CAP Height/Weight Standards for Uniform wear and BMI

[RiverAux]

Just for fun I ran a few of the height and weight standards that you must meet to wear the AF-style uniform as a CAP member and they all seemed to show that anyone that wouldn't meet the CAP height-weight standard would probably be classified as Obese under the BMI standards from the Centers for Disease Control http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/bmi/adult_BMI/english_bmi_calculator/bmi_calculator.htm.  Of course if you were at the maximum allowable weight for your height and could wear the AF-style uniform, you would still be in the "Overweight" category.   

The interesting thing is that even if you met the the Air Force level standards that they would put you in the "Overweight" category as well.  At least for my height, I would have to be 31 pounds lighter than the AF maximum to be in the "Normal" category. 

I'm not sure whether this means that the AF (as well as the CAP standards) may be too high or what is considered "Normal" on the BMI scale may be just a little bit too strict. 

[mikeylikey]

The whole thing is ridiculous!  I am always "busting" weight because I have more muscle than fat.  I think it is silly to play these weight games.  Off topic.......I stand each month at the PT test, and wait behind true "Fatties" that bust weight and the tape measurement.  It makes me sick.  That I am classified in the same group of these people in the military.  I have never NOT once gone withought busting weight standards. 

NOTE:  I am allowed to use the word Fattie and make these remarks because I was once fat.   

[RiverAux]

I assume you're in the military then?  If not, I've never heard of a CAP unit testing this monthly, if ever.

[star1151]

I think "normal" is a little too strict on the BMI charts.  I'm a size 8, most tell me to gain weight, yet I'm still considered overweight.  The whole muscle vs. fat thing.  I had a few friends in ROTC who didn't meet weight standards, but were still allowed in because of body fat %.

[Nomex Maximus]

*I* am built for comfort, not for speed.

I have been to AF bases lately and the AF officers really do look like stick figures. I suppose they are healthier than me, but they really don't look very good.

I prefer the blue uniformed women anyhow.

--NTM

[PHall]

Well, the Air Force has two ways to measure you. Weight and Percent of Body Fat.

There's the weight table, if you bust that then they get the measuring tape out and measure your neck and your waist. Subtract the neck measurement from the waist measurement and run the number through the Body Fat Table to get your percent body fat.

Usually the jocks/jockettes have no trouble making the body fat table.

And of course, CAP doesn't do the body fat thing. I guess they figure that +10% is enough to cover that.

[mikeylikey]

And of course, CAP doesn't do the body fat thing. I guess they figure that +10% is enough to cover that.

It really is not!  I barely make weight because of muscle.  So my options for CAP are, bust weight, don't wear an AF uniform, (yet join the AF and wear the AF uniform....) or wear my polo and pants.

I have to agree with a poster above about the "stick-figure" of some of our military folks.  Muscle is a good thing too!  I would rather a person be able to lift me up and carry me, than not be able to because he or she can't lift more than 100 pounds. 

Weight training should be a part of the military just as much as running is.

[star1151]

And of course, CAP doesn't do the body fat thing. I guess they figure that +10% is enough to cover that.

Don't know about that.  I was within AF standards when I first joined...I've dropped a dress size since then and weighed in over the (AF) weight standards this week.  If I keep working out, I'll be over the CAP limits!

[mikeylikey]

And of course, CAP doesn't do the body fat thing. I guess they figure that +10% is enough to cover that.

Don't know about that.  I was within AF standards when I first joined...I've dropped a dress size since then and weighed in over the (AF) weight standards this week.  If I keep working out, I'll be over the CAP limits!

Very easy to climb the weight ladder when not actually forcing the wieght inside through the mouth isn't it?  We need a better system!

[Nomex Maximus]

The impression I got from reading 39-1 was that the people who wrote it ( was it written at AF direction or was it written by CAP folk who THOUGHT they were writing what the AF wanted?) wanted us CAP people not to bring discredit upon the AF by being *fat* and  then being associated with them.

Rather rude of them when you stop to think about it. We are civilian volunteers, giving up lots of our own free time to help the AF do its job. We are here to help them. The AF should be happy to have us helping out, and should not be trying to hide their association with us simply because some of us are *fat*. 

Seems to me to be just one more example of how the military is failing to conform itself to modern American social values.

[star1151]

Seems to me to be just one more example of how the military is failing to conform itself to modern American social values.

<rolls eyes>

Right, because being overweight is a "social value".

What people are saying is that the AF accepts body fat %, which not CAP?

[mikeylikey]

I agree with NM...... I am a huge proponent of rewriting 39-1 (with AF guidance) to allow BF% for CAP members.  I say get rid of the 10% allowance, and allow fat percentage measurement.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I agree in large measure with Nomex and Mikey.  I was also always busting the "Screning weight" in the Army, and always made it through the body fat measurement.  I am now more than 10 percent over the AF screening weight, so I had to buy a new set of uniforms.

The weight standard was written by CAP, not the Air Force.  In the past, everyone wore the same uniform, even fatties.  Fuzzies were not a problem until the Vietnam era.  In my opinion, it was not well thought out, and should be revisited.

But... the problem with CAP making body fat a determination is the age of the force.  The military has one category, "Over 50."  They simply don't have to consider physiological changes beyond that.  We do.  We have people serving into their sixties through their eighties.  I don't know how to figure that, and I'm not sure anybody in CAP would know that either. 

And the Air Force medical people have better things to do.

(WARNING!  Radical Thought Alert!)  Why not follow the path originally blazed by He Who Shall Not Be Named and develop a Corporate bluesuit that is close to the AF style (the NEW one they're coming out with) but sufficiently different that we can slide it in under the Air Force's chubbiness-detecting radar, and put everybody into one uniform?

(DISCLAIMER REQUIRED BY MY LEGAL DEPARTMENT)  The foregoing question is rhetorical in nature, intended to spark discussion of possible solutions to a quandary identified by persons other than myself posting on an internet site.  The author makes no claims to inside knowledge, esoteric information, and fully realizes that there are, in fact, some valid reasons why the propsal identified above owuld not work and/or would not be acceptable to the general membership, persons in authority, the King of Norway, or other persons.  Your results may vary.  Not available in all areas.  Proposal subject to change, modification, or withdrawal without notice.  Cash value:  $.000000000000001, redeemable only at our Redemption Center in North Somalia.   

[Nomex Maximus]

Seems to me to be just one more example of how the military is failing to conform itself to modern American social values.

<rolls eyes>

Right, because being overweight is a "social value".

What people are saying is that the AF accepts body fat %, which not CAP?

Sorry, but telling us that we would bring discredit upon the AF because of our overweight appearrance is right up there with high school cheerleaders not wanting to associate with the fat unpopular girls.

If a person is willing to volunteer valuable and useful time and energy to CAP and thereby indirectly to the AF, then I think that person ought to be welcome to wear whatever color of approved uniform he or she wants to wear.

[ColonelJack]

(WARNING!  Radical Thought Alert!)  Why not follow the path originally blazed by He Who Shall Not Be Named and develop a Corporate bluesuit that is close to the AF style (the NEW one they're coming out with) but sufficiently different that we can slide it in under the Air Force's chubbiness-detecting radar, and put everybody into one uniform?

You kind of had me worried a second there, Kach ... until I read the parenthetical notation regarding the NEW AF blues.  I was going to scream, "We already have that!" but now I see what you were driving at. 

Oh, gee ... yet another uniform.     Just kidding.

Jack

[Grumpy]

I agree with NM...... I am a huge proponent of rewriting 39-1 (with AF guidance) to allow BF% for CAP members.  I say get rid of the 10% allowance, and allow fat percentage measurement.

Mikey, You want to rewrite 39-1?  Contact Nat'l.  Sunday morning General Courter was talking about all the regs that need to be rewritten and then she mentioned 39-1.  She smiled and asked if anyone wanted to take that one on.  Granted, she may have been kidding but then if you volunteered they might take you up on it.  You never know.  Then you could have the other side of the house grumbling about how you wrote the reg.

[mikeylikey]

I agree with NM...... I am a huge proponent of rewriting 39-1 (with AF guidance) to allow BF% for CAP members.  I say get rid of the 10% allowance, and allow fat percentage measurement.

Mikey, You want to rewrite 39-1?  Contact Nat'l.  Sunday morning General Courter was talking about all the regs that need to be rewritten and then she mentioned 39-1.  She smiled and asked if anyone wanted to take that one on.  Granted, she may have been kidding but then if you volunteered they might take you up on it.  You never know.  Then you could have the other side of the house grumbling about how you wrote the reg.

Wow......I along with 2 AF Officers (also CAP Officers), 3 cadets and one very astute photographer published a 4 page proposal to rewrite 39-1 over ONE YEAR AGO.  RESPONSE FROM NATIONAL: (exact wording) "Thank you for your groups interest in helping to update our regulations.  At this time we are seeking an outside agency to publish new versions of all of our material"........at this time, we believe that 39-1 is in no need of updating...uniform changes will be made through policy letter updates".  BALH BLAH BLAH.

So basically, we wanted to make the 39-1 follow the AF manual, in structure and function.  We would have had very nice photos, no Photoshopped crap pictures, clear and concise intructions and it would have been very decent.  Actually, those two AF Officers that I was working with, one wrote AF regulations, pamphlets in his past function, the other already had some nice work done.

I gave up.......NHQ wants volunteers, but when we volunteer, we are told to "GO AWAY".

So when do you think 39-1 will be updated?  When do you think those Policy letters will be added (BTW, each Interim Change Letter regarding Uniforms is VOID now, remember that whole 90 day add to the manual or it becomes no good clause??)

DONE

[Walkman]

Wow......I along with 2 AF Officers (also CAP Officers), 3 cadets and one very astute photographer published a 4 page proposal to rewrite 39-1 over ONE YEAR AGO.  RESPONSE FROM NATIONAL: (exact wording) "Thank you for your groups interest in helping to update our regulations.  At this time we are seeking an outside agency to publish new versions of all of our material"........at this time, we believe that 39-1 is in no need of updating...uniform changes will be made through policy letter updates".  BALH BLAH BLAH.

Maybe now that there's been a change of command at NHQ, your proposal would be better received. I know that I ran into a ton of frustration as a new SM trying to figure out the uniform reqs.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I agree with NM...... I am a huge proponent of rewriting 39-1 (with AF guidance) to allow BF% for CAP members.  I say get rid of the 10% allowance, and allow fat percentage measurement.

Mikey, You want to rewrite 39-1?  Contact Nat'l.  Sunday morning General Courter was talking about all the regs that need to be rewritten and then she mentioned 39-1.  She smiled and asked if anyone wanted to take that one on.  Granted, she may have been kidding but then if you volunteered they might take you up on it.  You never know.  Then you could have the other side of the house grumbling about how you wrote the reg.

Wow......I along with 2 AF Officers (also CAP Officers), 3 cadets and one very astute photographer published a 4 page proposal to rewrite 39-1 over ONE YEAR AGO.  RESPONSE FROM NATIONAL: (exact wording) "Thank you for your groups interest in helping to update our regulations.  At this time we are seeking an outside agency to publish new versions of all of our material"........at this time, we believe that 39-1 is in no need of updating...uniform changes will be made through policy letter updates".  BALH BLAH BLAH.

So basically, we wanted to make the 39-1 follow the AF manual, in structure and function.  We would have had very nice photos, no Photoshopped crap pictures, clear and concise intructions and it would have been very decent.  Actually, those two AF Officers that I was working with, one wrote AF regulations, pamphlets in his past function, the other already had some nice work done.

I gave up.......NHQ wants volunteers, but when we volunteer, we are told to "GO AWAY".

So when do you think 39-1 will be updated?  When do you think those Policy letters will be added (BTW, each Interim Change Letter regarding Uniforms is VOID now, remember that whole 90 day add to the manual or it becomes no good clause??)

DONE

Mikey:

I hate to belabor the obvious, but there have been some significant changes at NHQ since your proposal.  I would seriously urge you to write the National Commander a personal letter explaining that you and your team are willing to take on that task, and that some of the work has already been done.

I would, if I were writing the letter, explain the background of all the persons on your team, and request that you be permitted to submit a completely-rewitten 39-1 up for consideration.

What's the worst she can do?  Say "No?"

And please, Mikey, if you decide to recommend keeping the TPU, at least take that silly-looking silver braid and stick it in the porta-john of CAP history!

[JohnKachenmeister]

(WARNING!  Radical Thought Alert!)  Why not follow the path originally blazed by He Who Shall Not Be Named and develop a Corporate bluesuit that is close to the AF style (the NEW one they're coming out with) but sufficiently different that we can slide it in under the Air Force's chubbiness-detecting radar, and put everybody into one uniform?

You kind of had me worried a second there, Kach ... until I read the parenthetical notation regarding the NEW AF blues.  I was going to scream, "We already have that!" but now I see what you were driving at. 

Oh, gee ... yet another uniform.     Just kidding.

Jack

Jack:

The "New uniform" is gonna happen.  The AF is coming out shortly with the "Hap Arnold Heritage Uniform."  The question is, are we still gonna look like the Navy after the Air Force goes back to its uniform roots?

I came up with a plan for one on another thread, but Tedda refused to photoshop it for a looksee because he hates me and he is a part of the plot to get me.

[mikeylikey]

I agree with NM...... I am a huge proponent of rewriting 39-1 (with AF guidance) to allow BF% for CAP members.  I say get rid of the 10% allowance, and allow fat percentage measurement.

Mikey, You want to rewrite 39-1?  Contact Nat'l.  Sunday morning General Courter was talking about all the regs that need to be rewritten and then she mentioned 39-1.  She smiled and asked if anyone wanted to take that one on.  Granted, she may have been kidding but then if you volunteered they might take you up on it.  You never know.  Then you could have the other side of the house grumbling about how you wrote the reg.

Wow......I along with 2 AF Officers (also CAP Officers), 3 cadets and one very astute photographer published a 4 page proposal to rewrite 39-1 over ONE YEAR AGO.  RESPONSE FROM NATIONAL: (exact wording) "Thank you for your groups interest in helping to update our regulations.  At this time we are seeking an outside agency to publish new versions of all of our material"........at this time, we believe that 39-1 is in no need of updating...uniform changes will be made through policy letter updates".  BALH BLAH BLAH.

So basically, we wanted to make the 39-1 follow the AF manual, in structure and function.  We would have had very nice photos, no Photoshopped crap pictures, clear and concise intructions and it would have been very decent.  Actually, those two AF Officers that I was working with, one wrote AF regulations, pamphlets in his past function, the other already had some nice work done.

I gave up.......NHQ wants volunteers, but when we volunteer, we are told to "GO AWAY".

So when do you think 39-1 will be updated?  When do you think those Policy letters will be added (BTW, each Interim Change Letter regarding Uniforms is VOID now, remember that whole 90 day add to the manual or it becomes no good clause??)

DONE

Mikey:

I hate to belabor the obvious, but there have been some significant changes at NHQ since your proposal.  I would seriously urge you to write the National Commander a personal letter explaining that you and your team are willing to take on that task, and that some of the work has already been done.

I would, if I were writing the letter, explain the background of all the persons on your team, and request that you be permitted to submit a completely-rewitten 39-1 up for consideration.

What's the worst she can do?  Say "No?"

And please, Mikey, if you decide to recommend keeping the TPU, at least take that silly-looking silver braid and stick it in the porta-john of CAP history!

Good advice.  Colonel White already beat me to it.  He can have at it.  I wish him luck!

[RogueLeader]

Wow......I along with 2 AF Officers (also CAP Officers), 3 cadets and one very astute photographer published a 4 page proposal to rewrite 39-1 over ONE YEAR AGO.  RESPONSE FROM NATIONAL: (exact wording) "Thank you for your groups interest in helping to update our regulations.  At this time we are seeking an outside agency to publish new versions of all of our material"........at this time, we believe that 39-1 is in no need of updating...uniform changes will be made through policy letter updates".  BALH BLAH BLAH.

Maybe now that there's been a change of command at NHQ, your proposal would be better received. I know that I ran into a ton of frustration as a new SM trying to figure out the uniform reqs.

LtCol White already has it.

[RiverAux]

Does anyone have a specific citation for the AFI that discusses fat as a percent of body weight as an alternate to the height-weight chart for AF members?

[star1151]

Does anyone have a specific citation for the AFI that discusses fat as a percent of body weight as an alternate to the height-weight chart for AF members?

I just spent 10 minutes looking and can't find it.  I did, however, find this.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/airforcejoin/a/afmaxweight.htm

"Body fat standards are no more than 20 percent for males under age 30, 24 percent for males age 30 or over, 28 percent for females under age 30, and 32 percent for females age 30 or over."

What's interesting is that there are no longer male and female weight charts.  At the rate I'm going, I'd highly support CAP making that change.

[RiverAux]

To expand on star's comments.... Here is what you have to do to ENTER the AF:

Height Maximum Weight Minimum Weight
58 131 91
59 136 94
60 141 97
61 145 100
62 150 104
63 155 107
64 160 110
65 165 114
66 170 117
67 175 121
68 180 125
69 186 128
70 191 132
71 197 136
72 202 140
73 208 144
74 214 148
75 220 152
76 225 156
77 231 160
78 237 164
79 244 168
80 250 173

If you exceed the height-weight requirement, the body-fat measurements come into play: Body fat standards are no more than 20 percent for males under age 30, 24 percent for males age 30 or over, 28 percent for females under age 30, and 32 percent for females age 30 or over.

Evidently there isn't a specific height-weight requirement after you join.  Instead "Body Composition" is taken into account as part of the regular physical fitness program.  Body composition is basically your abdominal circumference.  The bigger it is, the fewer points you get (more points is better) for that part of the physical assessment. 

The other things taken into account as part of the physical are time on a 1.5  mile run (or a cycle test), push-ups, and crunches. 

So, basically, unless CAP starts doing a physical test for seniors, it isn't really going to be possible for us to follow the AF program very closely at all anymore. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Physical fitness and weight control, while related, are two different issues.

In the Army (The AF is similar) the troops are weighed every 6 months.  Those over a "Screening weight" are checked for body fat composition.  If you are under your allowable BF, you are good for another 6 months.  If you are over, you are put on a weight control program.  If you can't lose the weight, you are processed for medical discharge.

The Army allows a slightly higher BF percentage than the AF, but the AF has a slightly different measurement regimen.  The Army measures abdominal girth at the umbilicus (belly-button).  The AF measures at the iliac crest (hip-bone).

CAP attempts to side-step the BF analysis by allowing ten percent over the AF initial entry screening weight.  I don't think that's enough.  In the Army, my screening weight was 192.  Ten percent over that is 211.  I weighed between 220 and 231, and was always within BF standards. 

[RiverAux]

CAP attempts to side-step the BF analysis by allowing ten percent over the AF initial entry screening weight.

Actually we don't.  The chart used in 39-1 is not the same as that being used by the AF for screening purposes today. 

For example, if you're a 72" male your max AF screening weight is 202 pounds.  The height-weight chart in 39-1 would have you be 205 pounds. 

CAP's standards are 10% above the old AF weight standards and about 11% over the current AF entry weight. 

The Army allows a slightly higher BF percentage than the AF, but the AF has a slightly different measurement regimen.  The Army measures abdominal girth at the umbilicus (belly-button).  The AF measures at the iliac crest (hip-bone).

The AF only uses body fat if you don't meet the height-weight requirements when you join.  After you join, body fat percentage is no longer used at all.  The body composition measurement is just a tape measuring the size of your gut. 

[mikeylikey]

So....I would like to see the chart changed.  Perhaps we could say, 10% over AF allowable weight for the 18-25 year group, 14% more for the 26-35 year group, 18% for the 36 and older year group. 

No doubt the chart needs revision, but after reading, I think a lot of people would be upset if we made Body FAT % taping mandatory. 

So, as we get older, we gain more weight (or have a problem getting rid of it).  Lets take that into account, and change the chart accordingly.  How hard would it be to say "gee I am 45 years old, so to wear the AF style uniform I have to look at my age group column, and find my maximum allowable weight". 

[star1151]

CAP's standards are 10% above the old AF weight standards and about 11% over the current AF entry weight. 

And I think that's the real problem people are having.  The new standards are much more lenient, at least the way I see it.

ETA: It would be REALLY good for me to use the new standards, since I could weigh as much as a male!

[Sarge]

I personally love the witty banter between Kach and Col Jack...great levity and views on the situation. Both of you make great points! I want to have a few with you guys at a conference sometime! It would be a blast!

C/WO ret
SMSgt, USAF
Lt Col, CAP
An anonymous Squadron Commander

[brasda91]

You no longer have to meet the weight standards for the AF style uniform, only the grooming standards.

[mikeylikey]

You no longer have to meet the weight standards for the AF style uniform, only the grooming standards.

Ummm WHAT?!?

[RiverAux]

I think somebody confused the TPU with an AF-style uniform.

[DNall]

Think that was pretty well covered. Just wanted to say I'd highly support a 2 year private doc administered tape test & sign off on BF composition over ht/wt chart. I'd also highly support required 2yr physical with phyisican statement about appears healthy enough to preform XYZ duties, and a higher level statement for aircrew qualification/maint (not a formal FAA flight phys for observer/scanner, just a checklist physical & reg doc sig on a statement of condition. Dif subject though. Support a FEMA standard PT qual for GT as well, but again another subject.

[star1151]

. I'd also highly support required 2yr physical with phyisican statement about appears healthy enough to preform XYZ duties, and a higher level statement for aircrew qualification/maint (not a formal FAA flight phys for observer/scanner, just a checklist physical & reg doc sig on a statement of condition.

Yeah, because it's not enough of a pain to see the AME every year.  I haven't had a physical outside of that in years, no way I'd start just for CAP.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I personally love the witty banter between Kach and Col Jack...great levity and views on the situation. Both of you make great points! I want to have a few with you guys at a conference sometime! It would be a blast!

C/WO ret
SMSgt, USAF
Lt Col, CAP
An anonymous Squadron Commander

Thanks.

CAP has a normally thankless job, devoid of material rewards, and subject to the same frustrations as active military service.  But, they haven't made a rule against having fun yet.  The Army has, but not CAP.  At least not yet.

[PHall]

You no longer have to meet the weight standards for the AF style uniform, only the grooming standards.

Reg cite please.

[brasda91]

I think somebody confused the TPU with an AF-style uniform.

Yep, after double checking the interim change letter, I noticed it was the corporate uniform.  Sorry about that.

[RiverAux]

CAP attempts to side-step the BF analysis by allowing ten percent over the AF initial entry screening weight.

Actually we don't.  The chart used in 39-1 is not the same as that being used by the AF for screening purposes today. 

For example, if you're a 72" male your max AF screening weight is 202 pounds.  The height-weight chart in 39-1 would have you be 205 pounds. 

CAP's standards are 10% above the old AF weight standards and about 11% over the current AF entry weight. 

This is an old thread, but applicable to what I wanted to bring up. 

In regards to the difference between what 39-1 says are the AF weight standards and what they actually are today, it appears that we are required by the Statement of Work between CAP and the AF to bring our regs up to date, which would result in reductions in the max allowable weights for the AF-style uniform.

4.2. Uniforms. [material removed]
CAP shall ensure that CAP members, while wearing Air Force-style uniforms, adhere to Air Force grooming and appearance standards (plus 10% for weight versus height tables) in accordance with CAP policies.

It looks to me that they expect us to base it off what they use, and they're no longer using the old chart. 

So, should we get this modified as part of the supposed re-write of 39-1?  Or, do you think both NHQ and CAP-USAF are sort of ignoring this issue because of the predictable howls of protest if the weight limits were dropped?

[Eclipse]

So, should we get this modified as part of the supposed re-write of 39-1?  Or, do you think both NHQ and CAP-USAF are sort of ignoring this issue because of the predictable howls of protest if the weight limits were dropped?

You're seriously suggesting making CAP uniform standards tighter than the military which now uses PT testing instead of height / weight?

Um...no.

[RiverAux]

No, I'm suggesting that we do what we've agreed to. 

I am very open to using alternative methods, but unless the SoW is changed, we don't have that option. 

[Nick]

You're seriously suggesting making CAP uniform standards tighter than the military which now uses PT testing instead of height / weight?

Um...no.

No, what he's saying is that there is no longer an AF height/weight standard as it applies to uniform wear.  So, for us to stay in line with AF grooming and uniform standards (AFI 36-2903), there would no longer be a weight standard.

[Eclipse]

You're seriously suggesting making CAP uniform standards tighter than the military which now uses PT testing instead of height / weight?

Um...no.

No, what he's saying is that there is no longer an AF height/weight standard as it applies to uniform wear.  So, for us to stay in line with AF grooming and uniform standards (AFI 36-2903), there would no longer be a weight standard.

See one click before yours, that's not what he is saying.

[RiverAux]

There is a height-weight standard as it applies to new recruits into the AF.  I'm personally not sure it is actually fair to make CAP (and our, ahem, "seasoned" members) follow it.  So, I guess what I'm saying is that either 39-1 needs to be changed to reflect the current AF chart (which is all there is that I'm aware of), or the SoW needs to be re-written to allow some other method of judging this issue. 

Either way, we can't stick with what we have. 

[Eclipse]

Either way, we can't stick with what we have.

...because...

[RiverAux]

Because we've agreed to abide by the AF + 10%, which we are not doing and the one thing we know is that the 39-1 chart does not represent the current AF height/weight standard. 

Therefore, we can't stay the same.  Either 39-1 adopts the new AF chart or the SoW changes to require us to use something else.

[Eclipse]

Therefore, we can't stay the same. 

I'll bet we can...

[capchiro]

When I joined the Army at 21, I was 6 pounds underweight. (Fortunately we had the unpleasantness going on in Viet Nam, so it wasn't a deal breaker (Lucky me)).  Now at 62 I am several/many pounds over the weight limit.  I am trying to pattern my life after Curtis LeMay.  I haven't picked up the cigar yet, but we both enjoy a good meal.  Too bad they didn't throw him out for the fat boy program.  Think how much we would have saved on that whole SAC silliness.  By the way, medical norms/standards change on a regular basis.  Thank God I didn't give up butter and eggs 25 years ago at AMA recommendations.  Who knew butter was better than margarine?  All of us farm boys from Wisconsin, that's who.  I don't smoke or drink and I have given over 33 years to CAP alone.  I am not going to apologize for my weight.  I wear the appropriate uniform proudly.  (Although I secretly miss the Smurf suit (it was comfortable for flying in Florida in the summer)).

[Nick]

Therefore, we can't stay the same. 

I'll bet we can...

Dude, I can see where you got 6000 posts here ... with these quick one-liner zingers of yours, you'd make a killing writing billboard ads.

Okay fine, so that's not what he's saying.  It's what I'm saying.  There is no longer an Air Force height/weight standard as it applies to uniform wear.  AFI 36-2903 allows commanders to refer members for remedial physical fitness if they look like a bag of sloppy (insert analogous whatever), and that's all you will see about weight and physical fitness (except the PT uniform) in the uniform manual.  So, with that taken into consideration, if CAPM 39-1 Chapter 2 = AFI 36-2903 + AF-approved deviations, then we either 1) need AF approval to continue using the chart we have, 2) secure AF approval for a new chart, or 3) eliminate the chart.

[Eclipse]

Therefore, we can't stay the same. 

I'll bet we can...

Dude, I can see where you got 6000 posts here ... with these quick one-liner zingers of yours, you'd make a killing writing billboard ads.

Okay fine, so that's not what he's saying.  It's what I'm saying.  There is no longer an Air Force height/weight standard as it applies to uniform wear.  AFI 36-2903 allows commanders to refer members for remedial physical fitness if they look like a bag of sloppy (insert analogous whatever), and that's all you will see about weight and physical fitness (except the PT uniform) in the uniform manual.  So, with that taken into consideration, if CAPM 39-1 Chapter 2 = AFI 36-2903 + AF-approved deviations, then we either 1) need AF approval to continue using the chart we have, 2) secure AF approval for a new chart, or 3) eliminate the chart.

What I'm saying is no one cares.

but thanks for keeping this on a contextual level and not making this personal...

[Hawk200]

...1) need AF approval to continue using the chart we have, 2) secure AF approval for a new chart, or 3) eliminate the chart.

I would agree. I get a kick out of "We follow all rules until they change!", followed by "We'll do what we want!".

We need to consult with the AF on this, soon. I'd say follow what we have until such time as the Air Force makes a decision.

[Eclipse]

and for the record its 6,170, including this one...

[Eclipse]

We need to consult with the AF on this, soon.

...because...




(6,171)

[Hawk200]

We need to consult with the AF on this, soon.

...because...

Don't worry about. You don't care about the answer.

[bosshawk]

Now, troops, lets all take in a big breath: hold it and wait for 39-1 to be changed.

[Cecil DP]

Now, troops, lets all take in a big breath: hold it and wait for 39-1 to be changed.

It's stated in an earlierr post that National states that ICL's will be the rule for the future.

[Eclipse]

Now, troops, lets all take in a big breath: hold it and wait for 39-1 to be changed.

It's stated in an earlierr post that National states that ICL's will be the rule for the future.

Now that I'd like to see from an official source.  I agree that's the precedent they have set, and this nonsense about expiring ICL's, etc., is a waste of typing, but I don't hink I've ever seen anyone from NHQ offcially say they are going to manage with ICL's.

[Gunner C]

When I joined the Army at 21, I was 6 pounds underweight. (Fortunately we had the unpleasantness going on in Viet Nam, so it wasn't a deal breaker (Lucky me)).  Now at 62 I am several/many pounds over the weight limit.  I am trying to pattern my life after Curtis LeMay.  I haven't picked up the cigar yet, but we both enjoy a good meal.  Too bad they didn't throw him out for the fat boy program. 

Curt "Bombs Away" LeMay has been rehabilitated by the AF.  He's no longer a fat boy.

Before:


After:


We don't want any fat boys sullying the "slim, trim" image of our parent service.  Perhaps they can do that for CAP - just have doctored photos of all CAP members.  All you have to do is wait for each of us to die. 

[BuckeyeDEJ]

This, from earlier in the thread, got my attention...

The impression I got from reading 39-1 was that the people who wrote it ( was it written at AF direction or was it written by CAP folk who THOUGHT they were writing what the AF wanted?) wanted us CAP people not to bring discredit upon the AF by being *fat* and  then being associated with them.

And that's a problem because of what? It's the Air Force's uniform. We have the privilege to wear it, not the right. If you can't wear the uniform, CAP has other options... albeit mandated in the form of now-expired ICLs. (For NHQ to say uniform policy would be in the form of ICLs is to totally go against its own policy. Do as they say, not as they do, I guess... then they wonder why there's so much rancor. Core values, folks, core values.)

Rather rude of them when you stop to think about it. We are civilian volunteers, giving up lots of our own free time to help the AF do its job. We are here to help them. The AF should be happy to have us helping out, and should not be trying to hide their association with us simply because some of us are *fat*. 

Nope, not rude. If you're overweight and can't wear the uniform, there are other non-military combinations (grays, TPU, blue BDU).

Frankly, if the Air Force is paying for the 100LL, do they want increased fuel burn (and therefore, more money spent) because there's 1200 pounds in the two front seats alone? Hardly. And imagine that takeoff roll, to boot. Man, it's tight in a 172 cockpit anyway, let alone with someone in either seat who's 22 inches wide.

OK, OK, sorry. That was getting a little out of hand. Fact is, the Air Force recognizes there are people with all sorts of body types, infirmities, handicaps, whatever, who join CAP. And though the Air Force authorizes wear of its uniforms, Ma Blue restricts that privilege only to people who are in the shape to wear it. Some folks can't help but gain weight. It could be a genetic or hormonal thing, or whatever. And again, CAP members in that boat have other uniforms they can wear to perform CAP duties — it's just not Ma Blue's, and that's just fine. It's their volunteer services that counts, and should count to those members, not the chance to look like a self-styled military aviator.

Seems to me to be just one more example of how the military is failing to conform itself to modern American social values.

Actually, if society were a little more informed by military ethics and values, we would not have the crisis in integrity that American society faces today. We also wouldn't have so many angioplastys, heart attacks, broken homes, lack of self-respect and personal pride, or Jerry Springer, but I digress.

[PHall]

When I joined the Army at 21, I was 6 pounds underweight. (Fortunately we had the unpleasantness going on in Viet Nam, so it wasn't a deal breaker (Lucky me)).  Now at 62 I am several/many pounds over the weight limit.  I am trying to pattern my life after Curtis LeMay.  I haven't picked up the cigar yet, but we both enjoy a good meal.  Too bad they didn't throw him out for the fat boy program. 

Curt "Bombs Away" LeMay has been rehabilitated by the AF.  He's no longer a fat boy.

Before:


After:


We don't want any fat boys sullying the "slim, trim" image of our parent service.  Perhaps they can do that for CAP - just have doctored photos of all CAP members.  All you have to do is wait for each of us to die. 

Take a look at some of the other Chief of Staff portraits, more then a few had "adjustments", it wasn't just for Lemay.

[Gunner C]

But Curt was the most obvious.  The military will change history to make it conform to the current norms.

[Prospector]

I find it ironic that there is a generic arbitrary "+10%" to the whole weight allowance. If you do the math, the "+10%" is not a constant across all height / weight table entries, it is a variable that results in an unfair advantage to those people who have a starting max weight that is higher.

What I mean is that if you just "add 10%" to the maximum weight, you get a result that is something like this sample:

If your AF max weight is:                  then your CAP max weight is:                    difference is:
100                                               110                                                      10
200                                               220                                                      20
300                                               330                                                      30

So, in reality a person who is very petite will not have as much leeway in terms of weight gain as a person who has a very large frame before they are over the limit. The irony here is that weight alone is a constant due to gravity being a constant and each pound of weight equals a certain amount of constant excessive calorie intake to achieve per person regardless of frame.

Let's just say that it takes 100 calories to create 1 pound of weight. In this case, the person who is allowed 10 pounds can overeat 1000 calories before going over, and the person who is allowed 30 pounds can overeat 3000 calories before going over.

So, the poor sod who weighs in the 100 pound category but who likes to eat just as much as the 300 pound sod is actually penalized for his low starting weight.

My opinion: The policy parameters should directly promote the achievement of the policy's ultimate goal.

In this case, the policy should be written so as to promote a "pleasing and proper military image", not just inhibit a generic "fat person" from wearing a specific type of uniform.

Since each person is an individual, with an individual size and shape, and fitness level, it should be left up to either the Squadron Commander, or a review panel of squadron officers to determine whether or not the person is "fit" to wear the uniform.

Of course, since we are dealing with the military here, remember they make policy based upon mass consumption and ease of understanding and enforcement. Given this mindset, a blanket 10% overage seems logical and impartial.

Just my 2 cents.

[Nick]

Easier solution is to use BMI.  Just make an across the board rule that if you have more than 30% (or whatever), you're out of the AF uniform.

[Spike]

^ So weigh-ins before each meeting?  Then do I break the donuts out for those that did not "bust" BMI??

[RiverAux]

Easier solution is to use BMI.  Just make an across the board rule that if you have more than 30% (or whatever), you're out of the AF uniform.

As I noted in the original post in this thread, there is an uncanny correlation between the max allowable CAP weights and the cut-off between Overweight and Obese using the BMI system.  Obviously that is accidental since those charts came out well before BMI caught on.

Of course, BMI is nothing but a height-weight chart in disguise. 

[Nick]

Of course, BMI is nothing but a height-weight chart in disguise.

You're exactly right.  But if saying "AF weight + 10%" is going to be argued as an inconsistent scale, then use a BMI percentage which fluidly accounts for the shift in height AND uses "standard weight status categories that are the same for all ages and for both men and women." (BMI for Adults:  http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi)  I think 30% (the benchmark for obesity) is a pretty darn fair measure, so...

For example:
A male member is 5'00".  The AF MAW is 153.  The CAP MAW is 168.  30% BMI is 153 (15 pounds below MAW).
A male member is 5'05".  The AF MAW is 169.  The CAP MAW is 186.  30% BMI is 180 (6 pounds below MAW).
A male member is 5'10".  The AF MAW is 194.  The CAP MAW is 213.  30% BMI is 209 (4 pounds below MAW).

But, on the flip side:
A female member is 5'00".  The AF MAW is 136.  The CAP MAW is 150.  30% BMI is 153 (3 pounds above MAW).
A female member is 5'05".  The AF MAW is 150.  The CAP MAW is 165.  30% BMI is 180 (15 pound above MAW).
A female member is 5'10".  The AF MAW is 173.  The CAP MAW is 190.  30% BMI is 209 (19 pounds above MAW).

Yes, it tightens up the parameters for adult males a bit, but assuming the average height of an adult male is 5' 9", we're talking a pretty negligible difference... and like I said, it satisfies the argument about the weight + 10%.

^ So weigh-ins before each meeting?  Then do I break the donuts out for those that did not "bust" BMI??

I would say no.  But, it is a commander's responsibility to ensure members adhere to uniform and grooming standards (as applicable for the uniform worn), so I would say commanders reserve the right for spot checks on the members that appear to be out of standards.

[Eclipse]

A bit?

You're suggesting that senior members with no PT program, magically exceed military weight standards?

Also, who's BMI do we accept, because there's a lot of opinion out there on this and many fluctuate by 5+ points.

[Grumpy]

Yee Gads, there's just nothing that's simple around here, is there?

[Rotorhead]

Yee Gads, there's just nothing that's simple around here, is there?

It should be this simple: if you look overweight, don't wear the USAF-style uniform.

Sadly, there are plenty of senior members who obviously exceed the standards (no need to actually put them on a scale--appearance tells the tale) who don't comply with the regs.

[Nick]

Which goes back to the CAPM 39-1 commander's responsibility to enforce dress and appearance standards.

[Eclipse]

Which goes back to the CAPM 39-1 commander's responsibility to enforce dress and appearance standards.

"Look presentable and professional at all times."

Perhaps this should be the simple standard, and it appears to work for most other services with similar missions and relationships.

[RiverAux]

Which goes back to the CAPM 39-1 commander's responsibility to enforce dress and appearance standards.

"Look presentable and professional at all times."

Perhaps this should be the simple standard, and it appears to work for most other services with similar missions and relationships.

Sorry, but this is basically how the CG Aux does it and believe it or not they're worse than CAP.  Since they don't have a firm standard like we do, its all in the eye of the beholder and there isn't really anyone with any authority to enforce such things. 

We need a firm standard of some kind that can be enforced by our commanders.  Whether it is a height-weight chart of BMI or something else doesn't matter as long as there isn't any wiggle room in it. 

[PHall]

Which goes back to the CAPM 39-1 commander's responsibility to enforce dress and appearance standards.

"Look presentable and professional at all times."

Perhaps this should be the simple standard, and it appears to work for most other services with similar missions and relationships.

Sorry, but this is basically how the CG Aux does it and believe it or not they're worse than CAP.  Since they don't have a firm standard like we do, its all in the eye of the beholder and there isn't really anyone with any authority to enforce such things. 

We need a firm standard of some kind that can be enforced by our commanders.  Whether it is a height-weight chart of BMI or something else doesn't matter as long as there isn't any wiggle room in it.

How about we get some Commanders that actually will enforce the standards.
The problem we have right now isn't a lack of standards, it's a lack of enforcement of the standards.

[billford1]

A lot of commanders see the over the weight limit people but they also see their attendance and the work that gets done. I wouldn't drive those folks away with ultimatums.

[Nick]

A lot of commanders see the over the weight limit people but they also see their attendance and the work that gets done. I wouldn't drive those folks away with ultimatums.

You don't have to drive it away.  You just have to remind them that there are other uniform options available if they aren't concerned about weight standards.

[Prospector]

Precisely why we should only have one set of dress uniforms. I'm not advocating for any particular style, just that we settle on one only and drive on.

Too many choices isn't necessarily a good thing.

[notaNCO forever]

Precisely why we should only have one set of dress uniforms. I'm not advocating for any particular style, just that we settle on one only and drive on.

Too many choices isn't necessarily a good thing.

I don't see anything wrong with two dress uniforms service uniform if you meet weight grooming standards and corporate uniform for those that don't meet the standards or don't want to wear the service dress. Their is no need to have 10 different uniform combos though.   

[Nick]

I don't see anything wrong with two dress uniforms service uniform if you meet weight grooming standards and corporate uniform for those that don't meet the standards or don't want to wear the service dress. Their is no need to have 10 different uniform combos though.

I remember the good 'ol days...
Service Dress or Blazer Combination
Short-sleeve/Long-sleeve Duty Uniform or Aviator Shirt
BDUs or Polo Shirt
AF Flight Suit or Blue Flight Suit

Yep.  Them were the days.

[SarDragon]

Let's take the "Way Back Machine" to 1968. We had 10 combinations available, including the utilities, blazer, and flight suit.

Fast forward to 1987, and we had 12 combinations.

Without doing a detailed count past the previous post, and filling in the gaps, I'd say we have around 12 or so combinations toady. They're just apportioned differently. No real big differences in numbers. In all of these, I have no allowances for tie or no tie. Taking that into account would increase the numbers universally.

YMMV.

[Gunner C]

Let's take the "Way Back Machine" to 1968. We had 10 combinations available, including the utilities, blazer, and flight suit.

Fast forward to 1987, and we had 12 combinations.

Without doing a detailed count past the previous post, and filling in the gaps, I'd say we have around 12 or so combinations toady. They're just apportioned differently. No real big differences in numbers. In all of these, I have no allowances for tie or no tie. Taking that into account would increase the numbers universally.

YMMV.

But, in 1968, many of these combinations were seasonal.  1505s were only worn ~April-September.  There were two seasonal types of mess dress (although they may have not come into being until 1969) - white jacket worn ~April-September and black jacket (all other times).  There were two flight suits, orange and green, and a couple of different styles/fabrics of blues.  Yes, there were fatigues (not in wide use), and a couple of other combinations that that slip my mind right now.  To tell you the truth, I don't remember anyone wearing the blazer, outside of IACE, where I think it was limited to.   

[billford1]

There was always an exclusion for people with facial hair wasn't there?

[Gunner C]

There was always an exclusion for people with facial hair wasn't there?

Back in those days, I never saw a CAP member with facial hair.  I think the same thing happened to the Army Guard back in the 70s when they threw grooming standards out the window.  If you were on state duty, you could have a pony tail - you just had to have a short hair wig.  A guardsman didn't have to get a haircut until they went to active duty over a certain length (I think it was over 30 days). 

It appears CAP did the same.  They found a way to keep the numbers up by saying we don't care what you look like - we're throwing our image out the window because we can't recruit enough folks.  The guard dropped that mess back in the late 80s IIRC.  CAP never did. 

I think it's about time we followed suit.  If a person is more in love with their beard than CAP, no problem.  Give them a handshake, thank them for their service, and bid a fond farewell. CAP could use a smaller, more dedicated force.

[cap235629]

GREAT ATTITUDE GUNNER!

Goatee=Not dedicated

I wish I lived in your black and white world

[Gunner C]

GREAT ATTITUDE GUNNER!

Goatee=Not dedicated

I wish I lived in your black and white world

Didn't say that.  Get some glasses.  Not dedicated enough to present a professional appearance.  I'm disabled, but I work hard to keep my weight down as much as possible, usually one hour/day.  How we are perceived by the military and the public is directly proportional to how well we're utilized. 

When a military or government guy is expecting to see a Lt or a Capt and a guy with a beard shows up, it throws their expectations all out of whack.  For these folks, appearance is important.

I was in the dark side of the military for a while.  When we showed up with long hair and fuzz on our faces, it took a great deal to get folks' attitude turned around.  Heck, we had to do extra urine tests just to prove that we weren't a bunch of drug-crazed dopers.

If you don't think that golf shirts, bad haircuts, and facial hair hurt us just as much as being 400 lbs in the eyes of our parent service, you're fooling yourself.

[Nick]

I was in the dark side of the military for a while.  When we showed up with long hair and fuzz on our faces, it took a great deal to get folks' attitude turned around.  Heck, we had to do extra urine tests just to prove that we weren't a bunch of drug-crazed dopers.

If you don't think that golf shirts, bad haircuts, and facial hair hurt us just as much as being 400 lbs in the eyes of our parent service, you're fooling yourself.

Um. That's a big roger. I can't think of any way to put it more clearly than that.

[Spike]

However military rules on grooming are there for a purpose.  Does CAP wear MOPP gear?  Do we serve in close quarters where lice could be a problem? 

There is a certain point where we should present a well groomed appearance, but well groomed to military folks is different than well groomed to guys that have worn a beard for 40 years.

I seriously doubt long hair or five-0-clock shadows will hurt our abilities to carry out our tasks.

Don't forget we will lose more folks over stricter grooming standards than we could recruit.

Anyway isn't this supposed to be about BMI or something??

[heliodoc]

ALL that facial hair in CAP, is that really a problem

How about some of those SOF operators, those SWAT guys, cops, fire etc

They all wear a uniform of one type or another......yeah yeah yeah I know ..."we are an aux of the AF"

Are those operators listed above any LESS professional or competent with "facial hair?"

Some CAPers NEEEED to get a life  WOW

Facial hair not allowing tasks to get done competently??  REAAAAALLY???

[Eclipse]

Goatee=Not dedicated

I wish I lived in your black and white world

Goatee does not equal "Not Dedicated".

Goatee = "Hippie".

I wish I lived in your black and white world

Hippies aren't invited, you've got your drum circles, be happy with that...

[Spike]

^ Funniest thing all day!  Thanks.....now I will go shave my Goatee   

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

From the Royal New Zealand Air Force Air Cadets, where the adult instructors are actually real officers and wear the exact same uniform as the actual RNZAF, except for distinguishing shoulder flash:

http://cadetforces.mil.nz/image-gallery/juniorleadersohakeaapril20/cdt-connor-top-cadet-syn-3.html

I really doubt this dedicated officer would meet H/W standards to wear the USAF type uniform in CAP, but obviously the Queen has no objections to his wearing Her uniform.

[Short Field]

Facial hair - really how much more unprofessional can you get?

http://www.blackfive.net/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/09/43827.jpg

[PhotogPilot]

Goatee=Not dedicated

I wish I lived in your black and white world

Goatee does not equal "Not Dedicated".

Goatee = "Hippie".

I wish I lived in your black and white world

Hippies aren't invited, you've got your drum circles, be happy with that...

If you don't do something about your Giggling Stoners and the Drum Circle, soon you'll get something much worse:




The College-Know-It-All-Hippie

[Gunner C]

Facial hair - really how much more unprofessional can you get?

http://www.blackfive.net/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/09/43827.jpg

Actually, the military has a HUGE problem with that.  In the 1980s (I was an operator back then) the army had returned to it's "high and tight" haircuts.  I was in the 7th SF Group back then which had the Latin American mission.  The chain of command wanted us to go down there with high and tights.  We fought tooth and nail to get this changed.  Not because it looked stupid, but because in Latin American countries, the only military folks who had that type of haircut were basic trainees and prisoners.  We got it changed because it was cultural - it gave the wrong message.  The SF folks in Afghanistan (SEALs, too) are wearing beards.  People who don't have beards in those cultures are viewed as effeminate.  They need to have beards when working with those cultures.  It helps to cut through the differences in their worlds. When they go back to the states they're clean-shaven. 

If we're going to operate in the USAF culture, we need to conform to what makes them comfortable.  When we show up with beards, sloppy uniforms, too tubby for our flight suits, etc, we offend that AF culture.  It won't matter how well we do our jobs - the comment will be "did you see the size of that guy with the beard?"

[billford1]

I work hard to make my Corporate gray and BBDU uniforms look spec'd out. There's a new club emerging in CAP. They are fairly new members and the majority are prior Military and wear a goatee. There's a difference between having a neatly trimmed beard and having a slovenly appearance. I heard sentiment expressed that people with facial hair should be bade farewell. Are you considering that with obese people as well or is it just people with facial hair? If I were looking at people to cull out I would consider those who refuse to wear whatever uniform it is correctly. If the bearded and/or heavyset member wears their uniform neatly and respectfully I think it is short sighted to want the bearded folks go especially if their beards are groomed. I sense that the AF aren't as concerned with such things. The times I've seen angst among observing Military folks is when the uniform they see is worn in such a way that it is considered disrespectful.

[RiverAux]

Threat about height/weight standards, not facial hair.  Just saying...