Dear NHQ.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Why!


P.S. I am not judging our members...just the (lack of) standard.

[AlphaSigOU]

The premise of the corporate uniform, per CAPM 39-1;

1.1.1.2.2. CAP's Corporate-style uniforms facilitate a professional image for members who choose not to or cannot wear the USAF-style uniform. These uniforms are meant to complement, but not replace, the USAF-style uniform. They facilitate member uniformity while neither imposing nor authorizing a military uniform substitute for the USAF-style uniform. Corporate-style uniforms are simpler in design and cost is minimized by making most badges and devices optional for wear.

Wishful thinking on my part (and others that share the same feeling) - we really a specification set in stone for the shirt design and a uniform color shade for the gray trousers. I wouldn't have a major problem if Vanguard supplied it, but at least allow other major uniform vendors to stock the items that meet specifications. TLAR (that looks about right) won't fly in my book.

[Eclipse]

As I've said before - CAP is one of the few organizations where members can shop their closets
for uniforms and 5 people of the same age / duty / grade / authority can be sitting in a
room, in different uniforms and shades, and all of them be correct.

And then CAP wonders why it has identity and cohesion issues.

Find me a successful team, anywhere, where being an individual and "doing your own thing"
trumps the group's identity. (The Avengers don't count.)

No, dressing the same doesn't make people a team, per se, but it's one part of a greater
plan, and dressing differently doesn't help, in fact it pushes the needle in the opposite direction.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Full disclaimer, my pants didn't match any of these gentlemen either.

VG could supply a $20 pair of ANYTHING and make it an IMPROVEMENT of epic proportions.

[Eclipse]

I shudder to think what a $20 pair of pants from VG would look like.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I shudder to think what a $20 pair of pants from VG would look like.

As long as it's at least 5% spandex, it's all good.

[Eclipse]

Seam-tested to 5000psi...

[Майор Хаткевич]

Not a bad idea for CAP blues pants in size 44 and up.

[Private Investigator]

Why!


P.S. I am not judging our members...just the (lack of) standard.

Four guys in gray slacks. That is what I see and I would recommend 'decaf' in the future.   

[Eclipse]

Four guys in gray slacks. That is what I see and I would recommend 'decaf' in the future. 

And that's exactly what is in this photo.  "Four guys in slacks."

[James Shaw]

Four guys in gray slacks. That is what I see and I would recommend 'decaf' in the future.   

For me it would not be "decaf" it would be DeSalad!!

[jimmydeanno]

The Air Force has a standard for ABUs and Multicams, etc.  Yet, when you go to the clothing store you have to take special care to make sure that you get a "matching" set as they all have varying shades and color saturation.  They even have a standard for things like nametags, yet even ordered from the same source, you can end up with varying fonts.

[Bobble]

What about the shoes!?!  Great jumpin' Jehoshaphat, I see (from left to right) a pair of some type of matt black hiking/walking shoe hybrid, unknown, a pair of Corframs and a pair of leather Oxfords.  Sophisticated photographic analysis performed by the National Security Administration has been unable to exactly determine the origin of the 'unknown' shoes worn by the SM pictured second from left, but the resulting 118 page report's (including Appendices A thru E) conclusion summary indicates that the welt stitching may well be of Ashkanistanian origin.  Very suspicious.  I digress.

Just what kind of esprit de corps does CAP expect to see if everyone is allowed to wear whatever type of dark-toned footwear they dang well feel like!?!  Good golly!!!  No organization can possibly be expected to function effectively under these abominable conditions!  Our organization definitely needs to set strict standards in this regard, so that SM's wearing the Corporate uniform are limited to one specific style of footwear, with one specific outer finish, one specific inner sole color, one specific size, one specific heel height, one specific sole thickness, one specific sole tread pattern and one specific shoelace material and length.  I firmly believe that then (and only then) will CAP members be able to achieve optimal performance levels and attain their individual apogees of both personal and professional development.

We might even want to specify the font style, size and spacing on the footwear's inside tags, although that may be considered by some to be a bit excessive.

Hat tip to the OP, for going the extra mile and as such being extraordinarily successful in bringing not just slack pigmentation differentiation but also footwear diversity to the forefront of the attention of CAPTalk readers.

[SarDragon]

Our organization definitely needs to set strict standards in this regard, so that SM's wearing the Corporate uniform are limited to one specific style of footwear, with one specific outer finish, one specific inner sole color, one specific size, one specific heel height, one specific sole thickness, one specific sole tread pattern and one specific shoelace material and length.

That's all fine and dandy, but the folks who are most likely to be wearing the corporate uniform are also the ones more likely to be needing special footwear, for whatever reason(s). I myself wear two different kinds of shoes with my G/W uniform, depending on what I'll be doing during my event participation.

If I'm going to be mostly sitting (weekly meeting, class, etc.), I'll wear my regulation leather oxfords. OTOH, if I'm going to be doing a lot of walking around (instructing, etc.), I'll have my Reeboks on, so I don't totally kill my feet (plantar fasciitis). The corporate uniform gives me the latitude to be able to do this.

[Shuman 14]

The corporate uniform gives me the latitude to be able to do this.

And there is the problem... latitude.

When there is latitude, there's NOT really a uniform.

You have a legitimate medical condition, you should have have a waiver on file that allows a deviation to the uniform, not latitude.

Latitude allows a rag-a-muffin to wear black tennis shoes with a dress/service uniform instead of going out and buying a proper pair of military low quarters.

[Private Investigator]

The corporate uniform gives me the latitude to be able to do this.

And there is the problem... latitude.

When there is latitude, there's NOT really a uniform.

You have a legitimate medical condition, you should have have a waiver on file that allows a deviation to the uniform, not latitude.

Latitude allows a rag-a-muffin to wear black tennis shoes with a dress/service uniform instead of going out and buying a proper pair of military low quarters.

How about diabetic shoes? http://www.wcbl.com/orthotics-2/diabetec-shoes/

The younger crowd wants one thing and the older crowd wants something else. Lets not even get started on people's mid-life crisis.   

[Shuman 14]

The corporate uniform gives me the latitude to be able to do this.

And there is the problem... latitude.

When there is latitude, there's NOT really a uniform.

You have a legitimate medical condition, you should have have a waiver on file that allows a deviation to the uniform, not latitude.

Latitude allows a rag-a-muffin to wear black tennis shoes with a dress/service uniform instead of going out and buying a proper pair of military low quarters.

How about diabetic shoes? http://www.wcbl.com/orthotics-2/diabetec-shoes/

The younger crowd wants one thing and the older crowd wants something else. Lets not even get started on people's mid-life crisis.   

Again, if you have a legimate medical condition, then get a documented waiver to the uniform standard, a general "latitude" is the problem.

BTW, does 44 make me the "younger crowd"? 

[wuzafuzz]

We have no business reviewing members' medical conditions for possible waivers, in order to determine which shoes we will permit them to wear.  That's on par with homeowner association busy bodies crawling up everyone's rear ends with a microscope, obsessing about things that don't matter.

The regulation says:
"6.4.4.2. Shoes. Black shoes will be plain of a commercial design and without ornamentation such as buckles or straps."

When debating "law" vs "folk law," "law" wins every time.  All the shoes in that photo are compliant.  Case closed.

[Eclipse]

Yeah, everybody's got an "exception" and an "excuse" and a "reason" - NO ONE CARES.

You don't establish a uniform on the .0000000000001% of members who >MIGHT< have a problem.
You set it on mission and purpose and deal with the exceptions as exceptions.

This isn't about "law", this is about appearance and bearing, and CAP's lack of a uniform for the majority of
its adult members.

In the case above the do look like gaggle of people at a homeowner's association meeting.

[PHall]

Yeah, everybody's got an "exception" and an "excuse" and a "reason" - NO ONE CARES.

You don't establish a uniform on the .0000000000001% of members who >MIGHT< have a problem.
You set it on mission and purpose and deal with the exceptions as exceptions.

This isn't about "law", this is about appearance and bearing, and CAP's lack of a uniform for the majority of
its adult members.

In the case above the do look like gaggle of people at a homeowner's association meeting.

And, as far as I can tell, they're all in complience with CAPM 39-1. So what's the point?