Zip up boots??

[AirAux]

Does anyone know where to find instructions on how to properly lace the zip up inserts into jungle boots?  I would appreciate the help.  Thanks

[md132]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't zip-up inserts or boots with zippers unauthorized.  I think I remeber seeing it somewhere but don't remember.

[AlphaSigOU]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't zip-up inserts or boots with zippers unauthorized.  I think I remeber seeing it somewhere but don't remember.

Quoth CAPM 39-1:

Black, with or without safety toe, plain rounded toe or rounded capped
toe with or without perforated seam. Zipper or elastic inserts optional,
smooth or scotch-grained leather or man-made material, and may have a
high gloss or patent finish.

[es_g0d]

On occasion, they're banned for cadets attending encampment because they're "too easy."  That's from when "speed laces" weren't so in vogue.  Other than they don't look terribly attractive (to me), they've been made moot by the newer technology in boots.  (moot boots...)

[Gunner C]

If memory serves, you have to get zippers specifically for jungle boots - they have a different number of eyelets vice leather boots.

[O-Rex]

Like many, I tried them years ago and abandoned it.

The only boots with which zippers work are the USAF winter flight boots, which are made for use with zipper inserts.

Like someone previously mentioned, speedlace plus those little plastic cord-locks makes donning boots a breeze.

[A.Member]

On occasion, they're banned for cadets attending encampment because they're "too easy."  That's from when "speed laces" weren't so in vogue.  Other than they don't look terribly attractive (to me), they've been made moot by the newer technology in boots.  (moot boots...)

If the regs authorize them, an encampment cannot ban them.

[Pylon]

On occasion, they're banned for cadets attending encampment because they're "too easy."  That's from when "speed laces" weren't so in vogue.  Other than they don't look terribly attractive (to me), they've been made moot by the newer technology in boots.  (moot boots...)

If the regs authorize them, an encampment cannot ban them.

Sure they can.  For example, regs authorize ties and flight suits, but the local commander has the authority to set the uniform of the day and say "no ties" or "no flight suits" at the unit or activities he or she controls.

[A.Member]

On occasion, they're banned for cadets attending encampment because they're "too easy."  That's from when "speed laces" weren't so in vogue.  Other than they don't look terribly attractive (to me), they've been made moot by the newer technology in boots.  (moot boots...)

If the regs authorize them, an encampment cannot ban them.

Sure they can.  For example, regs authorize ties and flight suits, but the local commander has the authority to set the uniform of the day and say "no ties" or "no flight suits" at the unit or activities he or she controls.

Hmmm.  I disagree on that one.  This is a bit different than setting the UoD.  In the example you use, while the uniform is defined, specific uniform items are not allowed or disallowed.  The short sleeve uniform is an authorized uniform. 

While the commander can state the expected UoD, he cannot disallow an authorized uniform or uniform item.   For example, the commander cannot authorize service dress (with coat) to be worn without a tie as that combination is not authorized by the regs.  Or perhaps a better example is that he also cannot state only Corcoran boots be worn and not Bates when any black boot is authorized.  That's really whats going on here.   

You can be more restrictive than the regs but you cannot contradict or supercede them.

[EMT-83]

^ I think that the same goes for "snakes" or laces being tucked into boots.

I'm still waiting for someone to show me a regulation.

[A.Member]

^ I think that the same goes for "snakes" or laces being tucked into boots.

I'm still waiting for someone to show me a regulation.

That's been a recent pet peeve of ours since it was brought to our attention several months ago.  Although our issue wasn't with boots but rather tennis shoes for PT. 

IMO, it's much more gray than the previous examples but there is no question that such a requirement is non-existent in the national regs.  However, it is conceivable that a more restrictive local reg could be put in place in this instance (although, like you, I have yet to actually see one).  In this case it doesn't directly contradict something that was explicitly authorized.

[Nathan]

^ I think that the same goes for "snakes" or laces being tucked into boots.

I'm still waiting for someone to show me a regulation.

I've always seen it as a professional issue and, on occasion, a safety issue. A lot of encampment/barrack/military facilities tend to have the hard concrete or tile floors, and it doesn't take much to lose your footing. I've done seen it happen.

But at the end of the day, we really do have an obligation to wear the uniform as professionally as possible, and there are few ways of having ANY sort of stringy, dangling things hanging off your uniform and for it to still look as professional as if they weren't there. This goes with threads coming off buttons, slack stitching on patches, and boot laces.

It's not like it takes anything more than four seconds to tuck in boot laces.

[A.Member]

^ I think that the same goes for "snakes" or laces being tucked into boots.

I'm still waiting for someone to show me a regulation.

I've always seen it as a professional issue and, on occasion, a safety issue. A lot of encampment/barrack/military facilities tend to have the hard concrete or tile floors, and it doesn't take much to lose your footing. I've done seen it happen.

But at the end of the day, we really do have an obligation to wear the uniform as professionally as possible, and there are few ways of having ANY sort of stringy, dangling things hanging off your uniform and for it to still look as professional as if they weren't there. This goes with threads coming off buttons, slack stitching on patches, and boot laces.

It's not like it takes anything more than four seconds to tuck in boot laces.

I buy the argument on appearance but the safety issue argument is a stretch at best. 

Every day tens of millions of people walk around with their laces untucked without incident. 

[Nathan]

I buy the argument on appearance but the safety issue argument is a stretch at best.

Well, I'm thinking safety the same way that CAP thinks safety whenever the cadet program is involved. Cadets who might get the laces wrapped around their chair legs is a safety issue. Cadets marching and possibly stepping on the person's laces in front of them is certainly a safety issue. Cadets tromping around in the woods dragging the forest behind them in their laces is a safety issue.

But maybe I'm just thinking of the type of boots I have, which is essentially a single, loop lace which is pulled tight and wrapped around, rather than tied.

Is it a stretch? Sure. But when it comes to the cadet program, CAP doesn't take any prisoners, so as far as CAP is concerned, I think that the safety argument is valid enough.

[Pumbaa]

Well CAP should mandate Velcro straps instead of laces then!

For the love of god, are we going to try and be a nanny for everything? I've been wearing lace shoes/ boots for the better part of 45+ years.. I think I might have fallen once due to laces in that time... and that's a 'might'.  give the cadets some credit.. otherwise, take a look and if someones laces are not tucked/ tied/ etc, then TELL them!  Case closed!

Life happens!

I have Bates boots with side zippers.. I like them.. I got them because of comfort, support and safety.  and also ease of getting in and out of because of limited flexibility in my back and legs.

They are regulation... If I go to encampment/ etc and they say I cannot wear them, well then I will not go...  I for one will not spend another $80 for someones whim.

I understand that it is Come And Pay or Cash and Plastic.. but enough is enough!

[heliodoc]

For CAP's sake

A black pair of boots IS a black pair of boots.  Until Come and Pay starts getting its act together with 39-1 on other issues.  The passage does not specify one over the other

Who pays this much attention to this?  Is CAP ready for the desert color boots?? NOT

I wear em every day but not CAP.  CAP in the last 25 years has not gotten any more practical with its uniform combinations.  UNTIL CAP starts ISSUING ALL uniform items especially LPC's, then tough stuff about zipper vs laces

CAP........always trying to set a new uniform standard

Ever buy a pair of 350.00 pair of Whites    Until you have ...BE  VERY VERY happy you are wearing EITHER zippers or laces

Maybe I will start wearing those to CAP meetings with my BDU's .....see or hear the bellerin' then!!!

[ol'fido]

Once again a simple question about boots has devolved into a 39-1 minutae argument. To answer the original question, you'll just have to get the lace holes in the boots and the lace holes in the zippers lined up. Make sure the holes start lining up at the top and begin the slow difficult process. But, let me tell you this. I got those things along time ago because it took me so long to lace my boots. But trying to get them lined up and then zip them up was more trouble than it's worth. After a while, you'll find that you can lace your boots up pretty quick plus the zip in the laces can get real uncomfortable if you have to wlk a ways.

[afgeo4]

On occasion, they're banned for cadets attending encampment because they're "too easy."  That's from when "speed laces" weren't so in vogue.  Other than they don't look terribly attractive (to me), they've been made moot by the newer technology in boots.  (moot boots...)

If the regs authorize them, an encampment cannot ban them.

Sure they can.  For example, regs authorize ties and flight suits, but the local commander has the authority to set the uniform of the day and say "no ties" or "no flight suits" at the unit or activities he or she controls.

Negative. The commander may prescribe a Uniform of the Day and it shall be an authorized CAP uniform appropriate for the activity and it shall be worn as per CAPR 39-1. However, the commander may NOT "de-authorize" something that has already been decided upon by his higher ups. Now... sometimes items are classified as commander's choice and then the CC gets to decide, but otherwise... someone MUCH higher up the food chain has made a decision to allow ALL MEMBERS (as regs apply to ALL MEMBERS) to wear uniform items, so it's not up to squadron/group/wing/region commanders to supercede their superiors' orders.

For example:

The commander decides that the appropriate uniform is the service short sleeve uniform without tie. That is an authorized uniform as per 39-1. The commander is in full authority to prescribe such a uniform. It is not the same as the service dress uniform without service coat, long sleeves and tie. Separate uniforms here. The commander has NO authority to prescribe the wear of a service dress uniform and instruct that people do not wear ties with it. Can't do. Defies 39-1.

Another example: The commander prescribes that a corporate polo uniform be worn for a flying activity. However, regulations state that ANY CAP uniform can be worn for flying activities. As such, a commander may suggest that a polo combination be worn, but cannot instruct such. A member has full authority from NHQ to wear a flightsuit or any other uniform that has been authorized for flying activities. No administrative action can be brought against the member for wearing an authorized uniform for an activity.

That's one of the reasons why the NYWG encampment no longer restricts in-flight cadets to just brown t-shirts with BDUs. Both brown and black t-shirts are authorized by the National Commander through CAPR 39-1 and her decisions cannot simply be overwritten or ignored by lower echelon commanders.

SO... yes, zippers on boots that meet CAPR 39-1 are completely authorized as per the above quoted reg.

[Hawk200]

That's one of the reasons why the NYWG encampment no longer restricts in-flight cadets to just brown t-shirts with BDUs. Both brown and black t-shirts are authorized by the National Commander through CAPR 39-1 and her decisions cannot simply be overwritten or ignored by lower echelon commanders.

Now, if we could get the cadet mafia over the myth that only cadet staff is authorized the wear of black t-shirts. Would be nice to not have to fight with them over it.