Required Weigh-Ins

[Chaplaindon]

As a chaplain (who happens to meet USAF h/w standards, if that matters—and it shouldn't), I would like to offer another perspective on this discussion. St. Paul is recorded as having stated, "'All things are lawful,' but not all things are beneficial. 'All things are lawful,' but not all things build up" (1Corinthians 10:23, NRSV).

What does that have to do with the issue at hand ... ?

As quoted by "MikeyLikey" the CAP Knowledgebase (editor unknown) stated that a unit commander may require a weigh-in of members, ostensibly justified in order to enforce proper uniform wear. In short, it is (to respectfully borrow St. Paul's word) lawful for unit commanders to demand that members submit to perhaps even public weigh-ins (as though they were a piece of produce or a prize fighter) amid a squadron gathering. This is allegedly "lawful" IAW CAPM 39-1 (a point that I dispute, but will accept uncritically for the purpose of "fueling" my ethics-based response).

"'All things are lawful,' but not all things are beneficial. 'All things are lawful,' but not all things build up." While it MAY BE lawful for a commander to demand a compulsory weigh-in, most likely it will not be either "beneficial" or useful for "build[ing] up" a CAP unit or to support CAP's missions.

As those who have participated in a Moral Leadership session, "morals" (or its Greek synonym "ethics") refer to a deliberate, principle-based, process of decision-making (or the absence thereof). It is such decision-making that St. Paul was discussing with the Corinthian church. It is likewise such a decision that a compulsory weigh-in should result from. It may be lawful, but (as a former unit commander) I think holding such a weigh-in would be anything but beneficial.  Here's why ...

If SMs are ordered to submit themselves to a humiliating (perhaps public --- that seems lawful too) weigh-ins, I suspect that many SMs would –out of principle (ethics again, see)—refuse and even resign (or change units) instead. I am within the h/w standards and would refuse to be weighed, as such a practice is simply wrong. There isn't a power on earth that could compel me to be treated like a tomato. I suspect that I am not alone. At best, it would make many SMs unhappy. As we lose members or as we dispirit our members, especially SMs, CAP's mission capabilities are diminished. That isn't building up. That is being needlessly and blindly, destructive.

As to the PT issue, I should hate to intentionally discriminate against a physically-challenged member who is entirely capable of performing essential mission-support functions but who cannot run, or jump, or do a single push-up. That would be unjust and prejudiced. It is akin to CAPBloggers who have criticized our National Commander for his accent and denigrating him for it. It is wrong.

Furthermore, I sense a subtle undercurrent of "get-even" in many posts on this thread too – especially ones suggesting or supporting a PT program for SM advancement. Perhaps there are a rare few cadets that actually envy the seemingly easier SM program and would like to enforce cadet program rules and regs on SMs, just because. "The grass is always greener," so the cliché goes. I hope that's incorrect. The truth is that although there is no PT requirement (nor for that matter aerospace or leadership tests required for that matter) the program is still a challenge. That is seen in the relatively low number of seniors who ever achieve the Gill Robb Wilson Award. Similarly SM retention has been problematic in recent years, making the program less attractive and increasing the loss of SMs seems foolish to me.

"Getting even" is a really terrible stance upon which to base truly ethical decisions. In fact, it is childishness. Any member who is short-sighted enough to wish to "settle a score" upon SMs needs to think about two points. One, that the cadet program is totally dependent upon SMs for its very existence; no SMs, sadly no cadet program. Cadet leaders often mistakenly believe that they run the program and that SMs are superfluous. One C/Lieutenant Colonel publicly stated that the way to "handle senior members" is to put them into a corner with a cup of coffee and ignore them. That is not just ignorant, disrespectful and unprofessional, it is also to most obviously miss the contingent nature of the cadet program. The cadet program is wholly contingent upon the SM program. As the movie "The Right Stuff" quoted the Mercury astronauts, "no bucks (money) no Buck Rogers;" similarly, no SMs, no cadet program: so much for building up an important mission of CAP. Two, envy (and get-even-ism) is, at its core, selfishness. Selfishness is inconsistent with the values incumbent in the uniform we wear. That uniform was "purchased" by the selfless sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of men and women who wore it into battle, not for him or herself and their personal aggrandizement, but for the benefit their fellow Countryman. Envy has no place in the uniform of our Country. It is an anathema to all that our military stands for.

Rhetoric that belittles or renounces SMs (or words and/or actions that encourage them to leave CAP) --or any other member for that matter--is destructive to the program. Rhetoric or actions that demonstrate selfishness or selflessness is likewise corrosive and destructive.

Actions such as mandatory weigh-ins or (imagined, perhaps hoped-for PT tests) may be lawful and IAW CAPR's and CAPM's, BUT they may be anything but beneficial. I suggest any commander who seriously considers such a practice be VERY circumspect and ensure that he or she doesn't inflict more harm to CAP than they ever intended. In my humble opinion, no uniform and no one's appearance in that uniform is worth destroying CAP.

"'All things are lawful,' but not all things are beneficial. 'All things are lawful,' but not all things build up." Think about it friends.

Church dismissed!

[smj58501]

Amen

[shorning]

First, well said.  However, this:

There isn't a power on earth that could compel me to be treated like a tomato.

was hilarious!  Good thing I wasn't drinking anything or it would have been all over my laptop!

[alexalvarez]

Preach it Chaplain Don!

[SarDragon]

Yay-Yuh!

[Hammer]

My Group Commander is 5 foot, 9 inches, weighs 250+ lbs. and STILL wears the Air Force-style uniforms.  His Service Dress is way to snug in the front.  It makes me SOOOOOOOOOO sick every time I see him in a uniform./

[shorning]

[redacted]

[Hammer]

My Group Commander is 5 foot, 9 inches, weighs 250+ lbs. and STILL wears the Air Force-style uniforms.  His Service Dress is way to snug in the front.  It makes me SOOOOOOOOOO sick every time I see him in a uniform./

Hey, Viper, how about you quit complaining about your squadron.  I think it's worn out.  You've demonstrated that you're not going to fix the problem, only complain about it.

FOR THE RECORD-----  I did not have the Screen Name "Viper" on the CAP Talk Forum.  That was my Cadet Commander.  Also, how high do I need to go.  The Region IG got him off because he knew one of the IG Team members.

[shorning]

[redacted]

[Hammer]

My Group Commander is 5 foot, 9 inches, weighs 250+ lbs. and STILL wears the Air Force-style uniforms.  His Service Dress is way to snug in the front.  It makes me SOOOOOOOOOO sick every time I see him in a uniform./

Hey, Viper, how about you quit complaining about your squadron.  I think it's worn out.  You've demonstrated that you're not going to fix the problem, only complain about it.

FOR THE RECORD-----  I did not have the Screen Name "Viper" on the CAP Talk Forum.  That was my Cadet Commander.  Also, how high do I need to go.  The Region IG got him off because he knew one of the IG Team members.

So you say.  You keep alleging facts that only you seem to know.

No, just ones taht are common knowledge in my Squadron and Group.

[arajca]

Sorry to break up this love fest, but it seems to be degenerating.

Not enough information has been passed on for the folks here to give appropriate advice. The facts that " are common knowledge in my Squadron and Group." are not common knowledge here. Without the full picture - and this includes views other than yours Hammer - we cannot give you appropriate advice. Since you haven't been forthcoming with it - for whatever reason - it makes sense to stop asking for advice on this problem.

If you two want to keep duking it out, please take it to PM.

Thank you. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

[Jerry]

...That's a long time leftover from our former association with the Army.

seems just like yesterday, eh Dave?  

Maybe we could just go back to the old 1505's, or before that, 505's!

Jerry

[dwb]

Maybe we could just go back to the old 1505's, or before that, 505's!

I prefer 550s myself...

[Jerry]

Maybe we could just go back to the old 1505's, or before that, 505's!

I prefer 550s myself...

Me, TOO!   The longer I stay in, the less I WANT to wear a uniform.  I don't wear the USAF uniform, and I don't have a "spare tire"------well, not one you will notice!   I look fine in the USAF blues, but I am over the standard.
I am, like another example, tall and large-framed. But I am not fat. If I complied with CAP's standard I would actually look gaunt! So I wear the corporate uniform (when I wear one). When I have to wear a uniform for an extended period, there is usually a set of dungarees in the car, and as soon as I am done with the function, WHAM!  I am back in those jeans.  After 200+ missions (I have stopped counting), it just isn't as important as it used to be when I was a gung ho 1/Lt.  So being in the "Blue" just isn't the big deal it used to be.  I am content with contributing what I can because I am one of those old heads. I took my cadet orientation rides with ORIGINAL coastal patrol pilots in the 60's!!!    LOL! GOSH, I'm old!

With age, yes, I don't look like Clark Gable, and I don't tramp  thru the woods anymore carrying no durn 3 day pack! Not only don't, I WON'T! So I content myself with MRO duties where I can stay at the mission base and sleep in a warm bed (well, maybe I might crash in my car if I have to)!  My old bones don't take to sleeping on hard, cold ground anymore!  But I can still contribute *something* to the mission--just as can the rest of us old guys. It just ain't slogging over the mountains like some Army Ranger team. So what if I can't meet an arbitrary uniform rule!  But I recognize that a 350 lb Major with a huge belly hanging over his belt is something that I, too, would resent because it reflects badly on the entire organization. I've seen fat, ugly, sloppy men with beards in BDU's, and I raised heck to no avail, and I understand there must be *some* standard of dress. Heck there are fat, ugly, sloppy old men in corporate uniforms I wish wouldn't wear that! The line between absolute adherence and "looking good" can't be subjective, so whaddya gonna do?


Jerry

Lt/Col ,  MERNC

[lordmonar]

Based on the the fact the commander is required to enforce uniform regulations he could require a weigh in for his SM's.

However......it is important to treat your SM's with respect.  You know if a SM is out of weight regs and you tell him in private what uniform he should be wearing.  Periodic checks of everyone in the squadron would not be a bad idea. 

Requiring PT for promotion would NOT be a good idea.

We volunteer to help the program in many different ways.  Many SM's do not join to play Air Force and forcing your program into a more active duty style will not help retain the valuable assets we get from our more experienced volunteers.

[Nathan]

Perhaps a compromise. (For the record, I have absolutely NO opinion in this).

What if only the SM's working with cadets were required to meet AF standards? I mean, not necessarily the guy who comes to do AE twice a month, but like the DCC? If nothing more, it will ensure uniformity, considering that the cadet program IS to play AF, and the SM's that don't want to get involved in that aspect don't have to meet those standards.

Basically, everyone knows that the SM's who work with cadets usually end up in a much more militaristic enviornment than do SM's who work with other SM's. So instead of giving the SM's the ability to both be overweight and still represent the more militaristic enviornment with the cadets, have every single SM that works almost exclusively on CP to meet those types of standards that the cadets would? If not PT, at least the height/weight standards.

[Slim]

Perhaps a compromise. (For the record, I have absolutely NO opinion in this).

What if only the SM's working with cadets were required to meet AF standards? I mean, not necessarily the guy who comes to do AE twice a month, but like the DCC? If nothing more, it will ensure uniformity, considering that the cadet program IS to play AF, and the SM's that don't want to get involved in that aspect don't have to meet those standards.

Basically, everyone knows that the SM's who work with cadets usually end up in a much more militaristic enviornment than do SM's who work with other SM's. So instead of giving the SM's the ability to both be overweight and still represent the more militaristic enviornment with the cadets, have every single SM that works almost exclusively on CP to meet those types of standards that the cadets would? If not PT, at least the height/weight standards.

So the second-class member status persists.......

I'm a former cadet, vice commander of a region encampment (working toward commander), deputy commander (acting commander right now) of a cadet squadron, and hold a master rating in cadet programs.  You're telling me that you would rather waste that knowledge and experience just because I can't wear an AF style uniform?


Maybe Kansas wing is full of senior members who have a similar background and meet weight standards, but I know that mine isn't.

[SarDragon]

Perhaps a compromise. (For the record, I have absolutely NO opinion in this).

What if only the SM's working with cadets were required to meet AF standards? I mean, not necessarily the guy who comes to do AE twice a month, but like the DCC? If nothing more, it will ensure uniformity, considering that the cadet program IS to play AF, and the SM's that don't want to get involved in that aspect don't have to meet those standards.

Basically, everyone knows that the SM's who work with cadets usually end up in a much more militaristic environment than do SM's who work with other SM's. So instead of giving the SM's the ability to both be overweight and still represent the more militaristic environment with the cadets, have every single SM that works almost exclusively on CP to meet those types of standards that the cadets would? If not PT, at least the height/weight standards.

That was something of an unwritten rule back in the 70s and the reason I had my first lapse in participation. I was on AD in the Navy, with a beard that met USN grooming standards. Since there were no corporate uniforms back then, I mostly wore a shirt/coat and tie to meetings, since I was directly involved in the cadet side of the house. Most of the SMs in the unit appreciated my participation and contribution, but Deputy Commander for Cadets was continually on my case about the facial hair, so when I finally got tired of his crap, I left.

For all you folks out there who seem to disapprove of us folks who can't wear the AF Blue, we're not all fattys. I have a beard, not a weight problem. I still meet AD AF weight standards.

[Nathan]

So the second-class member status persists.......

I'm a former cadet, vice commander of a region encampment (working toward commander), deputy commander (acting commander right now) of a cadet squadron, and hold a master rating in cadet programs.  You're telling me that you would rather waste that knowledge and experience just because I can't wear an AF style uniform?

Oh, come on. It has nothing to do with second-class membership. It has to do with the military aspect of life. There are certain jobs that one can't hold in the military (or even be in the military) due to problems, no matter HOW smart they are. It's nothing that cadets don't have to deal with. There are activities that some cadets can't participate in simply because they have asthma or something of the like.

It's leadership by example. As leaders, we should never, ever ask our followers to do something we ourselves would not be willing to do. It fits into that philosophy. If SM's aren't going to be willing to meet the same standards that cadets are (such as in terms of facial hair, weight standards, etc), should they be participating as the cadets' leaders?

It's not an assertion, just a question, so don't jump down my throat for it.

[Pylon]

So the second-class member status persists.......

I'm a former cadet, vice commander of a region encampment (working toward commander), deputy commander (acting commander right now) of a cadet squadron, and hold a master rating in cadet programs.  You're telling me that you would rather waste that knowledge and experience just because I can't wear an AF style uniform?

Oh, come on. It has nothing to do with second-class membership. It has to do with the military aspect of life. There are certain jobs that one can't hold in the military (or even be in the military) due to problems, no matter HOW smart they are. It's nothing that cadets don't have to deal with. There are activities that some cadets can't participate in simply because they have asthma or something of the like.

It's leadership by example. As leaders, we should never, ever ask our followers to do something we ourselves would not be willing to do. It fits into that philosophy. If SM's aren't going to be willing to meet the same standards that cadets are (such as in terms of facial hair, weight standards, etc), should they be participating as the cadets' leaders?

It's not an assertion, just a question, so don't jump down my throat for it.

Nathan, the cadet program's goal with physical fitness standards is, by our regulatory definition, to instill a life-long habit of physical fitness.  One can be physically active, even physically fit, and not fit within the guidelines of the USAF height-weight standards.  Not every cadet, not every person is destined to be a member of the US Air Force.   There are many avenues to succeed in life, and many ways in which an individual can be of value, and one aspect of that value (and success) shouldn't be measured by whether or not someone meets Air Force height/weight standards.  Especially if they're not in the Air Force.

I had a full cadet career, participated in many activities, have learned a lot from CAP and in my career, and continue to contribute to CAP's cadet program in an extremely active manner.  I currently meet AF weight standards, but I do find myself occassionally putting on weight (some of it does just come with age).  Does this mean I'm not physically active?  No, I have a gym membership, I have a loose diet (designed by a personal trainer) of foods I strive to eat and those I strive to avoid.  Do I still occassionally notice additional pounds?  Sure!     You're telling me that I would become less of a role model for my cadets, less of a capable leader, less of a capable Deputy Commander for Cadets and Group Cadet Programs Officer, and not suitable to lead cadets if one day my weight exceeded the limitations on a chart developed by the Air Force for my height?

That's a very narrow-sighted view.  Why on earth would you discount the abilities of a person's intelligence, leadership ability, knowledge and experience based on their weight? 

CAP isn't the military, where weight does matter even if you're in a leadership or support role and not a rifleman, because you may become deployed, find yourself in combat, or otherwise be called upon to perform physically-demanding tasks.  That is part of the military life.   If you're involved in the cadet program, that's not really a necessity; it is not apart of the CAP life, unless you choose to engage in physically demanding tasks such as Ground Team, or roles where weight does matter somewhat, on aircrews.  Other than those specific instances, why place expectations on our members that we don't need?  The military places weight restrictions to maintain a fit, agile, and able fighting force.  Civil Air Patrol is not designed as a fighting force and will not be called upon to be one at any time.

If a member can carry out the duties assigned to them (and especially if they do a great job at it), why do people insist on adding this unnecessary idea that a CAP SM should have to fit into the USAF's definition of how fit it needs its fighting airmen to be, in order to be an effective CAP SM leading in the cadet program?