reverse American Flag patch on the BDU.  See the connection? 

I say keep it because it's been a tradition for so long.

Just because it's been a tradition for so long doesn't mean it shouldn't change.  There used to be a time when ultramarine blue was actually in style.  That time was long ago.  Now it's really old hat and a number of people think it looks unprofessional on the BDU.  Well, I don't think the pips and diamonds look unprofessional on the uniform, but do you see my point?  Things change. 

There used to be a time when the pips and diamonds weren't out of place on the CAP uniform.  That was when CAP was under the Army.  Now that CAP is under the Air Force, it's time CAP adopted the cadet officer insignia of the Air Force (specifically, AFJROTC).  Besides, CAP's cadet airman insignias closely resemble those of AFJROTC, so why not use the same cadet officer insignia?     

Plus, I know plenty of three diamonders that would get furious.

Well, what can I say.  Change doesn't come easy.   

Yes, I do see the connection quite clearly.  Welcome back, Mr Smithson.

[Eagle400]

Yes, I do see the connection quite clearly.

And in case you're wondering Major Carrales, it has nothing to do with personal beliefs.  I love my country and the American flag.  I just feel that CAP needs to mirror the Air Force as closely as possible when it comes to uniforms, and that means no flag patch on the BDU.

By the way, the connection I was making had to do with CAP adopting Air Force uniform items and breaking away from Army uniform items.     

[Major Carrales]

Yes, I do see the connection quite clearly.

And in case you're wondering Major Carrales, it has nothing to do with personal beliefs.  I love my country and the American flag.  I just feel that CAP needs to mirror the Air Force as closely as possible when it comes to uniforms, and that means no flag patch on the BDU.

By the way, the connection I was making had to do with CAP adopting Air Force uniform items and breaking away from Army uniform items.     

No need to be defensive, write clearly and stand for what you belief in.  Just try not to be the same "one note Charlie."

[Eagle400]

Here's a visual representation of why the current CAP cadet officer insignia doesn't fit the Air Force cadet rank structure. 







As you may have noticed, both the CAP and AFJROTC cadet airman insignia look similar to each other.

However, the similarities disappear when we examine the CAP and AFJROTC cadet officer insignias:   







However, there are similarities with the Army JROTC Cadet Officer insignia: 



But the problem is, CAP is the USAF Auxiliary - not the U.S. Army Auxiliary.  Therefore, it makes more sense for CAP cadet officers to wear the same cadet officer insignia as AFJROTC. 

[Major Carrales]

Well, then I guess we should just do away with the CAP Cadet Program and shuffle people into AFJROTC.  WRONG!!!

If you ask me the AFJROTC ranks are "cartoony," almost a caricature of USAF rank.  That is fine for them, but CAP has a much more rich history and traditions.

The CAP Officer Rank insignia is fine as it is.

See, first its a topic of ending Shoulder Board, next y'all want to flush things that have peen part of CAP for decades down the toilet.  Change is good, change for change sake is bad!!!

What happened to all of the "financial concerns" points people were making?  Changing to a new rank insignia will render purchases...millions of dollars of purchase...absolutely moot!

Leave it all as it is and pitch in to buy poor cadets their shoulder boards...a far better solution than throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

More truly needless spending for an ancillary issue.

[mikeylikey]

^  I agree with the Major.  The Army actually stole their Cadet Officer Rank from CAP.  We had it first.  I do prefer theirs better though, all shiny and smooth!

[ZigZag911]

I believe the AFJROTC cadet officer rank is modelled on that of the USAF Academy....whose cadet officer rank, as far as I can see, is a stylized, modernized version of West Point's cadet officer ranks....both of which are confusing and uninformative, since they resemble nothing as much as NCO stripes.

The pips and diamonds are visually simple to interpret, and should be maintained.

Perhaps the academies should follow the example of Army ROTC and 'borrow' from CAP!

[jimmydeanno]

I believe the AFJROTC cadet officer rank is modelled on that of the USAF Academy....

The USAFA uses these
(CLICK HERE)

EXAMPLE: C/2d Lt

[ZigZag911]

The USAFA insignia reminds me of the rank system used in origfinal Star Trek (they also made it up as they went along!)...really, USAFA grades look like hieroglyphics!

[jimmydeanno]

^No really Cadet Second Class Group Superintendent I didn't realize it was you, HONESTLY!

[Tim Medeiros]

Personally, I'm not pleased with the cost of the shoulder boards, my last pair cost me $27, that was just after it was $18.  As for them not being required, or the service jacket for that matter, there is a GREAT deal of visual influence that cadets have with eachother.  Example Cadet Snuffy at an activity sees Cadet Smith ([darn] I've read the old leadership books too much) in his officer new style service jacket with boards and say "hey mom/dad/bank, Cadet Smith looks COOL! I wanna look like that, buy me that jacket and boards so I can look cool too!"

As for the cadet officer insignia (hmm, topic drift anyone?), are you so certain that CAP copied AFJROTC with their enlisted insignia, or was it the other way around?  The USAF Academy insignia, minus the cloud ground and horizon and the random stuff near the top, looks more like AFROTC and Navy insignia.

[wacapgh]

At the 1979 ATCFC (as AETC-FC was called then) at Mather AFB (as it was back then), the topic of the "new" metal ranks came up. One of the cadets from CAWG said "We're sorry. Our CAC submitted that design for cloth stripes, and National stole it."

To post "on topic", shoulderboards were worn on all the blue uniforms - "1550's" and "Class A's" as they were informally called then.

[arajca]

Actually, the CAP cadet enlisted stripes are closer to Air Force stripes than AFJROTC stripes. WIWAC, the stripes WERE Air Force stripes with the shield affixed to cover the star.

[dogboy]

I say keep it because it's been a tradition for so long.

Just because it's been a tradition for so long doesn't mean it shouldn't change.   

Traditions should change when they conflict with the mission. Tradition for itself is nothing.

And thank God some traditions do change. When the Cadet officer shoulder boards were introduced, we wore the bus driver hat with a white band around it and the EM cadet cap badge as the hat badge, It was called the "Good Humor" hat, presumably because people laughed at it.

[PA Guy]

Since everyone is offering their opinion, and you know what they say about opinions, I will offer mine. Leave it alone.  It won't bring us closer to the USAF, that problem runs much deeper than cosmetic changes. It would cost cadets a lot of money and it is already recognized. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Like I said just another opinion.

[PA Guy]

And thank God some traditions do change. When the Cadet officer shoulder boards were introduced, we wore the bus driver hat with a white band around it and the EM cadet cap badge as the hat badge, It was called the "Good Humor" hat, presumably because people laughed at it.

I don't recall it being called a "Good Humor" hat or anyone laughing. That may have been your experience but not mine.  I wore one till the novelty wore off and then went back to my flight cap. Then as now they were a pain to wear.

[Eagle400]

Well, here's another idea: leave the CAP cadet ranks the way they are but get rid of the shoulderboards.  That would end up saving folks money without CAP having to pay any money for new cadet officer ranks.

I say have cadets wear the shoulder marks on the service dress coat just like the officers do.  It would look a lot less gawdy and save folks money.        

[JayT]

Guys.

Not every cadet owns an officers style jacket.

Shoulderboards can be worn on enlisted style jackets.

There's no reason to get ride of the shoulderboards.

[Redbird Leader]

The cadet grade insignia also follows the pattern that is used in some European countries.  The British officer rank insignia has the "one pip, two pip, three pip" insignia for company grade officers and then follows the one, two, three combination of insignia for field grade officers also. 

I think the cadet rank insignia is a good tradition and doesn't look as goofy as the AFJROTC officer insignia. 

BTW, I hated the white band around my service cap WIWAC.

[Falshrmjgr]

Just my $.02.  I was a c/MAJ in AFJROTC before I ever joined CAP as a Cadet, and thought the CAP Cadet Stuff made me look like a Mexican Field Marshall.

Later, as an Army ROTC cadet I wore the pips that people seem to dislike.

IMHO, given the rate of promotion, anything other than Pin-on Rank is silly.

Observations 1 & 2:

1)  While CAP is NOT turning out "Commissioned Officers" per se, there is a certain value to setting an organizational expectation that our cadets will continue to pursue commissions to best apply the leadership skills that they have learned.  As such (and the traditional concept of the word CADET) they should generally be viewed as OFFICER Trainees.  As such, there is no need for EM Versions of the uniforms.  In fact, it sends the wrong message, ie...  that Cadet NCO's are NCO's.  They are Not.  They are Cadets first, and that is where the emphasis should lie.  We "borrow" Enlisted & Officer Grades as a convenience to distinguish differing levels of achievement, and they could as easily be replaced by a simple structure of "Cadet nth Class to Cadet 1st Class" Ala the service academies.  However, there IS value in mirroring AD Ranks structures for educational purposes.

2)  Army ROTC Cadets and West Point Cadets, while serving with the active forces (CTLT, Airborne School, etc...) DO NOT wear their "Rank".  They wear a generic insignia of rank for Cadet.  As an example, while doing ROTC stuff in ROTC land I wore the Diamond of c/MAJ.  But while serving with my SMP Unit during Drill, I wore a Single PIP (C/2LT) because that is the insignia for Cadet.  (Sorry, too lazy too look up the Reg on that.)  It seems to me counter productive for the goal of Active Force integration to expect active duty members of the Armed Forces to deal with the vagaries of cadet rank structure.  While I understand that adopting a similar convention for CAP might offend those enamored with uniform "bling", I think it would be helpful to communicate the proper humility when dealing with the active force.

[Major Carrales]

Jaeger,

You make the assumption that CAP is intergrated into the USAF.  While this often happens, to some degree, with the USCGAux and their motherservice, it is not so for CAP.

CAP is a separate entity, thus, these confusions should not (and do not) exist.  A CAP Captain only has bearing on CAP matters, nothing more and nothing less.

"Cadet NCOs" only pretain to CAP related matters.

There should be respect for the Active Duty ranks, however,  "proper humility" is unnecessary since we are not "inferior" to them.  We aren't even parallel, we are a whole 'nother organization with a whole different standard.

If you feel inferior to them, then you will be inferior.  By all means, respect is key...but I don't think CAP personnel, even cadets, need to be "groveling" at the feet of the active duty force.

Now, if congress designates CAP as somehow a "connected" support structure to the USAF (basically helper "Airmen") that is a different story.

Be more proud of what we are, then ashamed of what we are not!

[Falshrmjgr]

Jaeger,

You make the assumption that CAP is intergrated into the USAF.  While this often happens, to some degree, with the USCGAux and their motherservice, it is not so for CAP.

CAP is a separate entity, thus, these confusions should not (and do not) exist.  A CAP Captain only has bearing on CAP matters, nothing more and nothing less.

"Cadet NCOs" only pretain to CAP related matters.

There should be respect for the Active Duty ranks, however,  "proper humility" is unnecessary since we are not "inferior" to them.  We aren't even parallel, we are a whole 'nother organization with a whole different standard.

If you feel inferior to them, then you will be inferior.  By all means, respect is key...but I don't think CAP personnel, even cadets, need to be "groveling" at the feet of the active duty force.

Now, if congress designates CAP as somehow a "connected" support structure to the USAF (basically helper "Airmen") that is a different story.

Be more proud of what we are, then ashamed of what we are not!

I didn't make any assumption, and my intent was not to delve into the legalities of our status vis-a-vis the Air Force, but rather to point out that perception is important.  Further, I did not, and would not use the term grovel unless you would consider showing proper military courtesy as groveling.

For the very same reason that CAP does not authorize the wear of the Brown A2 Flyer's Jacket, we should consider that CAP Cadet's Uniforms and the message that they send are real.  CAP Cadets are given opportunities to interact with the Air Force that are special.  In light of that courtesy, it would seem appropriate to present an appearance that says that they are in an organizational that is professional and in alignment with the Military, and NOT present an appearance that says, "we're an

whole 'nother organization

and we can do whatever we want."

On a personal note, I spent 2 years as an SMP Cadet with the California National Guard.  Now, I could have attended my unit's dining in wearing the drawer full of ROTC Ribbons I was issued, and I would have received nothing but disdain.  But by wearing simply the ribbons I had been issued in the Army, I was treated as a member of the unit, and not some sort of unwelcome guest.

So please, next time try to avoid twisting my comments into a strawman that is easily attacked.  I said nothing about ashamed, nor did I say anything about not being proud of what we are.  That is, in fact, exactly what I am trying to say.  Our cadets should derive that pride from their real status of being CADETS (a recognized status in the military) versus some sort of pseudo-NCO/Officer.  They are Cadets, and some of the best trained, bright intelligent young people that America has to offer.  They are given advanced promotion on joining the military due to the experiences that they have had, the potential they possess, and the training they have received.  When you consider this, they are in fact, trainees.

(I did not comment on Senior Member rank, because frankly there is very little wrong with it other than the advancement to Second Lieutenant is too quick and easy.  My experience has been that Senior Officers in CAP has the skill and experience generally commensurate with their active duty counterparts, but that CAP junior officers should have a higher hurdle before they are "commissioned."  But that, I recognize, is my own personal prejudice.)

/Jaeger

[Major Carrales]

So please, next time try to avoid twisting my comments into a strawman that is easily attacked. 

Before we continue, please, I meant no disrespect...only difference of opinion.  I get the impression this was written with a sort of "vitriolic" tone.  I will not get into an clash over this issue.

This is about CAP CADET Officer shoulder boards, to which I see has being an ancillary issue.  When Cadets directly interact operationally with military, they are, to my experience, dressed in field uniforms.  Also, when they are being give classes at such facilities and encampments, they are dressed in minimum basic service dress.

The only time they might even wear these things is at some sort of "mess dress" occasion or other ceremonial times when the Military personnel present might also be wearing something that could be described as "gaudy..." from sabres and weaved epaulets to trousers with a bright stripe down the pants or even ornate shoulder chords.

In anycase, CAP is about creating strong citizens using the military model.  In what they dress is not as important as how they dress in it.

[Falshrmjgr]

No, there was no vitriol intended at all.  And I concur wholeheartedly with the sentiment about how they carry themselves.  My point was just that perception is important, and that from time to time we should reevaluate the image that we present.  In the case of the shoulder boards,  they are uniquely ostentatious and expensive.  I then tried to expand that concept to making an argument in favor of making them go away:

1) Cadets are generally not independently wealthy, and that purchasing them as often as a cadet is likely to be promoted is a poor use of cadet's generally limited funds.

2) Cadet shoulder boards do not present an appearance that is in line with active military uniforms,  in that they look more like a Foreign Military than what one would expect of a cadet in an American uniform.  This is turn is counterproductive when interfacing with the active military.

3)  Further, cadet's should have a single style  of uniform, and that should be the officer version and not the enlisted version.

Regards,

/Jaeger

[gallagheria]

3)  Further, cadet's should have a single style  of uniform, and that should be the officer version and not the enlisted version.

Why? Cadet is an enlisted grade.

[Falshrmjgr]

3)  Further, cadet's should have a single style  of uniform, and that should be the officer version and not the enlisted version.

Why? Cadet is an enlisted grade.

Historically, a Cadet was an officer in training.  Think Midshipman as well, living in the grey area between Enlisted and Officer, more analogous to a Warrant Officer.   While obviously at the CAP Cadet/JROTC Cadet level we are not producing officers, the precedent is on the officer side of things.  In fact, up until the end of WWI, JROTC Graduates received eligibility for a Reserve Commission at the age of 21.  No College, No Senior ROTC.  Just JROTC & 21 Years Old.

http://www.khsd.k12.ca.us/south/gied33/greg_underwood/JROTC_History.htm

At its inception, the JROTC course consisted of three hours of military instruction per week for a period of three years. Any JROTC graduate who completed this course of military instruction was authorized a certificate of eligibility for a reserve commission to be honored at age 21 (although this provision was allowed to lapse after World War I as the need for reserve officers declined).

"Cadet" has never been, and is not, and enlisted grade.

/Jaeger

[gallagheria]

Historically, a Cadet was an officer in training.  Think Midshipman as well, living in the grey area between Enlisted and Officer, more analogous to a Warrant Officer.

Yes, cadets are officers in training, but they are enlisted. All cadets, AFROTC or USAFA, are enlisted. Same with all the services, whether cadets or midshipmen, ROTC or Academy. Same thing with the various officer candidates. Read that nice little contract they all sign. By law and regulation all cadets enlist for 8 years in either the reserve or regular component of their branch of the military when they contract. If they commission, they are then appointed, but otherwise owe the military either additional enlisted time or some money, depending on circumstances.

[Eagle400]

I agree with Fallschirmjaeger that the enlisted service dress coat should NOT be worn by CAP cadets, and that the cadet officer shoulder boards need to go.    

I also agree that cadets need to have a single style of uniform.  That is why I'm against them wearing the new enlisted service dress coat and the old service dress coat.  

[gallagheria]

"Cadet" has never been, and is not, and enlisted grade.

That is just ignorance. Cadet (both AFROTC and USAFA) are enlisted grades. Read the nice contract all cadets are required to sign:

If you want to enter into the contract that follows, you must read and understand all of its terms and conditions. If you decide to accept these terms and conditions, you will sign the contract. You will also be administered an oath of enlistment and you will sign the Enlistment/Reenlistment Document, Armed Forces of the United States this document. You will receive a copy of each document. Keep the copies of the documents with your important papers.

and

Enlistment/Basic Military Service Obligation (MSO) - As a prerequisite for membership in the AFROTC program, I will enlist in the USAFR, incurring a basic MSO of eight (8)years from the date of my enlistment, during which time I will be assigned to the Obligated Reserve Section of the Individual Ready
Reserve.

Where is the confusion? I did ROTC and know that cadets are required to enlist in their branch when they sign their contracts. That is why the Army call it SIMULTANEOUS Membership Program (SMP) when a person is both in ROTC as a cadet and in a reserve unit like the Guard or Army Reserves.

[Ned]

Guys,

Many US armed forces cadets sign enlistment contracts (like the last two years of Army ROTC, for example), but not all cadets do.  Example:  Cadets in JROTC do not sign enlistment contracts, nor do cadets in the first two years of Army ROTC (unless under scholarship).

By definition, officer trainees at the various OCS-type program are enlisted folks, but they are normally referred to as "candidates" not "Cadets".

I don't know how they do it at the academies.

Accordingly, whether or not "cadet" is an "enlisted grade" is probably not as simple as knowing whether a given cadet has signed an enlistment contract with Uncle Sam.

Ned Lee
Affiliated with CP for a long, long time.

[gallagheria]

This is not about JROTC cadets.

I am about to use Army vernacular, because I am most familiar with it (but all the services are the same as far as this is concerned--each using their own terminology). Now stay with me here. Nonscholarship ROTC cadets under the first two years are not truly cadets, but merely students enrolled in military science. All cadets who continue on to MS-III (unless they are at one of the six Senior Military Colleges) are required by law and regulation to enlist in the United States Army Reserve (Control Group). However, even though this is not the subject here, they are not subject to the UCMJ, just like National Guard soldiers under Title 32 or SAD (which is 99% of the time unless deployed overseas) are not. Only Academy cadets or midshipmen are subject to the UCMJ. However, BOTH groups of cadets, ROTC and USMA, are required to enlist.

Even nonscholarship cadets must enlist. In fact, scholarship cadets are barred from being simultaneously enlisted in the Guard or Army Reserves when they accept a scholarship and must be transferred over to the United States Army Reserve (Control Group), unless it is a Guaranteed Reserve scholarship. However, nonscholarship cadets must enlist in the USAR (Control Group) and are eligible then to enlist simultaneously in the Guard or Reserves and thus be in the SMP. AR 145-1

Except as provided in paragraph 3–17, enlistment in the USAR with assignment to USAR Control Group (ROTC) is a requirement for enrollment in the advanced course or in the scholarship program. Such enlistment will be made in
the grade of cadet. Cadets will retain this grade as an enlisted grade in the USAR (separate from any grade held in the corps of cadets at the school) regardless of any prior military service performed or grade advancement policies applicable to enlisted status.

[Cecil DP]

Historically, a Cadet was an officer in training.  Think Midshipman as well, living in the grey area between Enlisted and Officer, more analogous to a Warrant Officer.

Yes, cadets are officers in training, but they are enlisted. All cadets, AFROTC or USAFA, are enlisted. Same with all the services, whether cadets or midshipmen, ROTC or Academy. Same thing with the various officer candidates. Read that nice little contract they all sign. By law and regulation all cadets enlist for 8 years in either the reserve or regular component of their branch of the military when they contract. If they commission, they are then appointed, but otherwise owe the military either additional enlisted time or some money, depending on circumstances.

An Officer candidate whether in ROTC or the academies are not enlisted. as stated above they are officer candidates. If they were enlisted their time in Officer training would be considered for longevity or time in service. It is not. Unless they had prior service their time in service begins on the day they raise their hand and get sworn in as Officers.

[MIKE]

This is drifting.

[JayT]

Here's what it comes down to.

We can't even get all of our cadets in proper uniforms. I would much rather see every cadet get issued a light weight blue jacket and an M65 before we do anymore uniform changes.

but I digress that issue.

A new style enlisted jacket cost about a hundred bucks. An officer style costs about twice that.

Officer shoulder boards can be worn on both, plus the old style jacket.

There's no reason to change the system, or the insignia, or the boards.

[Falshrmjgr]

referencing West Point Cadets:  (from www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r350_18.pdf

Section II
STATUS OF CADETS AND MILITARY COURTESY
3–8. Status
a. Under existing law (10 USC 3075), cadets are included in the
composition of the Regular Army. Their legal status is that of a
subordinate officer, entitled in all possible circumstances to certain
of the legal rights appertaining to the condition of officers of the
Army as distinguished from noncommissioned officers.Their mili-
tary rank is above that of enlisted personnel, but below that of
commissioned or warrant officers (AR 600–20).
b. While serving in leadership positions in the chain of com-
mand, cadets are authorized to issue appropriate orders to subordi-
nates. Violations of such lawful orders normally will constitute an
offense under UCMJ. As persons subject to UCMJ, cadets may
prefer charges against other persons subject to the Code.
c. Socially, cadets will be treated as junior officers, sharing fully
in the normal social and recreational opportunities available to offi-
cers of the command. Cadets should live in BOQs and should be
extended free guest privileges in officers' open messes.Existing reg-
ulations do not preclude cadets' drinking alcoholic beverages; how-
ever, cadets will conform to post regulations and State laws.

Very different from an ROTC Cadet's status.

Ok I'll shut up now

[adamblank]

My quick thought on the overall issue is that shoulder boards are more trouble than they are worth.  On the positive note they have heritage (which in and of itself is neither good or bad) which I think in this case is very positive.  However, they are not made for the Air Force service coat, and would work better on the enlisted coat.  I do feel as though their blue epaulets on an officer coat would be the best solution (phased-in of course).  I feel that the cost of the coat would be offset by buying typically of two sets of boards and the large vs small rank.  Of course it is not tremendous amounts of money so again that isn't the strongest argument in the world.

On the enlisted/officer cadet USAFA/AFROTC side note.  When you attend an academy and/or accept an ROTC scholarship you "enlist" in the inactive reserve.  This means that if you don't fulfill your contract the commander can opt to have you serve enlisted time.  Other than that, there is no other enlisted tie.  Cadets has been defined as someone seeking a commission.  More relevant though, cadets do wear officer uniform items because they typically fill that definition.

Of course, in the end it comes down to opinion.

[Ned]

This is not about JROTC cadets.

Of course not.

Because they don't fit your argument. 

But they are a recognized cadet program of the United States armed forces, and defined by official regulations as "cadets."  See AR 145-2.  Oddly enough, both JROTC and senior ROTC programs are run by the US Army Cadet Command.

Nonscholarship ROTC cadets under the first two years are not truly cadets, but merely students enrolled in military science.

Really?

That would be news at pretty much any ROTC detachment in the country. 

MS Is and IIs in the Basic Course dress in Army uniforms, learn and perform military drill and ceremonies, take the APFT, learn about leadership and weapons systems, and could even spend four weeks on active duty in the Leader's Training Course.

As cadets.

The ARs say they are cadets, who are you to dispute that?

Their status contradicts your position that "all cadets are enlisted."

Which is plainly not true.

All cadets who continue on to MS-III (unless they are at one of the six Senior Military Colleges) are required by law and regulation to enlist in the United States Army Reserve (Control Group). However, even though this is not the subject here, they are not subject to the UCMJ, just like National Guard soldiers under Title 32 or SAD (which is 99% of the time unless deployed overseas) are not. Only Academy cadets or midshipmen are subject to the UCMJ. However, BOTH groups of cadets, ROTC and USMA, are required to enlist.

True enough.  As we have said, many cadets are serving under a contract of enlistment.

Many are not.

Whether they have signed an enlistment contract just seems to be unrelated to the question of whether "cadet" is an "enlisted grade."

It is worth remembering that not all that long ago, most "enlisted soldiers" in the Army had never actually signed enlistment contracts.

They were drafted.

Ned Lee
Former SMP Cadet
Retired ARNG Infantry Officer