National Board Uniform Changes 2013

[Mitchell 1969]

I still stand by my original statement.

If it is illegal to own ABUs.....the it is illegal to sell them as well.

When I bought my first set of ABU's  I ordered them from some third party vendor (not proper) and I can go out right now this instant and buy a full set of ABUs from all three of my local surplus stores.

Pulling the "It's illegal" is a little lame.  As is attacking this cadet because he owns a set.   So maybe he is a little weird wanting to have a set of ABUs sitting in his closet.   It's not anything anyone here needs to get concerned about.

And defending your attacks by saying it's our job to provide "leadership and guidance" is also a cop out.   

You stared attacking him and he started defending himself......then you pulled the "you're just a kid" card on him and he got upset about it.....with some justification.

Yeah. What he said.

[abdsp51]

I don't understand the "cadet intrigue" thing. This issue applies to everyone on a national level.

Also, I do not care that anybody knows I have ABUs. The purpose behind my posting it was to show the comparison between a patched up uniform versus the basic version that is more akin to present USAF tradition and regulations, which perhaps we should stick by as they are our parent organization. That has been brought up earlier in this thread to reason through why we're going to ABUs anyway, and it applies further to this as well.

I do not recall nor can I find any post of mine where I claimed to know "everything" about OSI or CID. I merely claimed to have some knowledge which I do have reason to have because of my interests in buying and selling military equipment. One of the foundations of conflict management is to not exaggerate the opposite side's claims, which has been done by yourself, Eclipse, not more than 6 posts ago.

Also, if it's illegal for civilians to own ABUs, then someone should inform the MCSSs, considering I bought a brand new ABU cover using my CAPID just yesterday.

OK will do, I'm sure you will sleep knowing someone will receive some action because you threw them under the bus.

[Eclipse]

Also, if it's illegal for civilians to own ABUs, then someone should inform the MCSSs, considering I bought a brand new ABU cover using my CAPID just yesterday.

Then you just broke several CAP regulations as well as an AFI.

[SierraOneThree]

Then you just broke several CAP regulations as well as an AFI.

Legitimate question, which regulations? Because I'm not finding anything prohibiting it in 39-2.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Lord,

The cadet opened himself for the so-called "attack."

He posted a photo with the ABU with insignias, and opened himself asking "comment."

I think you are in the law enforcement. Think about this scenario:

You knock on someone's door. You tell that person "may I come in?" That person says "come in officer." You notice something suspicious after you come in. He says "get out, I do not want you here." What do you say in court? "He allowed us to enter."

The photo and his asking for comments/discussion was akin to that person letting you in the house. What you accuse Eclipse of "attack" is akin of arresting that person that let you in...



Flyer

[Eclipse]

Then you just broke several CAP regulations as well as an AFI.

Legitimate question, which regulations? Because I'm not finding anything prohibiting it in 39-2.

AFI 10-2701
CAPR 147-1

Short answer - military base access is only for official CAP business, and access to AAFES and MCSS is
only for uniform items allowed for wear by members.

[abdsp51]

You broke CAPR147-1 which states:

1. Privileges. The following privileges are accorded under the conditions specified and upon the presentation of the credentials stated:
a. Civil Air Patrol cadets and senior members are authorized to purchase at any time articles of uniform which are authorized for wear by Civil Air Patrol directives. When purchasing articles of uniform, members will be identified by the official Civil Air Patrol membership card which must be current.

ABUs are not authorized for us, and CAPR39-2 covers membership not AAFES privileges.

[NCRblues]

I smell the lock hammer coming...

[AlphaSigOU]

I smell the lock hammer coming...

Tick tock... can't stop the clock! 

[SierraOneThree]

AFI 10-2701

Short answer - military base access is only for official CAP business, and access to AAFES and MCSS is
only for uniform items allowed for wear by members.

So no CAP regulations? I checked 10-2701 and did keyword searches for "base", "installation", "store", "shop", "uniform", and "access", and found no evidence to support your statement. Is it under some other wording?

Also, just pointing out you skipped over my other responses to address my statement regarding getting the hat.

Edit: Adpsp51, alright then. Fair enough. A technicality would be that it does not disallow for the purchase of other items, but that's nitpicking at this point.

[Mitchell 1969]

Then you just broke several CAP regulations as well as an AFI.

Legitimate question, which regulations? Because I'm not finding anything prohibiting it in 39-2.

Here's some "guidance" for you that isn't picking on you.

1) You can't get out of a hole by digging the hole deeper.

2) When engaged in an online forum tug of war with another forum member with a post count of 5 digits and a comma, then you're better off respecting the comma. Because that comma represents skills, power and wit that you cannot yet overcome. (Trust me. I earned my comma here before it was a forum website).

[Eclipse]

Edit: Adpsp51, alright then. Fair enough. A technicality would be that it does not disallow for the purchase of other items, but that's nitpicking at this point.

That is not a technicality, that is a critical part of our continued access to AAFES and MCSS, not to mention military bases in general.
Members acting like tourists and buying things they are not supposed to is one of the reasons we have issues on a lot of bases.

Also, AFI 10-2701 governs the relationship between CAP and the USAF and defines our organization.  It essentially sets the stage
for all other regs and responsibilities.  Whether or not 147-1 existed, 10-2701 fully governs the behavior of members.

[stillamarine]

Lord,

The cadet opened himself for the so-called "attack."

He posted a photo with the ABU with insignias, and opened himself asking "comment."

I think you are in the law enforcement. Think about this scenario:

You knock on someone's door. You tell that person "may I come in?" That person says "come in officer." You notice something suspicious after you come in. He says "get out, I do not want you here." What do you say in court? "He allowed us to enter."

The photo and his asking for comments/discussion was akin to that person letting you in the house. What you accuse Eclipse of "attack" is akin of arresting that person that let you in...



Flyer

I'll answer that as an LEO. Unless what I saw was enough for probable cause and suspicious is not necessarily probable cause, then I get out. A resident always has the right to end consent.

[abdsp51]

Lord,

The cadet opened himself for the so-called "attack."

He posted a photo with the ABU with insignias, and opened himself asking "comment."

I think you are in the law enforcement. Think about this scenario:

You knock on someone's door. You tell that person "may I come in?" That person says "come in officer." You notice something suspicious after you come in. He says "get out, I do not want you here." What do you say in court? "He allowed us to enter."

The photo and his asking for comments/discussion was akin to that person letting you in the house. What you accuse Eclipse of "attack" is akin of arresting that person that let you in...



Flyer

I'll answer that as an LEO. Unless what I saw was enough for probable cause and suspicious is not necessarily probable cause, then I get out. A resident always has the right to end consent.

Yep.

[NIN]

2) When engaged in an online forum tug of war with another forum member with a post count of 5 digits and a comma, then you're better off respecting the comma. Because that comma represents skills, power and wit that you cannot yet overcome. (Trust me. I earned my comma here before it was a forum website).

Whats that phrase? You can't win a war of words with someone who buys ink by the barrel?

But yeah, Bernie, you earned your comma WAY before.  WAY.

[SierraOneThree]

It does not govern any of the issues of card privileges, or as far as I can see membership issues outside of missions. The question was for regulations specifically concerning card privileges, which that has no realm on.

Mitchell 1969, that may be, however this is a simple debate/argument/contest which is easily continued by citing sources and making disagreements. One can let the experience show in the word of post, not just by assumption that the experience is there so there is no point to continue.

[lordmonar]

Edit: Adpsp51, alright then. Fair enough. A technicality would be that it does not disallow for the purchase of other items, but that's nitpicking at this point.

That is not a technicality, that is a critical part of our continued access to AAFES and MCSS, not to mention military bases in general.
Members acting like tourists and buying things they are not supposed to is one of the reasons we have issues on a lot of bases.

Also, AFI 10-2701 governs the relationship between CAP and the USAF and defines our organization.  It essentially sets the stage
for all other regs and responsibilities.  Whether or not 147-1 existed, 10-2701 fully governs the behavior of members.

Strangely.....10-2701 is silent on the subject of members using AAFES on a normal basis....i.e. purchasing uniforms from MCSS.  It talks about people on AFAMS and on orders (aka RSC and encampment and suchs) but specifically says this does not apply to units meeting on base in a normal sense. 

So....I have yet to see in either a CAP or AF reg/AFI/PD that specifically says that they cannot buy anything except USAF-CAP uniform items.
So......yes it is nit picking....and a technicality......but so is your argument that Mr S13 pickup up an ABU is some how going to end CAP and USAF's relationship.

Again....this is all an out and out attack on a cadet who had the Gall to show what CAP insignia looked like on ABUs.

No one.....not one of you.......has commented on the subject at hand or his input to discussion on what ABUs look like with CAP patches.

No....we want to attack him...."Why do you have ABUs?"  "You can't do that" "It's illegal" "its going to ruin our relationship with the USAF".

Suggestion......break off......get back tot he original (one of the original) topics of this thread and move on.

To S13.  You are abusing your CAP privileges to use the MSCC to buy items not related to your CAP activities.  Please refrain from doing this in the future.

[Eclipse]

So....I have yet to see in either a CAP or AF reg/AFI/PD that specifically says that they cannot buy anything except USAF-CAP uniform items.
So......yes it is nit picking....and a technicality......but so is your argument that Mr S13 pickup up an ABU is some how going to end CAP and USAF's relationship.

CAPR 147-1 says that unless you are on an AFAM or official CAP activity, you are only allowed to buy uniform items, and those uniform
items must be for CAP use.

And again, this is not "attacking a cadet".  Cadet Desoto clearly has a misunderstanding and a naive understanding of the regulations.
It is clear and obvious that a number of regs, policies, and realities about things he wants to discuss were news as of this discussion,
after he made incorrect assertions as fact.

In the last round, it was again very important to punctuate his knowledge and ability to "do whatever I want" by making sure we
knew he's bought unauthorized uniform items yesterday.  Nothing any of us knew or cared about until cadet Desoto brought it up.

Also, for the record, he's already made the assertion that he is an adult, and established himself as a Phase IV cadet, so which vector are
we on here?

[Larry Mangum]

As to getting back on topic. His depliction of ABU's with all of the patches, I have been informed is how the AF wants them to be worn by CAP, they do not want the minimalist approach, which I favor. My source is a wing king who was at the actual presentation. 

I also think that the inital discussion had degraded into a personal attack upon the cadet.  He has a right to defend himself when attacked and provoked. He may have crossed an invisible line when doing so, but I suspect a few of the attacks / counter points did so as well.

[lordmonar]

Lord,

The cadet opened himself for the so-called "attack."

He posted a photo with the ABU with insignias, and opened himself asking "comment."

I think you are in the law enforcement. Think about this scenario:

You knock on someone's door. You tell that person "may I come in?" That person says "come in officer." You notice something suspicious after you come in. He says "get out, I do not want you here." What do you say in court? "He allowed us to enter."

The photo and his asking for comments/discussion was akin to that person letting you in the house. What you accuse Eclipse of "attack" is akin of arresting that person that let you in...



Flyer

Flyer......He posted a picture..."look what I did".  So what did he do? There is nothing suspicious.......because no one has yet cited a title or law that says he can't have the ABUs.  I hear a lot of "but DoD policy" this and "AF Regs" that.........and yet as a LEO if someone were openly selling illegal items......you would be going after the seller would you not?

No......the Cadet offered something the discussion at had about ABUs and how CAP's patches would look.  And he was attacked for even owning them.  Eclipse openly showed his contempt towards cadets by using the double standard that me and my collection of uniforms is okay....but S13's are not because he is a cadet......

And then they justify their attack as saying it was a leadership teachable moment and that is why cadets join CAP!

Not buying it.