Uniform Buffoonery

[CAPLTC]

Here's how jacked-up it was: the back-of-the-hat thing was Army style, but the grade on the collar was diagonal, Navy style.

Diagonal rank is cringe-worthy indeed. Pretty certain I know exactly who you are describing too!
Is the nametape, however, expressly forbidden?

[Matthew Congrove]

Is the nametape, however, expressly forbidden?

It is not expressly authorized, therefore it is expressly forbidden (CAPM 39-1 §1.1.2.1).

[NIN]

Plus it's specifically disallowed on baseball caps, so it stands to reason that even if it's not specifically disallowed on ABUs the intent is "don't put your name on the back of your daggone hat!" 

But Matthew is correct WRT 39-1: if not expressly allowed, you can assume it is disallowed.

[wacapgh]

Or if you approach it from the other direction - Where is the nametape authorized to be worn? On three shirts (ABU, BDU, and FDU), two fleece jackets (Black and Sage) , and one coat (Woodland pattern M-65). Nothing about caps or pants.

[NIN]

That too

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[kwe1009]

The "where does it say that I can't do ______" is a very tiring argument.  The main purpose of a regulation is to tell you what you can do and maybe even how.  Some regs do give specific examples of what is not allowed but it is not an inclusive list.  If any reg had to spell out everything that is not allowed they would be millions of pages long.

[PHall]

The "where does it say that I can't do ______" is a very tiring argument.  The main purpose of a regulation is to tell you what you can do and maybe even how.  Some regs do give specific examples of what is not allowed but it is not an inclusive list.  If any reg had to spell out everything that is not allowed they would be millions of pages long.

But the 39-1 does say, if it's not in this manual, you can't wear it. Paragraph 1.1.2.1.

[Mustang]

As for the cover... I have no idea why that'd be a thing. I put the first letter of last name and last 4 of social on the brim closest to the head. Always worked fine.

Poor INFOSEC practice. How many things are tied to the last four of your social?

[kwe1009]

The "where does it say that I can't do ______" is a very tiring argument.  The main purpose of a regulation is to tell you what you can do and maybe even how.  Some regs do give specific examples of what is not allowed but it is not an inclusive list.  If any reg had to spell out everything that is not allowed they would be millions of pages long.

But the 39-1 does say, if it's not in this manual, you can't wear it. Paragraph 1.1.2.1.

True but very few people read the first chapter.  They just go to the uniform section they have a question about and if they don't see it specifically denied then they assume it is OK.  Same thing happens in the military so it is not just a CAP thing.

[Eclipse]

True but very few people read the first chapter. 

The first chapter doesn't even read the first chapter.

[Live2Learn]

True but very few people read the first chapter. 

The first chapter doesn't even read the first chapter.

Correct wearing of the uniform is important.  It reflects on all of CAP when things are mismatched or... But taking a knife and cutting away the offending name tape "on the spot" as one poster proposed seems a rather extreme action bordering on abuse, and could be construed as assault with a deadly weapon.  I'm sure it was just a rhetorical statement.  Still it reflects poorly on CAP to suggest what amounts to a physical attack because someone has an offending name tape on their hat...  Get real. 

However, the recent award in Federal Court (see the Aviation & Flying Activities forum - $11.9 Million  wrongful death judgement) dwarfs the location of name tags to insignificance.  The Judge's decision is both [darn]ing and enlightening.  I encourage those of us who are fixated on stuff that is unlikely to kill us or others (like where to wear a name tape) to read the full text of the judgement, and then review both the accident report and Docket items on the National Transportation Safety Board website.  Perspective is important when we express outrage.

[jeders]

True but very few people read the first chapter. 

The first chapter doesn't even read the first chapter.

Correct wearing of the uniform is important.  It reflects on all of CAP when things are mismatched or... But taking a knife and cutting away the offending name tape "on the spot" as one poster proposed seems a rather extreme action bordering on abuse, and could be construed as assault with a deadly weapon.  I'm sure it was just a rhetorical statement.  Still it reflects poorly on CAP to suggest what amounts to a physical attack because someone has an offending name tape on their hat...  Get real. 

I think you have greatly misunderstood the previous poster. Taking out a knife, handing it to the offender, and telling them to fix their uniform violation is not only common and acceptable, it is what more people need to do. I and many other leaders have done exactly that many times over the years without anyone ever once crying abuse or assault with a deadly weapon. When we can all follow the little rules like this, maybe then we can be trusted to follow the big ones that potentially resulted in the incident and judgement mentioned below.

However, the recent award in Federal Court (see the Aviation & Flying Activities forum - $11.9 Million  wrongful death judgement) dwarfs the location of name tags to insignificance.  The Judge's decision is both [darn]ing and enlightening.  I encourage those of us who are fixated on stuff that is unlikely to kill us or others (like where to wear a name tape) to read the full text of the judgement, and then review both the accident report and Docket items on the National Transportation Safety Board website.  Perspective is important when we express outrage.

I will leave my personal opinion of this judgement for the appropriate topic, but having read the NTSB report it would seem that the pilots of both aircraft ignored or did not know some basic rules of operation.

[vorteks]

True but very few people read the first chapter. 

The first chapter doesn't even read the first chapter.

Correct wearing of the uniform is important.  It reflects on all of CAP when things are mismatched or... But taking a knife and cutting away the offending name tape "on the spot" as one poster proposed seems a rather extreme action bordering on abuse, and could be construed as assault with a deadly weapon.  I'm sure it was just a rhetorical statement.  Still it reflects poorly on CAP to suggest what amounts to a physical attack because someone has an offending name tape on their hat...  Get real. 

One of the more preposterous things I've ever seen on this forum

[Mitchell 1969]

True but very few people read the first chapter. 

The first chapter doesn't even read the first chapter.

Correct wearing of the uniform is important.  It reflects on all of CAP when things are mismatched or... But taking a knife and cutting away the offending name tape "on the spot" as one poster proposed seems a rather extreme action bordering on abuse, and could be construed as assault with a deadly weapon.  I'm sure it was just a rhetorical statement.  Still it reflects poorly on CAP to suggest what amounts to a physical attack because someone has an offending name tape on their hat...  Get real. 

One of the more preposterous things I've ever seen on this forum

Indeed!

[SarDragon]

Are we done here?

[Mitchell 1969]

Are we done here?

No.

Wait.

Yes.

[PHall]

Done awhile ago actually. Nobody bothered to turn the switch off.

[SarDragon]

Done awhile ago actually. Nobody bothered to turn the switch off.

I've been traveling.

Click.