Summer 2011 National Board Agenda

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

CSU was a way to add a set of uniforms that did NOT need to be added as we already had a CAP Distinctive equivalent to the AF Style blues.

Um, no.

I do not see how the CSU can realistically be equated to the G/W and especially the bloody awful blazer/pocket protector.

I have not yet met anyone in CAP who actually likes the G/W as a uniform - usually I hear the following reasons as to why a member wears it:

1. I have to since I can't wear the AF uniform (weight/grooming)
2. It's cheap (probably the most common)
3. It's easy to take care of (just throw it in the wash)
4. No-one will come down on me if a badge/gigline/whatever isn't "just so"
5. I don't have to do customs & courtesies
6. It won't get me/us in trouble with the Air Force
7. Well, I've got to have it as at least a basic uniform

Hardly ringing endorsements, I would say.

If you go back and look the supplements to 39-1 about the CSU, several of them acknowledge its popularity and that more members were wearing it.  It was actually a uniform.  The G/W isn't "uniform" in most senses of the word.

[Tim Medeiros]

CSU was a way to add a set of uniforms that did NOT need to be added as we already had a CAP Distinctive equivalent to the AF Style blues.

I do not see how the CSU can realistically be equated to the G/W and especially the bloody awful blazer/pocket protector.

It CAN be realistically equated, the CSU and Aviator/Blazer uniform, they are both CAP Distinctive Uniforms.  One, the Aviator/Blazer, served its purpose, as a CAP Distinctive Uniform for many years.  The CSU merely duplicated that effort at a LARGE cost to the membership (especially the jacket).


Whether one likes the uniform or not is not the issue, heck just read comments about the ABUs or even the blues from those currently in the AF, many hate the uniform combinations we currently have.  However they serve their purpose.


As for it looking "bloody awful", I chalk that up to the wearer, if they have pride in how they look they will make it look good.  Nothing says you can't tailor the shirt a little, nothing says you can't get the CAP Crest as a separate pin instead of using the magnetic "pocket protector" (this is what I use), and NOWHERE does it say you don't have to use customs & courtesies.  It is the little things that help you take pride in the uniform and make it look sharp.  If SM Bag-o-doughnuts is saying "well I can get away with not keeping my gigline straight because I'm wearing the Aviator uniform" then they are going to look like fecal matter along with showing they don't have pride in how they look.


The only thing not uniform about the Aviator Shirt Uniform is the style/shade of the pants, however at one point that issue was solved because CAPMart/Bookstore had sold the pants, and if I recall a blazer too.


Just a note, I've been known to wear the Aviator shirt uniform and Blazer, even with being within weight standards, simply because I like the uniform.  Do I make it look like I just rolled out of bed with it on? No, I hold it to the same maintenance and care standard as I would my blues.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

You are the first person I've encountered who actually says they LIKE the G/W.

Seriously.

[Eclipse]

It CAN be realistically equated, the CSU and Aviator/Blazer uniform, they are both CAP Distinctive Uniforms.  One, the Aviator/Blazer, served its purpose, as a CAP Distinctive Uniform for many years.  The CSU merely duplicated that effort at a LARGE cost to the membership (especially the jacket).

"Equated" and "equivalent" do not mean the same thing.  "Equated" is generally an equivocation.

Just a note, I've been known to wear the Aviator shirt uniform and Blazer, even with being within weight standards, simply because I like the uniform.  Do I make it look like I just rolled out of bed with it on? No, I hold it to the same maintenance and care standard as I would my blues.

Oh course you do, because you take pride in your appearance, but that's not the point here.
The fact that you have a choice is the point. 
For those who, for whatever, reason choose to downplay the paramilitary nature of CAP and out connection to the USAF, those who "couldn't be bothered", regardless, and for the cases where a more corporate appearance is either appropriate or necessary, the blazer is fine.

But supposing the blazer is equivalent to the CSU jacket or the USAF-style service coat is a silly argument.  We all know they aren't the same thing, and if you're going to be a paramilitary organization, and present paramilitary decorations and badges, why would you then prohibit a large portion of your membership from wearing those same decs and badges formally, and in equal stead with their peers?

Not to mention or appearance in relation to our USAF brethren. 

"Who's that?  The line judge?"
"Um..no, that's the commmander..."
"Really, hm."

That's the crux of the argument.

[ZigZag911]

I've become used to the G/W; at least it allows one to wear grade insignia, a badge, some ribbons.

The blazer, however, makes us look like business people...nothing against entrepreneurs, but that's not our function!

[RADIOMAN015]

On all these uniform discussions.  I may have missed something (those minutes have a lot of changes on the composition of the Uniform Board) but basically hasn't ANY uniform changes been put on hold for 2 years

Unfortunately, with any of these Boards or Committee, they always have to change something (otherwise they all would think they are wasting their time).  Hopefully there will be NO mandatory uniform changes for at least 3 to 4 years or longer.

RM 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

On all these uniform discussions.  I may have missed something (those minutes have a lot of changes on the composition of the Uniform Board) but basically hasn't ANY uniform changes been put on hold for 2 years

Unfortunately, with any of these Boards or Committee, they always have to change something (otherwise they all would think they are wasting their time).  Hopefully there will be NO mandatory uniform changes for at least 3 to 4 years or longer.

RM

That will partially work to your purposes, and partially not.

First, it will ensure that those who cannot/do not wear the AF uniform are SOL as far as having a truly aviation-styled uniform to wear for at least the period of that moratorium.

Second...it means that you cannot push your agenda for Salvation Army-modelled accoutrements for at least the period of that moratorium.

[RADIOMAN015]

On all these uniform discussions.  I may have missed something (those minutes have a lot of changes on the composition of the Uniform Board) but basically hasn't ANY uniform changes been put on hold for 2 years

Unfortunately, with any of these Boards or Committee, they always have to change something (otherwise they all would think they are wasting their time).  Hopefully there will be NO mandatory uniform changes for at least 3 to 4 years or longer.

RM

That will partially work to your purposes, and partially not.

First, it will ensure that those who cannot/do not wear the AF uniform are SOL as far as having a truly aviation-styled uniform to wear for at least the period of that moratorium.

Second...it means that you cannot push your agenda for Salvation Army-modelled accoutrements for at least the period of that moratorium.

I think CAP has got much more organizational problems, and will have even more problems with the upcoming revised DOD budget. due to cuts being imposed due to the deficit, to be even considering any major changes to our uniforms.  Everything is working fine the way it is, except for a small vocal minority. 
Uniforms are not a burning issue for me, I will continue to wear my various type of golf shirts to most CAP activities :angel:
RM
RM

[Eclipse]

I think CAP has got much more organizational problems, and will have even more problems with the upcoming revised DOD budget. due to cuts being imposed due to the deficit,

Cite the specific cuts which affect CAP.

Regardless, budget buts have no effect on efforts to streamline, correct, and deconflict regulations, nor on uniform issues, since CAP doesn't pay for them.

[RADIOMAN015]

I think CAP has got much more organizational problems, and will have even more problems with the upcoming revised DOD budget. due to cuts being imposed due to the deficit,

Cite the specific cuts which affect CAP.

Regardless, budget buts have no effect on efforts to streamline, correct, and deconflict regulations, nor on uniform issues, since CAP doesn't pay for them.

Ok I'll cave in on getting all the administrative mumbo jumbo in a more effective & efficient form, it would be nice to just look at a publication and not have to look at policy letters, etc.

HOWEVER, we are going to see a budget cut in support to CAP.  It's going to be DOD wide.  Here's how I see it -- It's unclear how much in FY 12 will be affected, but likely anything involving hardware acquisition, that doesn't have a firm contract signed is going to get deferred/cancelled.  Likely they are going to look at the overall O&M expense/commitment level at mid point (March 2012).  There are some specific expenses that likely will have a ceiling imposed or even eliminated.  End of fiscal year "fallout" money may actually be expected to be returned to treasury rather than spent.   FY 13/14/15 and beyone will see much more Operations & Maintenance type funding cuts, likely they will look at reducing total aircraft authorizations (likely C130's, KC135's, C5's, F16's, F15's) and thus the number of flying squadrons and base will be affected.  Look for an almost total pull out of military forces from Europe.  I would also look for a personnel reduction in force both officer and enlisted, as well as civilians.  There also is going to be an ongoing review of any military leased facilities, and contracts coming up for renewal will have organizations looking to move onto military bases, so it is possible that CAP's footprint on a base (square footage available for offices) might be reduced, so other active units can move on base.   Retirees/dependents/survivors will be paying more for their health care.

Civil Air Patrol, needs to at the top of their game at all times.  IF it's radio equipment, better be having at least quarterly nationwide exercises.  IF it's aircraft, be sure we are maxing out the time and that time is for actual missions, practice missions, and reasonable proficiency flying --- we've got to get out an market ourselves to other potential customers.  IF it's vehicles, they are being used and not just parked.  It's going to be difficult, because more people are going to loose their jobs and/or get reduced benefits, so they may have to pull back on their participation level or perhaps not even renew their membership.
RM       

[flyboy53]

OK, so there's going to be a DoD budget cut. The impact may be that CAP is asked to do more wih less. It could be a chance for our organization to shine and set the standard for higher funding in the future; especially if it is possible for a re-writing of the law that started the Aux On/Aux Off nonsense.

It could be a real opportunity to be the force multiplier that everyone talks about, but you never really see.

The problem with this organization now is that we've created empires at NHQ and at other echelons of command where the dues keep growing to pay for a lot of things the individual member never sees. It is also the fact that and deals are made with things like Vanguard, which brings in a small percentage of revenue for the corporation, but again on the backs again of the individual members.

You may even see a return to flying missions with private aircraft......wouldn't that be something.....

[Al Sayre]

Having spent some time dealing wiith the vagaries of the DOD funding system, I can tell you that:  If you shine by doing more with less; you will get a nice thank you, maybe an award, and also a slashed budget allotment, since you didn't spend it all and ask for more...

[Spaceman3750]

Having spent some time dealing wiith the vagaries of the DOD funding system, I can tell you that:  If you shine by doing more with less; you will get a nice thank you, maybe an award, and also a slashed budget allotment, since you didn't spend it all and ask for more...

The logic being if you didn't use it all you didn't need it so we slash your budget to what you did need and we'll put the rest somewhere else. Saving money and cutting costs is admirable but when you consider it in the bigger picture it only causes others to realize that you don't need that extra money and reallocate it to someone more willing to spend it. Therefore, the only person you're serving by cutting costs unless your budget has already been cut is the guy getting your excess cash.

That's not exclusive to the DoD - it happens everywhere in the government and probably in corporations as well.

[flyboy53]

The Air Force budget rule that I remember was that if you didn't use it, you'd lose it.

However, I was speaking Air Force-wide, not the CAP or related line item.

The thing is, back in the 1970s when DoD spending was slashed under the Carter Administration, CAP ended up doing more because the Air Force couldn't fund it's own forces doing the same stuff....that's my experience with this situation.

I guess, just like the rest of the federal fiscal situation, we need to sit back and watch because the decisions are being made by powers that be that are higher than my CAP paygrade 

[JC004]

...
The thing is, back in the 1970s when DoD spending was slashed under the Carter Administration, CAP ended up doing more because the Air Force couldn't fund it's own forces doing the same stuff....that's my experience with this situation.
...

What are some examples of this?

[flyboy53]

Find the 1978 and 79 Reports to Congress.

In 1978, the CAP started flying more Air Force assigned missions -- 896 to be precise -- 79 more than the year before. There were also 16 Air Force assigned "natural disaster" missions in 11 states.

In 1979, a close "beneficial" relationship between the CAP and USAF was cited. That same year, at the request of the Air Force. CAP flew an airman who overdosed from Clear AFS to Fairbanks for treatment.

I was assigned with the Alaskan Air Command when that occurred. I can also tell you that during period, cuts in defense spending resulted in a loss of acquisitions for parts, so the Air Force had a lot of Class III hangar queens because they were scavanging parts from aircraft in maintenance to keep other aircraft mission capable.

As I remember, from the rescue side alone, 71st ARRS at Elmendorf had 4 HC-130s and 10 HH-3s. At any given time during that era, only two of the HC-130s and six of the helicopters were fully mission capable -- and that was a combat-ready unit. Elmendorf at the time was home to the 21st Composite/Tactical Fighter Wing and equipped with F-4s and T-33s. The statistics were similar.

The CAP on the other hand, maintained a very close working relationship with what was then the Alaskan Air Command, to the point that there was even a radio net station on the base.

My personal favorite is the blue rank sleves on senior member uniforms during that era.

[JC004]

My most important question is what can we take to the Auxiliary office at the Pentagon and say to the Air Staff, "we can offer this in the budget cuts"?  Based on the lessons of history, capabilities of today, and the modernizing Air Force?

If we can answer this, there is a very real possibility, depending on who is elected National CC, that those items would be taken right to where they need to go.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

In 1979, a close "beneficial" relationship between the CAP and USAF was cited. That same year, at the request of the Air Force. CAP flew an airman who overdosed from Clear AFS to Fairbanks for treatment.

I cannot even imagine that happening in today's CAP/AF...

The CAP on the other hand, maintained a very close working relationship with what was then the Alaskan Air Command, to the point that there was even a radio net station on the base.

Nor that...someone would probably say, "No, you/we are CIVILIANS...no business operating a radio net station on an Air Force base...after all, some CAP member would probably start trolling for salutes and/or trying to use the Commissary/BX/Shopette/Class Six/gas station, etc....besides, we don't want to bother with uniforms/C&C's."

My personal favorite is the blue rank sleves on senior member uniforms during that era.

I just missed that.  I came in during the "berry boards" era. 

The ironic thing is, that now many in CAP who have known nothing but the grey epaulettes, or who don't want us in the AF uniform at all (hi Radioman!), are the often the ones who speak out the strongest against us even proposing to get the blue epaulettes back!  Usually the tired argument of "distinctiveness" is wheeled out...but if an observer cannot see that an individual wearing the AF type uniform with blue epaulettes that say CAP on them and a blue nameplate that says CIVIL AIR PATROL UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AUXILIARY is indeed "distinctive," then the problem is not the colour of the epaulettes...it is that the person observing cannot read.  After all, older cadets wearing their blue epaulettes arguably look more like actual AF personnel than any CAP officer!

[DakRadz]

After all, older cadets wearing their blue epaulettes arguably look more like actual AF personnel than any CAP officer!

Wearing a blue uniform, with blue rank slides, with United States Air Force Auxiliary on my name plate- I get more "So are you in the Army?" than anything else.
These civilians don't understand things like the fact that blue means USAF/USCG, epaulets mean (cadet) officer for both of these, USCG doesn't have many personnel in the land-locked center of Ohio, and we are at the Dayton Airshow greatly staffed by the Air Force/Civil Air Patrol!
Sorry, I'm just not the Army type and it's getting old....

Seriously, the only people who would really confuse SMs in uniform for USAF personnel (as opposed to just any service) are those with prior service or strong military ties- and then they can read the nameplate to see Auxiliary. The General Public is going to either accept what we say or completely ignore us- lowlight/at a distance doesn't matter, if they want to know who we are we tell them.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Cadets typically look more AF because of their smaller guts. Maybe that's the hint?