"US" and "CAP" on AF/TPU service Coat

[NAYBOR]

I remember in a previous post that someone stated that the AF would like to see more similarity and uniformity between AF and CAP uniforms.

I had typed up a whole suggestion list for this post, with what could be incorporated with both the TPU and AF coat/uniforms, but I've tried twice to type it up and it was erased.  I'm frustrated, so I'll post the pictures now of what I suggest, with a picture comparing what is currently authorized to what is proposed.

I'll repost my list later when I calm down a bit.

Enjoy!

[SarDragon]

Sorry, gotta say ugh. The styles of the insignia are different and it just looks out of lace.

[JohnKachenmeister]

My first reaction would be that it would be a serious PITA to line up both letters perfectly. 

You would have to design a whole new pice of flair.

Do you own stock in Vanguard?

[NAYBOR]

LOL!  No, I don't own stock in Vanguard.  All I did was line up the top of the 'A' in "CAP" with the 1st period after the 'U' in "US".

I know the "CAP" letters overlap the lapel seam, but I figured "so what".  It centers all of the letters on the lapel itself.

This is what I figured--center the "U.S." as is currently regulated--centered on the lapel seem, parallel to the ground.  Then center the "CAP" device underneath it, with the top of the 'A' in "CAP" lined up with the 1st period after the 'U' in "US".  On the TPU Coat, you'd center the "U.S." as was done previously (on the bottom center of the upper lapel), and center "CAP" underneat of it, centering the 'A' in "CAP", etc. etc. as is done on the AF coat.

There are more suggestions to this.  All of the suggestions go together, in my mind.  I hope they will in yours, too.  It's a beautiful day outside, so I'm gonna go enjoy!  See ya all later!

[MIKE]

Meh... I think I'll just defect and wear these: Linky  Or if not those, maybe these: Linky

[DNall]

please God don't give them any ideas on how to rape more money from me!!! Plus that's ugly!! and I HATE this whole USCAP thing, that's total crap.

Mil ribbons aren't happening on TPU. AF didn't ask for CAP uniforms to be more like AF. They want us to quit creating a bunch of crap & having dif wear policy than the AF. Be consistent in following their lead was the marching order. The TPU is a TP creation (hence the slang) when the AF flat refused to allow any latitude on the ht/wt or metal grade even with distinguishing factors like changing the US for CAP or adding CAP to the epaulet as well.

[Hawk200]

I don't care for it. Personnally, I wouldn't be bothered if they went back to CAP cutouts. Just take CAP off the epaulets, it's already spelled out on the nametags. And maybe make a version with a circle for NCO's, making it fall inline with the Air Force. Having officers wear "U.S.", and NCO's wear "C.A.P." doesn't seem right.

Standardize the nameplates. Put the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" below the name (I think it would just look better), and wear it on both the AF service coat, and on the TPU. Maybe for the blazer, make one with holes for the mini sized rank, but it would literally only be drilling holes for it, not a different design. For the "TPU Lite", use the same nameplate as blue shirts.

I think we have too many things that say "CAP" on the uniform. If it says it one place, that's enough. The gray epaulettes are distinctive enough anyway. And for NCO's, just make stripes on a gray background. Gray is different enough. Don't need bells and whistles too. Vanguard has the fabrics and materials to do it already. It wouldn't take much.

[DNall]

Standardize the nameplates.

Absolutely. The blue two-line nameplate (from white shirt) on white & blue shirts for both cadets & adults, period. Silver nametag on both style service coats, pref the one line AF style.

While you're at it, standardize wear rules everything on both (badges, etc), AND that includes embroidered versions of badges worn in the same place on BDUs as they are on blues (which means less patches for adults).

I think we have too many things that say "CAP" on the uniform. If it says it one place, that's enough. The gray epaulettes are distinctive enough anyway. And for NCO's, just make stripes on a gray background. Gray is different enough. Don't need bells and whistles too. Vanguard has the fabrics and materials to do it already. It wouldn't take much.

Gray background stripes sound good, but I'd like to see some. I thnk they'd be dramatically expensive for starters. I also don't think they'd contrast very well btwn the stripes & background. If you're going to go to that kind of trouble, why not just embroider a big red prop on top of the star in the center of standard stipes & see what that looks like. If you've seen the urban pattern stripes, those are a good fit as well for being gray & distinctive. If you went further to embroider a prop on those, then I think you're set.

I do agree that it only needs to say CAP once on the uniform & that's it. The nametag is planty as far as I'm concerned. Certainly the "CAP" can be taken off the gray slides, even the color blind can tell the dif on those. On the other hand, I think "CAP" should be put on the blue slides in laying the groundwork to standardize to that in the future when everyone is comfortable with it again.

These are the ABU ones, urban had grey back with blue stripes, kind of like a negative image of the normal ones, but the colors were a little subdued down so it looked good, can't fine a pic off hand, but they're around.

[NAYBOR]

A lot of suggestions above made by Hawk and DNall I was going to make and agree with.

I did the above idea as a way to get metal rank back.  I'm OK with the CAP device on the service coat too, but prefer keeping the "U.S."  But using the "CAP" device would be in keeping with SDFs and others that use military uniforms do.  The only other thing I see used by SDFs and others is a different color nametag.  Maybe CAP could consider this--I'd suggest the blue 2-line (with name first and "US Civil Air Patrol" 2nd) for the service coats of the TPU and AF.  This would then be distinctive from the silver name tag of the AF, and distinguishable from a distance as not being an AF Officer.  Give us hard rank back, darnit!  The SDFs and others have it--why are we being treated like red-headed step-children?

We need blue AF epaulletes with "CAP" embroidered for both TPU and AF uniforms.  This would be another consistency between the uniforms, besides those stated above.

BDU's for EVERYONE.  There should be no restrictions for weight with these uniforms.  If someone can't tell that the person wearing a CAP BDU is a CAP officer, etc. with all of that neon blue and "CAP" all over it, they have issues!

DNall, I like the suggestion of using the ACU rank for Service Dress and BDUs (I assume BDUs too).  It's already available, is grey, and consistent with a CAP-type AF uniform.

DNall, I don't know if your comment about mil ribbons were directed at the picture of the coat I posted with mil ribbons on it, but you'll notice that that's an AF service coat, with AF mil ribbons above the CAP ribbons.   I thought mil ribbons were authorized for the TPU shirts and service coat anyways.  That's what the CAP Uniform PowerPoint presentation (from the CAP website) and other areas of the CAP website state, if I recall correctly.

More suggestions to follow...

[DNall]

I'm pretty certain mil ribbons/badges are not authorized on the corp-style combinations. I think they ought to be, but that's AF's call.

The ABU stripes above I know that may look like a gray background, but it's actually a khaki/green kind of like ACUs. I don't know how good these would look on the blue shirt or white shirt either since we're talking consistancy. I'd also be careful cause we're going to be in ABUs one day & we don't want trouble downstream because of this. There are urban camo stripes I've seen (which are apparently impossible to find) that better fit the bill.

There's only a couple hundred NCOs in CAP. I'm not sure anything radical is a good idea unless we start making our own NCOs (which I'm all for). If we were to go to the trouble of making our own (gray background & such) then you could instead just change the star in the center to a prop/tringle/blue circle & then there's no use of the background changing colors unless you really want it to.

The easier solution is we can go to all embroidered on gray eplauet slides nco stripes & that's very reasonablly priced. While doing that, fix the reg to allow Amn-SrA & cut the outdated Sgt rank. I'd test out all those stripes deas & see what works best.

Also, we need a plain blank gray slide for SMWOG, and rename that rank to officer candidate. Then the label of senior member can be flushed for good (adult member/program or officers/staff used as appropriate).

[Hawk200]

Gray background stripes sound good, but I'd like to see some. I thnk they'd be dramatically expensive for starters. I also don't think they'd contrast very well btwn the stripes & background. If you're going to go to that kind of trouble, why not just embroider a big red prop on top of the star in the center of standard stipes & see what that looks like. If you've seen the urban pattern stripes, those are a good fit as well for being gray & distinctive. If you went further to embroider a prop on those, then I think you're set.

I don't understand he reasoning to a prop on the stripes, I don't like the idea of modifying  the basic design. My idea is to use the same fabric as the epaulets, and just embroider the chevron on the gray fabric, instead of a navy blue background. I think it would look fine, but I can't show you any, as they don't exist, at present. Vanguard has those materials, and it would only be a matter of feeding a different fabric into the same machine that embroiders them. The thread would remain the same white it is now. I would however only use the gray background on blues, and the white dress shirts, I think we should use the standard blue background stripes on the BDU/BBDU, and on the ABU once we adopt it.

I think putting a red prop on it might look cartoonish, and CAP should get away from that. And considering Vanguard's proclivity to make money, that would probably be considered commisioning a completely new design. We can't afford that. I'm also considering our new Command Cheif position, and that we will most likely have more NCO's in the near future, so we should be considering implementing NCO rank insignia.

All in all, my idea for the service dress coat and TPU coat would be this: Collar brass would be CAP cutouts; a two line nametag with name on top, "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" on bottom; officers would wear a gray epaulette with rank insignia (no CAP embroidered on it, it's on the collar), NCO's a stripe with a gray background. Everything else would remain as is.

Overall, the goal would be to use minor color and insignia differences to create subtle variations from the AF uniform. Someone could immediately tell from a distance the stripes, once closer would note the collar brass, and closer still the nameplate. We don't want to look exactly like the AF, just fairly close without differences that are a glaring standout.

[mikeylikey]

All in all, my idea for the service dress coat and TPU coat would be this: Collar brass would be CAP cutouts; a two line nametag with name on top, "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" on bottom; officers would wear a gray epaulet with rank insignia (no CAP embroidered on it, it's on the collar), NCO's a stripe with a gray background. Everything else would remain as is.

Why do we need a change?  All this conversation has done is opened the general membership up to another uniform change.  Once NHQ sees this expect a interim change letter mandating "USCAP" cutouts and a permanent change to the two-line nameplate for the AF-style uniform. 

My response to the first posted proposal, N-O!  Looks terrible.  Good try though! 

[DNall]

I don't understand he reasoning to a prop on the stripes, I don't like the idea of modifying  the basic design. My idea is to use the same fabric as the epaulets, and just embroider the chevron on the gray fabric, instead of a navy blue background.

In general, I like the idea. However, I got two issues with it:
1) Price:You're talking like they'll just grab some fabric & do some embroidery. Sure they can do that, but they don't make the standard stripes now, and a partially embroidered patch of that size would be VERY pricy. Maybe they can go to the standard manufacture & get something done, but I'm still thinking price ranges like mess dress boards. And these are sew on, so they have to get multi-sets & they wear out faster than what you can do with ep-slides. I still think we should consider getting rid of all sleeve stripes & going to just embroidered on gray ep-slides. It may not be very popular, but it's smart.

2) Appearance: I'm not sure white stripes on a med-gray background would look right, seems like it'd blend too much. You might have to darken up the gray considerablly to make it look really good, or you could go to blue stripes on the gray back. Either way I think we ought ot just use standard subdued stripes on the BDU, and standard white/blue on the BBDU, that seems like a no brainer.


Other then that I think we're in agreement on the rest.... well collar brass, I think it ought to jsut stay the way it is. AF came to us I believe about wearing the US, just add that NCOs should wear the circle style, and move on. Frankly I'm not sure why that was an issue on the TPU coat & I'd try to get it put back there, even if that means going to grade slides over metal grade (blue with "CAP" embroidered on them). Yeah other then that we're good.

[DNall]

All in all, my idea for the service dress coat and TPU coat would be this: Collar brass would be CAP cutouts; a two line nametag with name on top, "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" on bottom; officers would wear a gray epaulet with rank insignia (no CAP embroidered on it, it's on the collar), NCO's a stripe with a gray background. Everything else would remain as is.

Why do we need a change?  All this conversation has done is opened the general membership up to another uniform change.  Once NHQ sees this expect a interim change letter mandating "USCAP" cutouts and a permanent change to the two-line nameplate for the AF-style uniform. 

My response to the first posted proposal, N-O!  Looks terrible.  Good try though! 

You's saying that to someone who already said they didn't like the collar brass above... Nat CC already said they were changing all nametags to say "US Civil Air Patrol." I don't like that at all, but since we're doing it anyway, we should consolidate down from the 8 or so dif nametags used in CAP & bring it down to two, the silver for service dress & standardized blue for everything else (cadet & adult).

[Hawk200]

1) Price:You're talking like they'll just grab some fabric & do some embroidery. Sure they can do that, but they don't make the standard stripes now, and a partially embroidered patch of that size would be VERY pricy.

What Vanguard are you buying from? This one makes them: http://www.vanguardmil.com/insignia/main_categories.php?nav=airforce&sg1=ENLISTED%20RANK&sg1name=Enlisted%20Rank&sg1nav=ENLISTED%20RANK&subnavIndexer=79

2) Appearance: I'm not sure white stripes on a med-gray background would look right, seems like it'd blend too much. You might have to darken up the gray considerablly to make it look really good, or you could go to blue stripes on the gray back. Either way I think we ought ot just use standard subdued stripes on the BDU, and standard white/blue on the BBDU, that seems like a no brainer.

It may blend a little, how about some darker epaulettes, and stripes? Make it a little more charcoal perhaps? Of course, it would be another change, but I think the stripe background and the epaulette color should match. Which in turn should match the nametag color. I just don't think we should prepare to get back metal rank insignia on our service coats, or blue epaulettes with CAP on them. We act like we're preparing for it, and the AF is going to notice, and probably isn't going to be very accomodating. I think we ought to look at being distinctly different, still professional, but also still inline with our mother branch.

I doubt the AF would buy off on subdued stripes. I just don't see it happening. Standard blue stripes would look OK on the ABU if the tapes were navy. Since, upon adoption of the ABU, people would have to buy new stuff anyway, it's not really an issue.

Other then that I think we're in agreement on the rest.... well collar brass, I think it ought to jsut stay the way it is. AF came to us I believe about wearing the US, just add that NCOs should wear the circle style, and move on.

I can agree with that. I'm more concerned with uniformity, and circled insignia for NCO's would be inline with that. "US" for officers, and "CAP" for NCO's isn't uniform. And seems a little wierd.

Frankly I'm not sure why that was an issue on the TPU coat & I'd try to get it put back there, even if that means going to grade slides over metal grade (blue with "CAP" embroidered on them). Yeah other then that we're good.

Maybe another case of the AF not hacking off on it. It would probably look cobbled, another thing we should get away from. With minor distinct differences, we should be able to maintain our own identity, but still be seen as an Air Force component (more or less).

And speaking of cobbled, I think the original idea that was started in this thread is an example of that. As was pointed out, the font type doesn't match; not to mention, no branch of the military does it that way either.

[DNall]

What Vanguard are you buying from? This one makes them

They sell them, they don't make them. They make very little of thier product, mostly they are just a whosale/retail outfit. Either way, I'm still thinking expensive cause it's not the mass produced item.

2) Appearance:

It may blend a little, how about some darker epaulettes, and stripes? Make it a little more charcoal perhaps? Of course, it would be another change, but I think the stripe background and the epaulette color should match. Which in turn should match the nametag color. I just don't think we should prepare to get back metal rank insignia on our service coats, or blue epaulettes with CAP on them. We act like we're preparing for it, and the AF is going to notice, and probably isn't going to be very accomodating. I think we ought to look at being distinctly different, still professional, but also still inline with our mother branch.

Charcoal sounds better, again I'd have to see samples made up by vanguard or whomever for testing.

We have been preparing for metal grade & blue slides coming back since the day they left & will never do anything but that until the day they return. The AF knows that, and changes their mind on how they feel about things from administration to administration.

I don't think we need ot be crossing any lines to the extent we're breaking rules or pissing people off, but I'm just saying I don't love gray. Black now maybe I'd be more open to, I think that'd look good.

The nametags should be the same color as the standard AF nametag, but with the second line under, and that shouldn't have anything to do with the grade slides. In fact if we are going to stick to gray slides w/ CAP on them, then we should just use the standard one line AF nametags, just like JROTC/ROTC/USAFA does. That'd make things a lot cheaper & easier access.

I doubt the AF would buy off on subdued stripes. I just don't see it happening. Standard blue stripes would look OK on the ABU if the tapes were navy. Since, upon adoption of the ABU, people would have to buy new stuff anyway, it's not really an issue.

I think they look goofy. The new ABU material is ACU colored. It's gonna look seriously wierd. I think the standard subdued stripes are fine, I think the AF would buy that, especially considering we're tlaking about retired or active NCOs that could just as easily wear their retired AF uniform w/ no modifications.

My plan for ABUs would be white or gray on OD background for everything. The ABU tapes will be on camo background, the badges are on a kahki looking background. I think it's gonna look ugly, just like the ACUs do.

With minor distinct differences, we should be able to maintain our own identity, but still be seen as an Air Force component (more or less).

I don't want us to maintain our own identity. I want us to be an auxiliary component of the AF with the minimal changes to the uniform mandated by them to meet the techincal rule of law, but otherwise standing side by side on the same team. I don't believe we need ot have our own colors (gray) or any such crap. The standards by which SDFs get by should be in the same field of view when looking at CAP. I really belive we as an organization should be a federal level SDF for the AF, I blieve that's what "auxiliary" means, and I belive we need to kick it into gear to get there.

I think uniforms is a small part of that picture, but it's a good place to start in getting consistent & presents a critical professional image... dressing for the job we want rather than the job we have. Along the way I think it dramatically helps the ops & relationships we deal with now.

[CAP006]

It is wrong that we have to change our uniforms. How are they going to fit the US next to the Civil Air Patrol on our BDU's? Any ideas?

[Hawk200]

It is wrong that we have to change our uniforms. How are they going to fit the US next to the Civil Air Patrol on our BDU's? Any ideas?

Like this: http://www.civilairpatrolstore.com/store/view_product.php?product=20389

They're already being made, sold, and more than a few here already have them sewn on.

[SAR-EMT1]

I just want to say that I would not support getting a US CAP nametag OR getting rid of the current gray or silver nametags in order to get hard rank. - ALL you are doing is giving something up to get something back.
At least the gray nametag says USAF Auxiliary, Whereas I just saw a gas station manager wearing a gold bar on his collar.
I even asked about it... "its the standard symbol of authority, here's your change" .... >  sheesh. <  tread lightly people, British Petroleum is gunnin for you.

[DNall]

I just want to say that I would not support getting a US CAP nametag OR getting rid of the current gray or silver nametags in order to get hard rank. - ALL you are doing is giving something up to get something back.
At least the gray nametag says USAF Auxiliary,

I understand & would agree with you, BUT it's already been stated from on high that the name is changing to US CAP & it's going on all the nametags. I don't like it, but it's facts. If that's the case, then why not use the time to consolidate down to one nametag style for most uniform combinations (leave the silver stuff how it is).

That still won't get you metal grade back. We're not discussing any kind of tradeoff, just standardization.

As for why change to gray back stripes? Cause it gets the cutouts off & looks consistent with the rest of our grade structure.

[NAYBOR]

DNall, I COMPLETELY, 100% agree that CAP should be a "federal level SDF".  The SDFs, and their uniforms, are treated better than we in CAP are.  Heck, every SDF uniform I've research has metal grade.  OK, most wear blazing red nametags, but some do not.

For example, the California State Military Reserve, Air Component, wears almost the same exact uniform as the AF.

Example:



and:



You'll notice that in the first picture, the Lt. Col. just has a name tage with his first name, and then "California Military Reserve" under it [I believe], on an Air Force Blue nametag.  Could you tell this officer from and AF officer at a distance?

In the second picture, the two CSMR guys are in BDUs.  The one on the right is in the Air Component of the CSMR, and has subdued tapes like the regular AF/AFR/ANG.  His branch tape says "CALIFORNIA".  Could you tell him apart from regular AF/AFR/ANG?

The NY Guard air component does the same thing with its BDUs (I've seen them myself when I lived in NY).  Unsure about the service dress for the NYG.

CAP needs to drop its corporate status, go under the National Guard Bureau (NGB), and get the job done.  It can keep it's original missions, but IMHO, gain so much more being a full military auxilliary.

I agree, we don't need gray on everything.  I orginally thought it was OK, but with all the research I've been doing on SDFs and other military auxiliaries and cadet programs, no more.  I've read that SDFs and service auxilliaries are considered the third tier in the "Total Force" concept of homeland defense.  SDFs are technically under the NGB.  CAP should be too.  [I of course leave out the CGAux--They're directly under the CGAux anyways, and are considered fully a part of the CG team.]

Ok, I'l  quit rambling.  Sorry for those I upset with my original pictures.  Just throwing out ideas.  I didn't know I'd get such strong reactions.  I respect it though.  I must say that I didn't think it looked THAt bad.  Trying to keep the "US" on the service coat if we can go to metal grade.  I just think it looks better all around.

[DNall]

Far as uniforms, a lot of that has to do with some distinct things: For one, they mostly hold state commissions; they also for the most part are required to have been real military officers (not NCOs) in order to promote to field grades so the leadership is ALL retired military field grade officers.

I do think SDFs should be cited repeatedly as precedent when negotiating with the Air Force on what our spectrum of uniforms should look like & why. However, I don't belive CAP should go under the NGB, which is a heavily Army dominated command & a mostly powerless fractured body. There's a laudry list of reasons I think it's a bad idea.

State's already have SDFs, they don't need us overlapping, and most of our people wouldn't be accepted at anything like their current levels. What'd happen in the transition is they'd strip our stuff & demote everyone, 3/4ths of our people would leave & the cadet program would get dropped... basically they'd end up with our toys & we'd end up out. There's also the issue that people still in the military can't serve in SDFs. I'm not saying that's a show stopper as long as an extra duty status can be afforded for service members to do some things within certain limits in thier normal military status.

I don't mention SDFs cause I'm envious of their uniforms. I mention them because I think Auxiliary is the word used at the federal level & SDF is the word used at the state level, and the law & organization should be altered as necessary to change the nature of the organiation to what I think it was all along intended to be on an informal level, but that's been lost on people so it seems to need formalizing & I think a lot of good would come of it.

[Eagle400]

I think that the relationship between CAP and the Air Force should be the same as the relationship between the Coast Guard Auxiliary and the Coast Guard. 

That means the Air Force having complete jurisdiction over CAP, CAP using Air Force manuals/regulations/instructions, CAP utilizing Air Force training, having uniforms that more closely resemble those of the Air Force, and having a command structure more similar to that of the Air Force.   

CAP doesn't need to be put under the National Guard Bureau, and shouldn't.  As DNall said, CAP would just get in the way if it were to be given a status similar to SDF's.  The Coast Guard Auxiliary does not have the status of an SDF, yet they are a great force multiplier for the Coast Guard and have a record that is just as good (if not better) than CAP's when it comes to completing their missions.

A greater relationship with the Air Force (in addition to full Air Force oversight) is what will help CAP form closer bonds with state agencies, and solve many other issues CAP currently has.

The law would have to be changed for this to happen, but with enough support and lobbying to Congress, it's possible.        

[JC004]

I think that the relationship between CAP and the Air Force should be the same as the relationship between the Coast Guard Auxiliary and the Coast Guard.

Not entirely possible.  The Coast Guard has a very different role/status than the Air Force does.  A much more...civil role. 

That means the Air Force having complete jurisdiction over CAP, CAP using Air Force manuals/regulations/instructions, CAP utilizing Air Force training, having uniforms that more closely resemble those of the Air Force, and having a command structure more similar to that of the Air Force.

Surely it means more than CAP being commanded by an AF colonel riding it out to retirement or something?  I don't know what manuals/regulations/instructions CAP would use from the Air Force beyond what we have now...look through the AF pubs site...it isn't that exciting, and I don't know that there is anything there which would seriously improve CAP if we suddenly fell into.  Uniforms, instructions, surface to air missiles...whatever we do to mock the Air Force is nice and everything, but what really needs to be considered is utilization/augmentation, not more uniform changes.  Part of it all would be training, an important element to consider - as well as enforcement of standards/regulations.  The Air Force might consider allowing some uniform changes and letting us play more if we could show proper enforcement of existing regulations and such first.

[DNall]

I think that the relationship between CAP and the Air Force should be the same as the relationship between the Coast Guard Auxiliary and the Coast Guard.

Not entirely possible.  The Coast Guard has a very different role/status than the Air Force does.  A much more...civil role. 

That's not entirely correct. The AF has just as big a civil role, as does the Army, but they are PRIMARILY focused outward & give very little attention to the domestic missions CAP exists to take that off their plate as much as possible, at least the routine stuff so they don't have to be bothered unless it a real & big emergency.

The regs thing is stupid. CG issues Aux specific regs under a special series of official CG regs. Big deal. So you put AAFI XX-XXXX on CAP regs & nothing has changed. The place where that does matter is that CAP "recommends" changes & AF issues them under their authority. It also means things like the uniform mannual would be the actual AF uniform regulation & a CAP specific supplement to it. Therefore, when the AFI is changed, it automatically changes the CAP rules. For example, if they switch to ABUs then unless they specifically say otherwise, then we change too & it's automatic w/o anyone needing to lift a finger. Stuff like that's nice, but as was noted, it takes a big legislative change to fix things.

[mikeylikey]

  The Air Force might consider allowing some uniform changes and letting us play more if we could show proper enforcement of existing regulations and such first.

Agreed!  However, the current uniforms are punishment, and those members who caused it are either gone or that mentality they had are no longer around.  IT is time to stop treating us as children.  It makes me think, that those militia types that call themselves a SDF, can get away with wearing a FEDERAL Military uniform, and only have a distinguishing emblem or device that is not that differentiating.

NOTE, some SDF are very legitimate (i.e. NY, MD etc..) but there are some that are far from being professional.  I am not attacking the more professional legitimate ones. 

I could note tell the difference between a California Military Reserve Officer and a Active Duty Air Force Officer in the above pictures.  So why is the AF telling CAP we have to make you way different than us, but we allow an SDF member to look almost like us?

[JC004]

I think that the relationship between CAP and the Air Force should be the same as the relationship between the Coast Guard Auxiliary and the Coast Guard.

Not entirely possible.  The Coast Guard has a very different role/status than the Air Force does.  A much more...civil role. 

That's not entirely correct. The AF has just as big a civil role, as does the Army, but they are PRIMARILY focused outward & give very little attention to the domestic missions CAP exists to take that off their plate as much as possible, at least the routine stuff so they don't have to be bothered unless it a real & big emergency.
...

The AF handles inland SAR, which they sucker off on us (also, by a secret law, they're all at 2 AM).  The Army does DR and all that jazz.  AF does some counterdrug stuff (I saw pictures on the AF web site and they didn't even paint over the words on the aircraft!).  I dunno what else the AF does here that we can be heavily involved with at the moment, although I'd like to see some ideas.

[DNall]

Mil support for civil authorities is what all of the mil does, each in their own way. The AF does a whole lot. SaR is part of that, as is a large disaster air mission (assessment, rescue, support, etc), there's a counterdrug mission as well. All of that is 1AF, and we sshould be playing a much bigger role. I also spoke a while back about pulling some other ideas together to back up 8AF in their cyber mission, and I think that's going to happen down the road, but they don't really have their legs under them yet.

The point is... well anyone that's been in the real military & then comes to CAP expecting the environment or people to be similiar, it's very frustrating. In CAP people are lackidasical, just tooting along like nothing matters & any small thing that gets done is at a snails pace. It's not lack of pay or lack of time. We spend just as long in meetings as the guard does in drill, and SDFs get brought up cause they do the exact same thing for no pay & have ot buy all their own stuff with basically no benefits. For better or worse they do a better job of meeting that standard than CAP does, and CAP suffers for it badly.

  The Air Force might consider allowing some uniform changes and letting us play more if we could show proper enforcement of existing regulations and such first.

Agreed!  However, the current uniforms are punishment, and those members who caused it are either gone or that mentality they had are no longer around.  IT is time to stop treating us as children.  It makes me think, that those militia types that call themselves a SDF, can get away with wearing a FEDERAL Military uniform, and only have a distinguishing emblem or device that is not that differentiating.

Current uniforms are not a punishment. The maroon boards that we had before you guys probably came in were a punishment for some specific things, changfing to gray has been a reward that our behavior as an organization toward the AF has not warranted.

As far as those attitudes & behavior not existing any longer, that's incorrect. What about when they want to change something like the command patch so they just do it & order it on corporates, and then ask AF after the fact to approve it on the AF-style when stock is running out & it'll be a financial disaster for members not to approve. What about taking AFAux off the planes so we can do missions that potentially violate PCA w/o having to ask AF for permission first? What about creating a whole new AF-looking corporate service dress using real AF grade slides & other items w/o formal permission & then having to make a bunch of changes cause it bothered some generals that saw it... does any of that look like behavior to be rewarded. What about a truck load of investigations, some BS & some legit & big time serious, what about ignoring our own regs as leadership sees fit, either in holding their own accountable or in changing regs on a whim... what about financial problems, and the appearance of inpropriety, things that would get you court martialed in the military get swept under the rug & AF has no authority to do anything. And, what about the people we choose to bring up in the org versus those we hold down or push out. No, I'd say we're still firmly in a bad place that needs a lot of improvement before AF needs to reward us.

I have an idea of where I want us to be organizationally on all those points, on uniforms, and what I'd like to add in terms of professional development, structure, & mgmt. And I certainly would like to spell that out to AF, and ask for all assistance in making it happen, including with any legislative actio necessary, and then spell out to AF what we'd like to see as rewards for hitting or benchmarks & becoming of better service to them & the coutnry. That's the pie int eh sky dream CAP though. I don't believe it's possible for any Nat CC to force such an agenda. I thin AF would have ot focibly take over CAP w/ Congressional permission, and set things on that course, at least initially under AF leadership. Then after a few years I think you could put a CAP officer back at the top answering to the AF.

[NAYBOR]

OK, not under the NGB, but the AF itself, and lose the darn "corporate status" of CAP.  How hard can this be for Congress to do?  How many US Codes would need to be changed?

[JC004]

OK, not under the NGB, but the AF itself, and lose the darn "corporate status" of CAP.  How hard can this be for Congress to do?  How many US Codes would need to be changed?

How hard...for Congress...How hard...for Congress.     The opposite of progress is...   

I think, with something like this, Congress would ask for half a dozen reports from various organizations before they'd consider a change...SECAF, various Congressional committees, a couple other departments in government that nobody ever knew about, etc. 

[DNall]

^ Absolutely true. AF would be in favor but worreid about resources & personnel to oversee such a move. They'll lobby for use of retired personnel & additional appropriations, but all in favor of the take over. Congress will be concerend about AF coming on hard times & wanting to gut CAP cause it isn't that important to the big picture. Lots of people in CAP will get calle dout to lobby the crap out of Congress... by the way you aren't allowed to lobby congress on behalf of CAP issues. AF got really mad about that last time & added a line about helping to advocate for our needs as part of their process. We have govt relationsions officers to act as liaisons at the state level, but congres belongs to AF in policy & budget matters.

[mikeylikey]

^^ I don't get it?  We are not allowed to lobby our congressman and women? Isn't that illegal for them to say we can't speak to our representatives about CAP?  I speak to mine all the time, and give them newsletters and and invites to functions.  Hell, I eat lunch with my Senator once or twice a month (granted he is my cousin) in DC, and CAP comes up all the time. 

So many people have made it perfectly clear that CAP is solely a CORPORATION.  If so, we can lobby who ever we want to get more money for the CORPORATION.  This is one area where if true.......I am totally in disagreement with the Air Force.

Come on AF!  The less money you have to give us....and the more money we raise on our own......means the more Officers you can cut and the more planes you can buy that you don't need.  Seriously.....if the AF had the money but did not have to give it to CAP.....do you think they would keep all those officers that they are cutting loose in a few months? 

I read the list......not one pilot was up for mandatory separation.  Makes you wonder who is running this retention board at HQ AF.  Must be the pilot types!

Wow....HUGE digression on my part.  Someone fill me in on the Lobby Congress issue please!

[DNall]

You CAN talk to you congressman, it's not illegal, but there are consequences. The corp, NOT you, can lobby who it wants, but again there are consquences when that interferes with AF priorities. It's exactly the same in the military. The priorities are decided above your paygrade, and you aren't allowed to interfere with them for any reason.

If CAP national decides that we need FLIR on all our planes, funded flight training for adults, and money to support caddet programs at teh unit level... makes a real strong case & Congress buys it, so they allocate the money & because of it the AF gets that much less in their aquasition budget & don't get as many planes because of it. How you think AF is going to feel about that? Our full annual appropriation is AF sitting down with everything they have to do & assigning it a priority order and dollar amount. You think if we mess up their priorities & make them look stupid in front of congress that we'll have the same dollar figure or funding priority? I mean we're at war & the AF is cutting people hand over fist. You really think they can't make a case tat CAP needs to share the burden in hard times?

And far as cutting officers, I understand it's mostly non-rated (cause little has been invested in them), and certainly would not include pilots (who they just spent 3mil/ea making).

[JohnKachenmeister]

While I dislike the corporate identity in CAP, and the increasing move to be more of a civiian corporatin than a military asset, I would not be so quick to shed entirely the corporate existance.

For example:

The corporation can buy, sell, and lease property much easier than the government can.

The corporation can protect its assets, sue (and be sued) and copyright its trademarks easier than the government can.

A corporation can provide assistance to non-governmental organizations with less fuss than a government agency has to go through.  (All the current fuss we have is self-inflicted.  A corporation can also shoot itself in the foot easier than a government agency can.)

[MIKE]

... and copyright its trademarks easier than the government can.

And this is a good thing?

[JohnKachenmeister]

... and copyright its trademarks easier than the government can.

And this is a good thing?

Not the way it is currently used, to provide a monopoly to Vanguard.  But we can more easily guard against commercial exploiation and inappropriate use of CAP insignia.

"ZigZag:  The Official marijuana cigarette paper of the Civil Air Patrol."

[jimmydeanno]

"ZigZag:  The Official marijuana cigarette paper of the Civil Air Patrol."

I don't know why you'd say this doesn't present a good image...

[JohnKachenmeister]

In 1942, that was a good image.  In 2007, it is tantamount to killing people. 

Things change.  Cigarettes are now recognized as the deadly hazard that they are.  Both my World War II generation parents died of cancer.

I also have an Air Corps training film that speaks about spending Friday night in a "Gay night spot."  I don't think a training film would use those words today.

[mikeylikey]

I also have an Air Corps training film that speaks about spending Friday night in a "Gay night spot."  I don't think a training film would use those words today.

San Francisco??

[gallagheria]

Far as uniforms, a lot of that has to do with some distinct things: For one, they mostly hold state commissions; they also for the most part are required to have been real military officers (not NCOs) in order to promote to field grades so the leadership is ALL retired military field grade officers.

I do think SDFs should be cited repeatedly as precedent when negotiating with the Air Force on what our spectrum of uniforms should look like & why. However, I don't belive CAP should go under the NGB, which is a heavily Army dominated command & a mostly powerless fractured body. There's a laudry list of reasons I think it's a bad idea.

State's already have SDFs, they don't need us overlapping, and most of our people wouldn't be accepted at anything like their current levels. What'd happen in the transition is they'd strip our stuff & demote everyone, 3/4ths of our people would leave & the cadet program would get dropped... basically they'd end up with our toys & we'd end up out. There's also the issue that people still in the military can't serve in SDFs. I'm not saying that's a show stopper as long as an extra duty status can be afforded for service members to do some things within certain limits in thier normal military status.

I don't mention SDFs cause I'm envious of their uniforms. I mention them because I think Auxiliary is the word used at the federal level & SDF is the word used at the state level, and the law & organization should be altered as necessary to change the nature of the organiation to what I think it was all along intended to be on an informal level, but that's been lost on people so it seems to need formalizing & I think a lot of good would come of it.

Most of that is true, but some clarification is necessary. SDF's are prohibited from wearing any U.S. insignia under both NGR 10-4 and AR 670-1. As for the term "SDF" or "State Defense Force,"  those actually are federal terms found under 10 USC 311, which created the SDF's, and NGR 10-4, which regulates them. Some states use other terms such as "guard," "state guard" or "military reserve," and some use the "state defense force" term. 

As for prior service, it is not necessary. Some states have ratio quotas of prior-service to non, but that varies state by state. Commission requirements are similar to the Armed Forces--you have to have a college degree and then it varies state by state, but most require some form of OCS and then other training if you are not prior service. The primary difference I have seen between commissioning requirements between SDF's and the Armed Forces is medical and age restrictions. SDF's are by far more lenient with medical and age restrictions for the most part do not exist.

Also, as you mentioned prohibiting members of the Armed Forces from being in SDF's, and that is true. It only makes sense. You cannot be in the Navy and Army at the same time, so same here. If a Guard unit is deployed, how will an SDF fill in its ranks if the SDF members are deploying as the Guard members?

But as far as the uniform requirements of the CAP, I see no reason why the Air Force is so restrictive. Even non-military members of the Public Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) wear Navy uniforms. So being military itself has nothing to do with wearing the uniform. DA civilians can wear the Army uniform and only have to wear a specific patch--not some weirdo-colored scheme to make sure they look different than military members.

I see no reason to make the uniform any different than changing merely the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" nametape from "U.S. Air Force." Otherwise, it gets to the point where the CAP should just use an entirely different uniform. Some of the changes have no reason or justification at all. 

[DNall]

SDF's are prohibited from wearing any U.S. insignia under both NGR 10-4 and AR 670-1.

Obviously. They aren not in service of the US, that's a federal designator, that's why CAP does where it.

As for prior service, it is not necessary. Some states have ratio quotas of prior-service to non, but that varies state by state. Commission requirements are similar to the Armed Forces--you have to have a college degree and then it varies state by state, but most require some form of OCS and then other training if you are not prior service. The primary difference I have seen between commissioning requirements between SDF's and the Armed Forces is medical and age restrictions. SDF's are by far more lenient with medical and age restrictions for the most part do not exist.

I was talking about progressing in the organizaiton. Every state has slightly different rules, but for the most part, to progress to field grade you have be a prior-service company grade officer, field grade to make full Col, etc. I believe the same is true in the SNCO grades, that you have to have been an PS jr NCO. The initial commissioning requirements from what I've seen are 60hrs of college, degree required to promote to Capt; and yes of course there's officer training involved, but not nearly the same as the National Guard.

But in the end yes, we should be in relatively the same uniform as the AF, only differing as much as is legally & practically required.

[mikeylikey]

But in the end yes, we should be in relatively the same uniform as the AF, only differing as much as is legally & practically required.

That gets my complete agreement!  I think all it takes is the CAP specific nameplate on the jacket.  You have those American Cadet people running around wearing the exact same uniforms as AD.....just different nameplates/nametapes.  Makes you think, trust issues between AF and CAP?

[DNall]

I'd call it respect issues. Right now CAP is a bunch of civilians with almost no standards for membership much less officer rank, and seen to be doing nothing in support of the AF.

I really think if they had to go all officer or all enlisted with the force, it would have been much better to go enlisted, regardless of what NCOs say then or now, it is a problem that we'll make anyone an officer. It points out how meaningless it is, which is not okay.

I'm not advocating CAP go enlisted only, but I do think members should come in enlisted & officer grades should be for the mgmt structure & involve higher quals to enter difficult training. I think that'd make a world of differnce.

I also think the initial entry training for all adult members should be much stronger - not basic mind you, but an orientation to a military organization rather than the girl scouts. We need to be wearing uniforms right, be comfortable with CnC, and in general not have our heads stuck up the backside of anything in particular. And there should be SOME standards for membership that should at least include a SQ board interview. Some others (particularly NIN) have post excpetional stuff on what they do & I think that needs to be adopted right away.

And third, I think we need to push hard into augmentation roles with the AF. It doesn't make a bigger impact, but it's visible to AF personnel & that's significant. SDFs & CGAux both provide instructive examples from which we can work with AF to create a solid system. Besides just being visible & helping out, there are some areas (8AF) where we can make a major impact on highly important issues to include national security.

And on the longer term bonus list, I'd like to work out a plan for congress to restructure the Aux status & downgrade the corp status. Kach mentioned before about some reasons the corp status is useful, and I agree but in a different way. I think the org should consist of a govt controlled Aux of which we are all members, and secondly of the CAP corp of which we are not members, but which consists of a charitable trust that owns stuff & raises money (public & private) to support Aux operations. Tat way you get teh best of both worlds, including much stronger liaibility controls (keep the risk & the things/$ you don't want at risk legally seperated from each other).

That'd be the bones of my vision for CAP transformation. You head even part way down that road & control your PR then you can make a strong case about respect issues like uniforms that will be earned & not just given.

[gallagheria]

To argue that CAP is federal and thus should wear "U.S." and the SDF's are state and should not (which I don't really mind) would have to be applied to the National Guard as well. National soldiers can be Title 10, Title 32, or State Active Duty (SAD). Only under Title 10 are they federal. They are not even subject to the UCMJ or receive any federal protection under Title 32 or SAD (such as Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act--technically any Title 32 or SAD soldier can be sued; only state protection will help). The only federal protection applied to any Title 32 soldier, and it doesn't even apply on SAD status, is employment protection. Title 32 and SAD soldiers cannot even exercise command over Title 10 soldiers.

So should Title 32 or SAD soldiers not wear "U.S."? It is the same argument you make.

[JohnKachenmeister]

To argue that CAP is federal and thus should wear "U.S." and the SDF's are state and should not (which I don't really mind) would have to be applied to the National Guard as well. National soldiers can be Title 10, Title 32, or State Active Duty (SAD). Only under Title 10 are they federal. They are not even subject to the UCMJ or receive any federal protection under Title 32 or SAD (such as Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act--technically any Title 32 or SAD soldier can be sued; only state protection will help). The only federal protection applied to any Title 32 soldier, and it doesn't even apply on SAD status, is employment protection. Title 32 and SAD soldiers cannot even exercise command over Title 10 soldiers.

So should Title 32 or SAD soldiers not wear "U.S."? It is the same argument you make.

I think the controlling law is the Militia Act of 1916.  That law provides that:

--  There can be no organized militia other than the National Guard.  The Rough Riders were organized by Teddy Roosevelt in 1898, but would have been illegal by the end of 1916.  Also illegal would have been the Ancient and Honourable Artillery Battery, which was organized by Alexander Hamilton.

--  The control of the National Guard is under the Governor unless called into Federal Service.

--  The Federal government will provide uniforms, weapons, equipment, pay for training to perform the Federal mission, and supplies needed to carry out that Federal training.

--  The states, if they mobilize their Guard units for a riot, insurrection, disaster, or for any other purpose, must pay for the salaries of soldiers and the supplies expended out of their funds.

--  The Natioanl Guard may wear the prescribed Federal uniform and use Federal weapons and equipment on a state mission.

--  The states may, but are not required to, maintain a state militia independent of the Federal National Guard, with such militia to serve as the state's armed forces in the event that the National Guard is called into Federal service.

[mikeylikey]

To argue that CAP is federal and thus should wear "U.S." and the SDF's are state and should not (which I don't really mind) would have to be applied to the National Guard as well. National soldiers can be Title 10, Title 32, or State Active Duty (SAD). Only under Title 10 are they federal. They are not even subject to the UCMJ or receive any federal protection under Title 32 or SAD (such as Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act--technically any Title 32 or SAD soldier can be sued; only state protection will help). The only federal protection applied to any Title 32 soldier, and it doesn't even apply on SAD status, is employment protection. Title 32 and SAD soldiers cannot even exercise command over Title 10 soldiers.

So should Title 32 or SAD soldiers not wear "U.S."? It is the same argument you make.

I think the controlling law is the Militia Act of 1916.  That law provides that:

--  There can be no organized militia other than the National Guard.  The Rough Riders were organized by Teddy Roosevelt in 1898, but would have been illegal by the end of 1916.  Also illegal would have been the Ancient and Honourable Artillery Battery, which was organized by Alexander Hamilton.

--  The control of the National Guard is under the Governor unless called into Federal Service.

--  The Federal government will provide uniforms, weapons, equipment, pay for training to perform the Federal mission, and supplies needed to carry out that Federal training.

--  The states, if they mobilize their Guard units for a riot, insurrection, disaster, or for any other purpose, must pay for the salaries of soldiers and the supplies expended out of their funds.

--  The Natioanl Guard may wear the prescribed Federal uniform and use Federal weapons and equipment on a state mission.

--  The states may, but are not required to, maintain a state militia independent of the Federal National Guard, with such militia to serve as the state's armed forces in the event that the National Guard is called into Federal service.

Never read that, thanks!  Question.....wasnt that artillery battery actaully organized by Henry Knox.......or am I mistaken.  Perhpas he came latter. 

[gallagheria]

That is my whole point, with two exceptions. There are later laws that affect the National Guard and the term "militia." The National Guard Mobilization Act (a part of the National Defense Act of 1933) created both the state National Guard and the National Guard of the United States. This is where the dual enlistments/commissions come into play. Any soldier who joins the National Guard (Title 32) is by law required to join the National Guard of the United States (Title 10).

Also, the State Defense Forces were created under 32 USC 109. These were allowed to be a part of the state militias and be free from activation into the Armed Forces, but as a result they would be ineligible for federal funds. This is so a state's entire National Guard would not be called up and the state would be left without a military.

The Supreme Court ruled in Perpich v. Department of Defense in 1990 that the SDF's actually are subject to federal activation under the Militia Laws, which distinguish the "Armed Forces" from the "militia."

As far as the Federal militia, you are correct as far as what comprises it. Federal law outlines two forms of militia: organized and unorganized. The National Guard comprises the organized militia and citizens or a specific age comprise the unorganized militia. But this is the federal militia, not the state militias as addressed in the Constitution and the Militia Laws and the Perpich case.   

[mikeylikey]

^^  Not to get too far off topic, but......there are some changes going on in the National Guard that would effectivley make some states all Combat Support.  So instead of an infantry some states are left with finance/medical/signal etc.  It is very bad for those states that will be affected. 

[gallagheria]

Well, it is a wake up call to the states. 90% of the NG budget is from Uncle Sam. Yes, there are some current laws and regs that protect some states' interests concerning their NG units, but for the most part, the states gave up their rights when they took the checks.

If the Army is paying for a state's NG unit, then teh Army should be able to do whatever it wants with its toy. If a state wants to foot the bill, then the state should be able to do what it wants. It is pretty simple.

Congress forced the states to merge their National Guard units with the National Guard of the United States (a Title 10 reserve component of the Army) in 1933. As a trade-off, the Federal Government began training and paying for the NG soldiers, for the most part. At the same time, State Defense Forces were created so that states could continue to maintain control of their militias, but they would have to pay 100% of the training and pay. Today, about 50% of the states have SDF units, but most are tiny and not very equipped or trained. Most are retirees or prior-service with some exceptions.

When states decide to fund the Guard unit, they can decide what to do with their Guard units; otherwise I would tell them to shut up.

[DNall]

NGUS right... Though on title 32 status when not called to duty, the guard is effectively a federal military force on loan to the state, who pays a portion of the expense. I really don't know how much the state pays, but I'm under the impression it's more than 10%. I don't know about gear, but I know the guard limits what kind of training they'll send you to cause they have to pay for some of it &  put you on active duty orders, which I guess they pay part of.

[gallagheria]

I would be careful with the phrase: "Though on title 32 status when not called to duty, the guard is effectively a federal military force on loan to the state." On Title 32 status, National Guard soldiers are not subject to the UCMJ, they are under the command of the governor/TAG, they can exercise no command over Title 10 soldiers (federal soldiers), and they are not protected under the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act. The only federal involvement in Title 32 activation is that the federal government is funding the mission through the state (so technically the state is still paying the soldier), and the soldier has job protection with his civilian employer under federal laws. Title 32 soldiers are not even subject to the Posse Comitatus Act, and thus can be used as police forces. Huge difference between Title 32 and Title 10.

[DNall]

We're getting way techincal here.... I'm not talking about State active duty, just practical status. On the whole it's a very technical, complicated, & in some cases gray area, even in dispute btwn fed/state govts at times. The point is NG troops have a status as federal troops & state troops, the federal status takes precedent (plus practicality), so they dress as federal troops.

CAP is likewise a federal force that can at times do work for states, but fed takes precedent & "US" is appropriate.

SDFs on the other hand are exclusively state forces, and even in the most extreme of circumstances the state would take precedent, or they'd be drafted into the NG (or something like PHS) before going over to federal authority.

I don't see where any of this matter though beyond explaining that the "military" status of an SDF is about as meaningful as the "corporate" status of CAP. We both need to get our acts together in a big way. There are important lessons we can learn from them & things they do that we can copy for our federal committment. On the other end, we have a serious mission & resources with which to conduct it. They're taken a bit more seriously on teh individual level, but we have a much more legit mission profile & capability that's got some, albeit not nearly enough, respect.

[gallagheria]

I agree for the most part.

My whole point is that the Air Force regulates the uniform of CAP by far too much. So many agencies use the various military uniforms and there is very little change. I know here in Georgia the only difference between our ACU uniform and the Army ACU uniform is that we wear "Georgia" instead of "U.S. Army." I know DA civilians wear Army uniforms with no changes except a single patch worn. I have given other examples of federal agencies who wear the uniform with no change.

In the end, it really should be the "U.S. Air Force" nametape that is replaced with "U.S. Civil Air Patrol." Otherwise, as I noted, CAP should look at a different uniform altogether, similar to how we did the Corporate.   

[mikeylikey]

I agree for the most part.
I know here in Georgia the only difference between our ACU uniform and the Army ACU uniform is that we wear "Georgia" instead of "U.S. Army." I know DA civilians wear Army uniforms with no changes except a single patch worn. I have given other examples of federal agencies who wear the uniform with no change. 

DA Civilians wear the Army uniform becuase they are technicaly considered part of the military.  Some DA jobs require the employee to be available for overseas duty in war zones whenever.  Hell......before going overseas to Iraq/AFGHAN DA Civ's are required to complete marksmanship and survival training.  In our world now, the enemy does not distinquish between civilians and military. 

[Dragoon]

I agree for the most part.
I know here in Georgia the only difference between our ACU uniform and the Army ACU uniform is that we wear "Georgia" instead of "U.S. Army." I know DA civilians wear Army uniforms with no changes except a single patch worn. I have given other examples of federal agencies who wear the uniform with no change. 

DA Civilians wear the Army uniform becuase they are technicaly considered part of the military.  Some DA jobs require the employee to be available for overseas duty in war zones whenever.  Hell......before going overseas to Iraq/AFGHAN DA Civ's are required to complete marksmanship and survival training.  In our world now, the enemy does not distinquish between civilians and military. 

I think the big difference is that when DA Civilians wear BDUs/ACUs, they aren't wearing any grade, and they have the big patch that identifies them as DA Civilians.  So there really isn't a requirement to regulate beyond that.  Nametape, Army Tape and the Civilian patch are pretty much it.  And since it's incredibly clear that they are DA Civilians, there's no reason to worry about stuff like beards and weight.

Now if CAP decided to go that route (no grade and a big CAP identifier, and little else), I'm sure USAF would let us all wear their suits all the time.   But since that's not how we do things....

[gallagheria]

The big CAP identifier you ask for is called the nametape that reads "U.S. Civil Air Patrol." Grade has nothing to do with it because even civilians who are commissioned in the PHS and NOAA wear military uniforms with military rank.

[ddelaney103]

The big CAP identifier you ask for is called the nametape that reads "U.S. Civil Air Patrol." Grade has nothing to do with it because even civilians who are commissioned in the PHS and NOAA wear military uniforms with military rank.

That's because they're an official US Uniformed Service, as opposed to an Armed Service.  Federal recognition, don't ya know.

We can't say "you're not the boss of me for uniforms" at the same time we're saying "give us lots of money."  OK, well you can, but it would be stupid.

I suspect they'd be happier about everyone wearing the AF uniform if we went to Auxilarist insignia instead of commissioned grade insignia.  I'd be happy to pop mine off.

[gallagheria]

Once again, the argument holds no ground. My whole point is that we receive federal money and are regulated by the federal government. The Air Force refuses to allow us to wear a uniform without severe restrictions while at the same time other agencies of the federal government wear military uniforms with no restrictions, other than a simple designation on it reading what they are--hence "U.S. Civil Air Patrol."

What is the logic of a federal agency, two in this case, wearing uniforms who by law have little to do with the military, while at the same time restricting the CAP who actually are underneath the umbrella of the military as an auxiliary and even in part as a federally chartered corporation?

[Sgt. Savage]

You may be answering your own question. "What is the logic of a federal agency, two in this case, wearing uniforms who by law have little to do with the military, while at the same time restricting the CAP who actually are underneath the umbrella of the military as an auxiliary and even in part as a federally chartered corporation?"

We are restricted because of our affiliation. You can bet that if the Air Force could restrict the wear of the uniform by other organizations, they would.

In short, they do it because they can. Much like they can make me wear dress blue stripes, which look like dog A$$, on my BDU's. It's almost like they want to see how messed up they can make us look.

(walking away mumbling under my breath)

[Dragoon]

The big CAP identifier you ask for is called the nametape that reads "U.S. Civil Air Patrol." Grade has nothing to do with it because even civilians who are commissioned in the PHS and NOAA wear military uniforms with military rank.

Ahh, but DA civilians supporting the Army DON'T wear military rank.  In Iraq I could tell a DA civilian from a soldier a mile away - no rank on the collar, hat, or front of the shirt/flack vest, no unit patch, and the DA Civilian identifier.  No confusion.  If the civilian had captain's bars and a unit patch it would have been very confusing.

Reference PHS and NOAA, I'm not sure they are a valid comparison to CAP.  They are commissioned.  We aren't.  The aren't helping out a parent service like we are. - they ARE the parent service. 

Effectively, CAP are civilians supporting USAF.  Which makes us a lot closer, identitywise, to DA Civilians than to members of the PHS or NOAA commissioned corps.    It doesn't surprise me that they want to make it abundantly clear from a distance that our officers aren't the same as their officers.

Now if we just had a big 'ol USAF Auxiliary tag and nothing else on the uniforms, they'd probably let us put big 'ol bearded guys into them.  But just the utilities - because there'd be no real reason to give us service uniforms when paid USAF civilians just wear suits. 

Sgt Savage said it best - their money, their rules.  Or as a friend of mine likes to put it "You take the King's shilling, you do the King's business".




As an aside, it was explained to me by both PHS and NOAA folks,  the major practical reason for keeping the PHS and NOAA commissioned folks is that they can be ordered to deploy wherever they are needed.  The civilians in those organizations can't be moved unless they want do, just like other government civilians.

[JohnKachenmeister]

OK, guys, this MIGHT run a little long, but it illustrates a point:

Here in FL we are agmenting the 45th Space Wing by providing tour guides for the USAF Space Museum on Cape Canaveral AF Station.  The base is restricted, and every tour has to be guided, so to allow any visitation of the historic launch sites, they need escorts.  Rather than task an overburdened PA shop, they turned to us. 

The AF asked us to provide the tours in THEIR uniform of the day... Flight suit or BDU's.  No blues, unless that's the only uniform you got.  Flyers should be in flight suits.

Well, the program ALMOST got cancelled.

I was working it once a week, and since I'm retired, I work during the week, saving the weekend days for guys with jobs.  That put me in contact with a lot of AF folk, officers and NCO's.  Suddenly, we weren't welcome anymore.  I thought I screwed the pooch with one of the jokes I made abut both John Glenn and some of the space monkey-nauts running for political office, but no, that was not the case.

When the CAP officer in charge talked to the 45th's XO, he was informed that there was  "An old major working the program with an outdated uniform, and if he can't keep up on the current regulation, he shouldn't be there."  After a "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot" moment, our guy asked for an explantion.

Well, apparently the 45th was upset that I was STILL wearing bright rank insignia encased in plastic, something that hasn't been done since the Vietnam War...and what's with the leather name tag? 

Now remember, the 45th Space Wing is part of the REAL Air Force, not the Air University.  The impression I got is that the RAF (Real Air Force) wants CAP as full partners, and wants to go back to the days when CAP officers were indistinguishable from AF officers unless you knew all the secret codes contained in the insignia.  The XO of the 45th was laboring under the misconception that whenever the AF changed a uniform regulation that ours changed automatically as well.

We got this issue straightened out, and were back in their good graces.  But my point is the AF want us to look like them.

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

[BillB]

John is 100% correct on CAP uniforms not following totally the USAF uniform. I got into a conversation with an AF O-6 at MacDill AFB in the consolidated mess hall about 2 years ago. He was curious about the grey shoulder slides. he said he thought that CAP was supposed to wear the USAF uniform. I explained that CAP or USAF made the decision that CAP should have different destinctive insignia. He said if CAP was the Auxiliary of the USAF we should wear the USAF uniform with correct/current insignia.
About that time a cadet walked into the mess hall in BDUs and the Colonel asked why CAP was still wearing the blue tapes when the air force switched to subdued background tapes years ago. For this I had no answer as I've heard so many versions I didn't know what was correct.
When you add the CAP members wearing the USAF uniform and not meeting the USAF standards (I'm not talking of weight, but rather sloppy uniforms) it's no wonder the Air Force looks down on CAP. CAP can't even enforce it's own regulations.

[RiverAux]

Kach illustrates a great point -- the guys on the ground getting CAP help probably couldn't care less whether the CAP guy is 50 lbs overweight or has a grizzly adams beard if it gets them out of doing a bunch of work. 

The AF officer or NCO that is walking by that has no clue who we are or what we're doing is probably the one complaining about how we look in "AF-style" uniforms. 

The more we work with the AF the more likely a lot of the silly differences we have now will disappear. 

[mikeylikey]

John is 100% correct on CAP uniforms not following totally the USAF uniform. I got into a conversation with an AF O-6 at MacDill AFB in the consolidated mess hall about 2 years ago. He was curious about the grey shoulder slides. he said he thought that CAP was supposed to wear the USAF uniform. I explained that CAP or USAF made the decision that CAP should have different destinctive insignia. He said if CAP was the Auxiliary of the USAF we should wear the USAF uniform with correct/current insignia.
About that time a cadet walked into the mess hall in BDUs and the Colonel asked why CAP was still wearing the blue tapes when the air force switched to subdued background tapes years ago. For this I had no answer as I've heard so many versions I didn't know what was correct.
When you add the CAP members wearing the USAF uniform and not meeting the USAF standards (I'm not talking of weight, but rather sloppy uniforms) it's no wonder the Air Force looks down on CAP. CAP can't even enforce it's own regulations.

Yes....but, it't the AF that wants us in our silly ugly uniforms!

[JohnKachenmeister]

John is 100% correct on CAP uniforms not following totally the USAF uniform. I got into a conversation with an AF O-6 at MacDill AFB in the consolidated mess hall about 2 years ago. He was curious about the grey shoulder slides. he said he thought that CAP was supposed to wear the USAF uniform. I explained that CAP or USAF made the decision that CAP should have different destinctive insignia. He said if CAP was the Auxiliary of the USAF we should wear the USAF uniform with correct/current insignia.
About that time a cadet walked into the mess hall in BDUs and the Colonel asked why CAP was still wearing the blue tapes when the air force switched to subdued background tapes years ago. For this I had no answer as I've heard so many versions I didn't know what was correct.
When you add the CAP members wearing the USAF uniform and not meeting the USAF standards (I'm not talking of weight, but rather sloppy uniforms) it's no wonder the Air Force looks down on CAP. CAP can't even enforce it's own regulations.

Yes....but, it't the AF that wants us in our silly ugly uniforms!

My point is, Mikey, that the USAF is not a monolithic agency, with everybody instanly connected with specal decoder rings.  The 45th concerns itself with launching military sattelites and managing the Eastern Test Range, not our uniforms.  When they find out the AF has an Auxiliary, they want to use us.  Then we show up... in correct uniform as determined by the AF Uniform Board... but different enough that the guys in real units wonder what PX we've been shopping at.

My age factored into this, a little.  Since CAP and the AF niform board have not changed certain aspects of our uniform since Vietnam, the assumption was that I had not changed my flight suit since Vietnam.

(Little did they know-- I wore a sailor suit in Vietnam, anyway!)

[Hawk200]

(Little did they know-- I wore a sailor suit in Vietnam, anyway!)

Really? Were you the one who modeled for the Cracker Jack box?    :angel:

[SAR-EMT1]

Glad to hear the program is back on track.

[JohnKachenmeister]

(Little did they know-- I wore a sailor suit in Vietnam, anyway!)

Really? Were you the one who modeled for the Cracker Jack box?    :angel:

No, that was my gay brother, Lance.

[NAYBOR]

OK, here we go again...

What do you guys think of have insignia like these for us on both the TPU AND AF service dress coat?

1st image:



Maybe 'CAP' a little bigger:



What do y'all think?

We could transition to this insignia, and wear the grey three line name tag on the service dress coat, to be distguishable.  We would then wear metal rank on the epaulets of the TPU and AF service coat.

[LtCol White]

OK, here we go again...

What do you guys think of have insignia like these for us on both the TPU AND AF service dress coat?

1st image:



Maybe 'CAP' a little bigger:



What do y'all think?

We could transition to this insignia, and wear the grey three line name tag on the service dress coat, to be distguishable.  We would then wear metal rank on the epaulets of the TPU and AF service coat.

Nah, don't think USAF will go for this. Good effort but not keen on the insignia. Don't think we'll ever see metal rank again on the AF Coat. A viable option would be to have the blue epaulet on the AF coat with CAP embroidered on it with the same eps on the shirt. Nametag could be the blue plastic on the shirt and coat to distinguish.

[SarDragon]

Sorry - ugly. The black text would be indistinguishable when viewed at regular size, and it makes the metal letters less readable.

[RiverAux]

Ugly, ugly.

[MIKE]

A viable option would be to have the blue epaulet on the AF coat with CAP embroidered on it with the same eps on the shirt.

I'm sorry but that is a dumb idea.  If metal insignia can't be made distinctive enough... Then dark blue epaulet sleeves on a dark blue coat aren't either and it's a waste of time and money.

If we had to, I'd ditch the U.S. for CAP... but then again, I'd ditch CAP in favor of United States Air Force Volunteer Reserve Auxiliary.

[LtCol White]

Properly presented, I think this might be acceptable to USAF for the AF Uniform. As you can see, it is very distinct from the metal rank. The same could be done on the TPU Coat as well.

[mikeylikey]

^^ Not bad!  I like the second one.  How nice that would be to move back to that!  If that is not acceptable to the AF......how about that PLUS the new TPU nametag PLUS CAP on the collar. 

[LtCol White]

^^ Not bad!  I like the second one.  How nice that would be to move back to that!  If that is not acceptable to the AF......how about that PLUS the new TPU nametag PLUS CAP on the collar. 

I think that most would be willing to give up US on the collar for CAP if we could have the blue eps on the service coat. It could also be worn with the blue nametag instead of the metal one. The TPU coat could be set up exactly the same and the same eps could be worn on both shirts as well. THis would create more similarity between the 2 uniforms so that the connection was clear and the main difference would be the size of the individual wearing each version.

All we need now is to find a way to get NHQ to consider this and propose it to USAF. Hopefully one of the NHQ folks that read here will pick it up and run with it.

[Chaplaindon]

Keep it simple ... ditch the myriad of USAF-like and civilian "outfits" and go, instead, to a military-esque CORPORATE uniform (my preference a retro-1505 look) with a CORPORATE service (dress) overblouse with "USCAP" on the lapels (in lieu of either "US" or "CAP"). If "USCAP" isn't acceptable for lapel wear, then use "USA."

Keep it simple and avoid all the needless wrangling.

[BillB]

Chaplain Don....If you ditched the USAF style uniforms, you would lose a VERY large percentage of Cadets. The problem is not with the USAF style uniform, but the multitude of civilian/corporate style uniforms. Add to that the members that don't meet height/weight or facial hair standards with various restrictions on who can wear what style corporate buniform and you have 14 possible approved uniform combinations. Add in USAF style blues or BDUs and you could have a squadron meeting where no two people were in the same uniform.

[ddelaney103]

Chaplain Don....If you ditched the USAF style uniforms, you would lose a VERY large percentage of Cadets. The problem is not with the USAF style uniform, but the multitude of civilian/corporate style uniforms. Add to that the members that don't meet height/weight or facial hair standards with various restrictions on who can wear what style corporate buniform and you have 14 possible approved uniform combinations. Add in USAF style blues or BDUs and you could have a squadron meeting where no two people were in the same uniform.

No one is discussing changing the Cadet uniform - they have to follow grooming and don't have a weight standard (below 18).  The AF seems happy and we don't need to rock the boat.

For Officers, we (IMHO) need to come up with a combination of uniforms and standards that will increase uniformity w/o a loss of operational capabilities through departures.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Personally, my solution would be MUCH simpler. 

Let's get CAP out of the fashionista business.

Work out a deal with the USAF that they add a chapter to THEIR Air Force Instruction titled:  "Special Insignia and Provisions for Civil Air Patrol."

They decide what they want us to wear.  Then everybody in the USAF will know what to expect and we won't have to spin our wheels second guessing what Big Mother Blue wants.

Have some CAP input, but its the AF uniform, so let the AF decide.

I'd be willing to bet that we would end up with:

1.  The current gray slides on everything.

2.  Use the CAP badge from the mess dress as an identification badge for CAP on everything, and ...

3.  LEAVE THE REST ALONE.  The AF uniform is good enough for them, its good enough for us.

Look slim, shave your beards, and shine your shoes.

[DKruse]

Why is anybody advocating more uniform changes?  It's bad enough the numerous changes we've received from NHQ without the general membership proposing more changes.  It seems that every time I've received an order from Vanguard in the last 18 months, a new change comes out that nullifies half my order.

I know the choices we have now are numerous and not perfect.  But, PLEASE, let's allow things to settle down for awhile.

[ColonelJack]

STX ... your signature line ...

"You had Gloria's gum, then operated on her face" ... right?



Jack

[DKruse]

Jack,

It's a motto that originated with and was personified by my original squadron commander, a wise Swede.

"To hell with the glory.  Let's get the job done."

[ColonelJack]

Very inspirational, and very much true to the CAP philosophy.

But my translation was funnier.   

Jack

[Eagle400]

Kach illustrates a great point -- the guys on the ground getting CAP help probably couldn't care less whether the CAP guy is 50 lbs overweight or has a grizzly adams beard if it gets them out of doing a bunch of work.

Unless perhaps if that person is an agency liaison for a SAR agency working with CAP, and will only take CAP members on a SAR mission who are physically fit due to hazards and such.  I've never seen or heard of this happening but that doesn't mean it can't happen/hasn't happened.     

The AF officer or NCO that is walking by that has no clue who we are or what we're doing is probably the one complaining about how we look in "AF-style" uniforms. 

The more we work with the AF the more likely a lot of the silly differences we have now will disappear. 

Definitely.  Perhaps CAP will one day have a relationship to the Air Force like the one the Coast Guard Auxiliary has with the Coast Guard.  I don't see this happening without a lot of reform to how the organization is run and overseen, however.  I don't think correctly running the program that currently exists will put CAP any closer to the Air Force.     

[arajca]

[

The AF officer or NCO that is walking by that has no clue who we are or what we're doing is probably the one complaining about how we look in "AF-style" uniforms. 

The more we work with the AF the more likely a lot of the silly differences we have now will disappear. 

Definitely.  Perhaps CAP will one day have a relationship to the Air Force like the one the Coast Guard Auxiliary has with the Coast Guard.  I don't see this happening without a lot of reform to how the organization is run and overseen, however.  I don't think correctly running the program that currently exists will put CAP any closer to the Air Force.     

How about by showing we can follow instructions and regs, regardless of we personally feel about them?