CAP Height/Weight Standards for Uniform wear and BMI

[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.