Why are there such egregious uniform violations...if indeed there are?

[BuckeyeDEJ]

The "anti-military corporatists" have no sense of this organization's history, or they are all too willing to revise it. CAP's first uniforms were military. That we have uniforms at all is a legacy from the Army. We are part of the Air Force family, albeit the red-headed stepchild, and we should start acting like it.

[bflynn]

The "anti-military corporatists" have no sense of this organization's history, or they are all too willing to revise it.

Making assumptions about people is usually dangerous.  For example, you would consider me largely anti-military when it comes to CAP.  But my reasons have nothing to do with the organization's history, nor a willingness to revise it.  It has everything to do with friends and family who are never coming home again.  There is no romance in the military, no glory in it.  In the end, when used, the military is an ugly thing for an ugly, however necessary, purpose.  Until you've faced the very real possibility or experience of war (the purpose of the military), you cannot understand - and I think every veteran who has had this experience will back me up on that.

That said, I know that CAP wears uniforms and I'm willing to go with that because it's what is required to do work for my community.  But we must never forget that while the military and war is a necessary evil at time, it is none the less always an evil.

We are part of the Air Force family, albeit the red-headed stepchild, and we should start acting like it.

The air force or the stepchild?

[NCRblues]

There is no romance in the military, no glory in it.  In the end, when used, the military is an ugly thing for an ugly, however necessary, purpose.  Until you've faced the very real possibility or experience of war (the purpose of the military), you cannot understand - and I think every veteran who has had this experience will back me up on that.

I am a veteran with time in the great sandbox, and while I agree that no real glory comes from the carrying out of warfare, that has zero to do with CAP wearing the uniform of our parent service. There is no shame that comes with wearing the USAF style uniform. I for one am proud to be a veteran that did not retire and still gets to put on my chosen uniform and help out my nation.

I am an 'anti- corporatist' when it comes to CAP. I have seen people come to CAP looking for some sort of 'military glory' and they are quickly shown the door in my area. Enforce the rules; make it even handed across the board with no favors to anyone. Problem solved on our uniforms, make people responsible. A unit is "sloppy" in appearance; the wing king gives the squadron king a warning to fix it. They don't fix it, fire the squadron commander. It might be a volunteer organization, but you agree to play by the rules, and uniforms have rules that are just as enforceable as safety and CPPT.

[Major Carrales]

That said, I know that CAP wears uniforms and I'm willing to go with that because it's what is required to do work for my community.  But we must never forget that while the military and war is a necessary evil at time, it is none the less always evil.

"War" is an inherent element of society.  Society, is a reflection of the individual and, thus, the inherent nature of the individual to have conflict is amplified in a society.  Simply put, if two people can fight and go to blows over something or if one MAN is willing to kill another, even for food or livlihood in self-presernvation...then 20 people can fight 20 people and 200 million can fight 200,000 million.

In nature, creatures fight for survival. It is not "evil," no more than any other natural disaster is evil.  A hurricane destroys communities and kills even children as it moves up a coastline, but it is not evil.  War is not evil...in the same fashion.  War is conflict on the scale of society and nations.

Humanity is very arrogant to think that it could outlaw or put an end to WAR.  We are no more civilized or evolved than those that fought The CIVIL WAR, WWI or WWII.  Yet there are people going on televison and radio saying that we are so much more "enlightened" than any that have come before.  Careful, sometimes the brilliance of "enlightenment" blinds us to the true nature of MAN.   Ask those who were the League of Nations in the 1920s and 1930s.  Ask the Poles what happens when "enlightened people" don't meet aggression with strength.  The echos of Munich..."peace in our time" ring over the scattered ashes of those that truly succumbed to the true evils.    Ask Austian, Polish, Czech, and other Eastern European Jews, gypsies and political dessidents about what happens when a world does not stand up to agression.  Because people tried to avoid WAR...many died before things were mitigated.

It is the nature of MANKIND to fight...to want to survive.  And there are only two real types of such people, those that want to TAKE what others have or those that have to protect themselves.

My proof...?  Any reply in conflict of this post.  If two people on CAPTALK can violently (as much as this written exchange can provide) clash, then it can happen between any group.

Sorry, I enjoy philosphical debates.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Making assumptions about people is usually dangerous.  For example, you would consider me largely anti-military when it comes to CAP.  But my reasons have nothing to do with the organization's history, nor a willingness to revise it.  It has everything to do with friends and family who are never coming home again.  There is no romance in the military, no glory in it.  In the end, when used, the military is an ugly thing for an ugly, however necessary, purpose.  Until you've faced the very real possibility or experience of war (the purpose of the military), you cannot understand - and I think every veteran who has had this experience will back me up on that.

That said, I know that CAP wears uniforms and I'm willing to go with that because it's what is required to do work for my community.  But we must never forget that while the military and war is a necessary evil at time, it is none the less always an evil.

We are part of the Air Force family, albeit the red-headed stepchild, and we should start acting like it.

The air force or the stepchild?

Acting professional, to match Ma Blue, so no, not the stepchild! It can't be lip service. It has to be grounded in the Air Force's Core Values. Every member should read the Little Blue Book. When CAP adopted the Core Values, then added the fourth one (Respect) that's already included elsewhere, I think (and this may sound critical, sorry) that no one really understood the values as more than buzzwords. There was a lot of thought put into the values. Had they bothered to read them, I'm sure Respect would not have been tacked on. Of course, had we really taken them seriously, they'd be ingrained in every new senior member and retroactively into the rest of us.

There's a discussion over on LinkedIn (roll eyes here) about whether senior members should get moral leadership/character development classes. I don't think so; in fact, I think it's a little silly, because by the time we're adults, we should have ethics fairly well nailed down. But I think the Core Values and related doctrine need to be imparted and constantly reminded. They define what we should be, how we should live and what we should aspire to.

The link to the Little Blue Book: www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/.../AFD-070906-003.pdf

My advice to everyone who reads this: Download it. Read it. Use it. Impart it. Understand it. Get used to it. Live by it.

Now, back to your initial point. I think you want to say there's no romance in war, not in the military itself. The military itself is not evil, though it certainly can be used for it when the wrong leadership emerges. I dare say the military has been the most moral, upstanding part of our society in the last few decades, and that only through social engineering and drastic budget cuts by politicians will it/has it be weakened. War is a necessary evil sometimes in our society, but the military is not in itself evil. It's a noble, honorable profession, the profession of arms, one that lives on honor, on duty, on mutual respect, on focus and on mission.

As for CAP, while we're volunteers, we volunteered to take orders. We volunteered to live by the rules. Bluntly, we are to live by the Core Values and act professional. The uniform is part of that; if we wear it wrong, we're insulting ourselves, our organization, the Air Force, even the very nation the uniform represents. I sincerely hope none of us feel differently.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

We are part of the Air Force family, albeit the red-headed stepchild, and we should start acting like it.

When did we go from this...



to this?



I started hearing the "red-haired stepchild" Bravo Sierra not long after I joined CAP.  I hate, loathe and despise the term (I used to be a stepchild, though I never had red hair) because it brings to mind (rightly or wrongly) that, in the eyes of most of the Air Force outside of the top brass, we are indeed just a bunch of uniformed Alfred E Neumans.

When did it get that way?

Personally, I loathe both extremes in CAP - on the one side, the "corporatist" mentality that says "disconnect from the Air Force" and fosters the kind of "I-should-be-apologetic-for-wearing-a-uniform-I-shouldn't-be-wearing-because-I'm-not-in-the-Air-Force," and on the other side says "I'm only in it to wear the uniform and cadge as many ribbons as I can."

Who gave us this "nickname," and how do we start refuting it?

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Easy, CyBorg. WARNING: This is going to be blunt. When we start taking standards to heart, enforce policy consistently and train our people to a higher standard, and when we stop giving out grade to people who aren't fit to wear it, maybe we can shed that.

I was in the blue-epaulet CAP. We've changed a lot, but the more I see the internal politics, the more I understand why the Air Force would distance itself. It's one big reason why the Board of Governors exists -- to rein in the capriciousness of former national commanders and staff who arbitrarily promote themselves or design new (and unnecessary) uniforms, or enact policy in ways they shouldn't. If they took the Core Values seriously enough to adopt them in CAP, the least they should've done is read them and internalize them, to understand what they are first.

You want discipline in the ranks? Leaders must first understand they're not above the policy they set.

You want adherence to policy? First, keep the policy updated, then lead by example. (There's no reason Susie Parker at HQ CAP should be the human 39-1 and updates. She has better things to do, I bet.)

You want to be professional? Enforce the rules and ensure everyone is up to snuff. No pencil-whipping. No fat people in the Air Force uniform, nor people who can't seem to figure out what a gigline is to save their lives. Yes, we want you to come serve in something greater than self, but the rules are the rules and you need to live by them.

Do we need to start from the beginning with the core values and doctrine, so we can have accurate and relevant policy that cascades? Of course. But that's going to take a push from the top, not the bottom. And when all this starts jelling, maybe we won't be the red-headed stepchildren anymore.

[av8tr1]

That said, I know that CAP wears uniforms and I'm willing to go with that because it's what is required to do work for my community.  But we must never forget that while the military and war is a necessary evil at time, it is none the less always evil.

"War" is an inherent element of society.  Society, is a reflection of the individual and, thus, the inherent nature of the individual to have conflict is amplified in a society.  Simply put, if two people can fight and go to blows over something or if one MAN is willing to kill another, even for food or livlihood in self-presernvation...then 20 people can fight 20 people and 200 million can fight 200,000 million.

In nature, creatures fight for survival. It is not "evil," no more than any other natural disaster is evil.  A hurricane destroys communities and kills even children as it moves up a coastline, but it is not evil.  War is not evil...in the same fashion.  War is conflict on the scale of society and nations.

Humanity is very arrogant to think that it could outlaw or put an end to WAR.  We are no more civilized or evolved than those that fought The CIVIL WAR, WWI or WWII.  Yet there are people going on televison and radio saying that we are so much more "enlightened" than any that have come before.  Careful, sometimes the brilliance of "enlightenment" blinds us to the true nature of MAN.   Ask those who were the League of Nations in the 1920s and 1930s.  Ask the Poles what happens when "enlightened people" don't meet aggression with strength.  The echos of Munich..."peace in our time" ring over the scattered ashes of those that truly succumbed to the true evils.    Ask Austian, Polish, Czech, and other Eastern European Jews, gypsies and political dessidents about what happens when a world does not stand up to agression.  Because people tried to avoid WAR...many died before things were mitigated.

It is the nature of MANKIND to fight...to want to survive.  And there are only two real types of such people, those that want to TAKE what others have or those that have to protect themselves.

My proof...?  Any reply in conflict of this post.  If two people on CAPTALK can violently (as much as this written exchange can provide) clash, then it can happen between any group.

Sorry, I enjoy philosphical debates.

Major, You took the words right out of my mouth.  Very well stated.

[AirDX]

in the eyes of most of the Air Force outside of the top brass, we are indeed just a bunch of uniformed Alfred E Neumans.

This is a drum you beat about as hard as RM beats the CIVIL thing.

And I don't get it, becasue I don't see it.

I work on an Air Force base (well, joint base now) and I deal with AD personnel day in and out.  Most of them, when CAP comes up and I tell what I do, are saying "Cool!"  The squadron I spend most of my time with meets on base, and we have a good measure of AD personnel on the rolls, ranging in grade from SrA to O-6.  I just don't get all this attitude.  Not a one has called me Alfred E. Neumann.  We get good support from the Guard here, and we have a homeland security mission that gives us visibility up to the 3-4 star level.  In fact, we not long ago pulled off a homeland security mission for the 13th AF/CC that the Guard couldn't due to other committments.  I didn't get called Alfred E. Neumann once at the planning meeting for that.

So, unless you can pony up some specifics, I'm chalking your opinion that "the Air Force is indifferent/hates us" to rumor and innuendo.  Sort of like a giant reaction to one idiot posting a comment to an AF Times article - you know the one I mean.

I'm one datapoint on one base, but my experience is first-hand, so I invite stories of first-hand experience at disrespect by AD AF members.  Remember, first-hand, not "I know a guy who knows a guy" kind of stuff.     

[abdsp51]

in the eyes of most of the Air Force outside of the top brass, we are indeed just a bunch of uniformed Alfred E Neumans.

This is a drum you beat about as hard as RM beats the CIVIL thing.

And I don't get it, becasue I don't see it.

I work on an Air Force base (well, joint base now) and I deal with AD personnel day in and out.  Most of them, when CAP comes up and I tell what I do, are saying "Cool!"  The squadron I spend most of my time with meets on base, and we have a good measure of AD personnel on the rolls, ranging in grade from SrA to O-6.  I just don't get all this attitude.  Not a one has called me Alfred E. Neumann.  We get good support from the Guard here, and we have a homeland security mission that gives us visibility up to the 3-4 star level.  In fact, we not long ago pulled off a homeland security mission for the 13th AF/CC that the Guard couldn't due to other committments.  I didn't get called Alfred E. Neumann once at the planning meeting for that.

So, unless you can pony up some specifics, I'm chalking your opinion that "the Air Force is indifferent/hates us" to rumor and innuendo.  Sort of like a giant reaction to one idiot posting a comment to an AF Times article - you know the one I mean.

I'm one datapoint on one base, but my experience is first-hand, so I invite stories of first-hand experience at disrespect by AD AF members.  Remember, first-hand, not "I know a guy who knows a guy" kind of stuff.     

So far here at Travis it has been good since I got back into the program.  Just the last couple of weeks we had the MSG in to present both and Earhart and Mitchell Awards to two of our cadets.  And you can be assured he had an idea of what we do and who we are and left with an even bigger picture of the organization after I spoke with him for about 20 minutes that night.  The Wg CC even had put his foot down and said give them NIPR access using token cards, but either the wg or region CAP-USAF liaison shot it down. 

Now on the other hand when I was a cadet there was a Col in Europe who will remain nameless who was closing youth programs down unless it was tied to MSS, chaplain, or DODEA.  And then said Col couldn't understand why so many of the base youth were getting into trouble.  Our squadron went through three meeting places in a year before we found a spot that was big enough and then some for us.  I think those units that have a poor relationship with AF either don't know why, don't care why or just don't bother talking to the powers to be.  My immediate supervisor knows of my CAP involvement, our ops superintendent know of it and they have had nothing but good things to say about it.  I think overall the relationship between units at the local level comes down to education, and just good ol fashion conversation.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Easy, CyBorg. WARNING: This is going to be blunt. When we start taking standards to heart, enforce policy consistently and train our people to a higher standard, and when we stop giving out grade to people who aren't fit to wear it, maybe we can shed that.

I can handle bluntness, as long as there is reason behind it, and you have.

I was in the blue-epaulet CAP. We've changed a lot, but the more I see the internal politics, the more I understand why the Air Force would distance itself. It's one big reason why the Board of Governors exists -- to rein in the capriciousness of former national commanders and staff who arbitrarily promote themselves or design new (and unnecessary) uniforms, or enact policy in ways they shouldn't. If they took the Core Values seriously enough to adopt them in CAP, the least they should've done is read them and internalize them, to understand what they are first.

I suppose I am one of those people with such a hearty distaste for political manoeuvering that I just distance myself from it.  I experienced it at the Wing/IG level, and it left a very bad taste in my mouth.  I am one of those "once bitten" types; when I first joined CAP two of my goals were to command a squadron and serve on wing staff.  After that experience all that changed (though I have been a deputy commander).

You want discipline in the ranks? Leaders must first understand they're not above the policy they set.

You want adherence to policy? First, keep the policy updated, then lead by example. (There's no reason Susie Parker at HQ CAP should be the human 39-1 and updates. She has better things to do, I bet.)

You want to be professional? Enforce the rules and ensure everyone is up to snuff. No pencil-whipping. No fat people in the Air Force uniform, nor people who can't seem to figure out what a gigline is to save their lives. Yes, we want you to come serve in something greater than self, but the rules are the rules and you need to live by them.

All well-taken.  Again, I suppose I was one of the "lucky ones" who started in a squadron where these things were enforced, as were customs & courtesies.  So much so that when I moved and joined a flying club senior squadron who did not wear uniforms half the time that it was a bit of a culture shock.

Do we need to start from the beginning with the core values and doctrine, so we can have accurate and relevant policy that cascades? Of course. But that's going to take a push from the top, not the bottom. And when all this starts jelling, maybe we won't be the red-headed stepchildren anymore.

And I say that again I try to do my bit on that front by policing my own conduct by making sure my own uniform is clean, pressed, within regs, with my ribbons and other badges in good repair, shoes shined, etc., and observe customs & courtesies, though sometimes I get a "huh?" look from other senior members when I salute them...there's somewhat of an unspoken attitude that such things are "for cadets."

in the eyes of most of the Air Force outside of the top brass, we are indeed just a bunch of uniformed Alfred E Neumans.

This is a drum you beat about as hard as RM beats the CIVIL thing.

And I don't get it, becasue I don't see it.

And point taken as well.  My opinion is based on my experiences - nothing more, nothing less.

However, I would differ from you on the part that RM "drum-beats" about the CIVIL Air Patrol, because he is advocating a vision for the organisation that has never existed, and I suppose I'm trying to find out just why we are where we are now, how we got there and how to get back to the days when our relationship with the AF was better (including uniforms) - if that is indeed possible.  Maybe it is, maybe not.

I have had the misfortune of living in states without major Air Force installations, or ones being closed (meaning: I haven't had the direct operational support of the AF experience you have had), and unfortunately I have had some bad experiences with some of the AF personnel I have met regarding CAP.  I have stated, and stand by those statements, that too many of the AF personnel I have encountered, including some SD's, only care about the cadet side of things, and senior members are just there to make sure cadets get their Mitchell so they can get their E-3.  How widespread that is I don't know, but I have witnessed it directly.

However, the cover story in the most recent Volunteer (the interview with Lt Gen Sid Clarke) was heartening.

Again, good contributions, all.

[bflynn]

in the eyes of most of the Air Force outside of the top brass, we are indeed just a bunch of uniformed Alfred E Neumans.

This is a drum you beat about as hard as RM beats the CIVIL thing.

And I don't get it, becasue I don't see it.

I don't see it either.  What I see is a lot of disagreement about what CAP is and what it should be.  I won't even attempt to categorize all the different options.

I think those who say we aren't professional enough are saying it because they truely believe that CAP should be a spit-n-shine military type unit, at least as close as we can get without being military.  That's their desire and they unconsciously adopt it as the goal.

Well, everyone has different goals, so everthing gets pulled one way or another.

And Major C - with respect sir, I don't think you really understood what I said.  When the military goes to work, the only good thing that comes out of it is when they stop.  Don't take this to mean that I'm afraid of it - as I said sometimes it's a necessary evil.  If it was necessary today, I'd go back and do it again.  It's still an evil.  It's not something to be emulated, lest we gloss over the horrors of war.

[Major Carrales]

And Major C - with respect sir, I don't think you really understood what I said.  When the military goes to work, the only good thing that comes out of it is when they stop.  Don't take this to mean that I'm afraid of it - as I said sometimes it's a necessary evil.  If it was necessary today, I'd go back and do it again.  It's still an evil.  It's not something to be emulated, lest we gloss over the horrors of war.

I understood what you meant, but elected to wax philosophical. 

One place I see misunderstanding is in your premise that taking pride in a uniform or traditions is somehow reveling in somesort of bloodlust for war.  There are many institutions that hold high what were once military traditions in civilian life.

Marching bands operate a lot like 19th century close order drill complete with uniforms that emulate that period.  American Football other versions of soccer (including basketball, hockey and the like) teach the idea of using military tactics and strategy on a field as was done in linear warfare.  Police and fire companies wear uniforms not unlike those, or derived, from military uniforms of the past.  Even chess, which is much maligined as the realm of the intellectual, teaches the methods of warfare from a past time.

Yet in all these examples, there is not BLOODLUST for war.  They are looked at with traditional reverence.  One day, despite my earlier post, there will be ways to mitigate conflict that do not require traditional war, but the traditional dress, methods and accoutrements will remain.  Reminders of the past, linking the efforts of the present to the actions of the past. 

Not everything link to the past is wrong.  I see this alot in modern times.  It's like people that won't watcha black and white movie out of some modern snobbery.  This deprives them of such richness...imagine that, not watching things like "The Three Stooges," "The Manchurian Candidate" and "Schindler's List" just because of some epic fail that is based on the such that I am describing.

CAP wear uniforms because back in the days of WWII it was a necessary to avoid being summarily executed while on sub duty.  We are steepted in tradition for that.  Those traditions will be maintained by people like myself and not changed because of some movement that would seek to change them merely for 1) change's sake or 2) becuase there is a hatred of tradition due to a false attempt to appear "progressive."

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

What I see is a lot of disagreement about what CAP is and what it should be.  I won't even attempt to categorize all the different options.

OK, I'll try, based on what I've experienced, in no particular order:

1. An unarmed volunteer reserve of the Air Force.
2. A youth group sponsored by the Air Force.
3. A search-and-rescue organisation.
4. A group of sub-chasers during WWII.
5. A community service organisation.
6. An emergency-services organisation with diminishing ties to the Air Force that it really doesn't need any more.
7. A group where adult members serve as "counsellors" for cadets (told to me directly).
8. A volunteer version of the Air Force Reserve.
9. A bunch of old farts who think they're in the Air Force and try to get salutes they're not entitled to.

That's all I can think of...will the real CAP please stand up?

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Maybe we start with clearing the slate and re-ordering our own doctrine as CAP, then by asking the Air Force, "what can we do for you?"

We already do a lot. Don't get me wrong. But if we really want that relationship with the Air Force that we so seek, we need to look at ways to augment them and be a force multiplier. The VSAF program sounded like it could have been a good idea, but I'm of the impression right now that no one really took it seriously. Conversely, look at that other auxiliary and tell me those guys don't find ways to get involved with their parent.

CyBorg, thanks for the thoughtful reply.

[bflynn]

Conversely, look at that other auxiliary and tell me those guys don't find ways to get involved with their parent.

They do, but probably because what the CGAux can do is very close to what the CG already does.

It's very difficult for us to get involved with AF activities because so much of what they do is inheriently different than what we can do.  Or what they do requires a high degree of skill that is very expensive to acquire.  To fly, fight and win in air, space and cyberspace is not exactly what we're charged by Congress to do.

[Major Carrales]

Conversely, look at that other auxiliary and tell me those guys don't find ways to get involved with their parent.

They do, but probably because what the CGAux can do is very close to what the CG already does.

It's very difficult for us to get involved with AF activities because so much of what they do is inheriently different than what we can do.  Or what they do requires a high degree of skill that is very expensive to acquire.  To fly, fight and win in air, space and cyberspace is not exactly what we're charged by Congress to do.

When I first joined CAP, there were Group Level CAP-USAF NCOs that attended our meetings/activities periodically.  This process ended with changes in the early 2000s.  Since the nearest USAF installation, asside from automated navigational places out in the deserts of southwest Texas, are in San Antonio (over 200 miles away) USAF culture is difficult to superimpose.  The VSAF program would be an inefficient program for members of the South Texas squadrons to participate in unless it was at recuiting centers.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

They do, but probably because what the CGAux can do is very close to what the CG already does.

To directly support the USCG, you have to have an additional security clearance above-and-beyond what you already have to go through to join the CGAUX.  I think it's Secret level, but I am not sure.  When I was in the Aux, that was a big controversy...that the Aux was moving to a "two-tier" level of membership of those who could augment and those who could not.  I do not know if it has cooled down any, but a few people (I do not know numbers) who had been augmenting left the Aux because of this additional requirement...it went back to the "why should I go through with having my soul picked apart to sweep floors at a LORAN station?"  All right, years ago I did have my life picked apart (and still have the DD398 to prove it!) because the ANG required it of me (and one of the DIS chaps phoned a lifelong friend of mine and scared the crap out of him!), but I doubt I would want to go through that again unless I were in the Real Military or a defence contract worker.

Also, unless you live on one of the coasts or the Great Lakes, you are not going to find much augmentation opportunities, especially since the LORAN stations were shuttered.  Also, I have heard that AuxAir pretty much exists on paper only these days.  It is difficult to find opportunities to work with the CG if you live in the middle of Kansas.

It's very difficult for us to get involved with AF activities because so much of what they do is inheriently different than what we can do.

Years ago, there were AF rescue squadrons, mostly equipped with helos, though some had C-130s.  That got shifted to the ANG and AFRES, and now most of the "rescue" squadrons in the USAF are CSAR.  There was some basic overlap with CAP back then, and in fact I remember a retired Reservist who said CAP sometimes helped them out with SAR (this was decades ago).

When I first joined CAP, there were Group Level CAP-USAF NCOs that attended our meetings/activities periodically.  This process ended with changes in the early 2000s. 

I remember those days and I miss them.  That was a real, tangible link to the Air Force.  It has not served either organisation well to have that terminated.

Since the nearest USAF installation, asside from automated navigational places out in the deserts of southwest Texas, are in San Antonio (over 200 miles away) USAF culture is difficult to superimpose.  The VSAF program would be an inefficient program for members of the South Texas squadrons to participate in unless it was at recuiting centers.

I was a bit incredulous when I first read this because Texas is full of AF installations: Lackland, Randolph, etc., but south Texas does not have any of those, and since Texas is such a big state (I remember driving across it with my father on I-10 back in the early '70s and it seemed like it went on for infinity) it would be difficult logistically to get to those installations for someone down toward the Rio Grande.

However, except for the recruiting offices the Major mentioned, a lot of states are losing/have lost a significant number of Air Force installations.

A lot of states just have one ANG base and that's it.

[Major Carrales]

I was a bit incredulous when I first read this because Texas is full of AF installations: Lackland, Randolph, etc., but south Texas does not have any of those, and since Texas is such a big state (I remember driving across it with my father on I-10 back in the early '70s and it seemed like it went on for infinity) it would be difficult logistically to get to those installations for someone down toward the Rio Grande..

I am glad you saw to it to be reasonable about that statement.  One thing hard to understand, even to Texans, is the logistical nightmare that is Texas to CAP.  Even getting cadets to encampments...many times 14 to 17 hours away (one WAY!)...adds a good $300 in fuel costs.  Brownsville to Paris, Texas.

In fact, to the point of the latter (which is drift) I whould support the idea of the old CLASS B encampments for large states.  Or "Encampment North" and "Encampment South."

Back to topic...UNIFORMS!!!!

[a2capt]

Texas, California, Alaska ... Hawaii ... fairly uniform in terms of distance issues. In the case of three of them, anyway, I'd say there's great chance of violations of vehicle code en-route across them, too.