Question about USCG Aux.

[JohnKachenmeister]

To any of the "Dual-Auxiliarists..."  I just saw some USCG Aux. guys at my marina yesterday doing some boat-safety thing there.  I chatted them up for a few minutes, and it looks to me (and I AM a trained observer) that they are wearing Air Force uniforms but with a different hat and insignia.  Does the AF and CG wear the same basic uniform? 

That's what it looks like to me, but my experience with government tells me that such a level of efficiency is inconsistent with bureaucratic core values. 

[MIKE]

The light blue shirts, lightweight blue jacket, and the cardigan and pullover sweaters.  For males anyway.

[RiverAux]

Yeah, the CG (and the Aux) went from wearing uniforms that were almost identical to the Navy to at least one uniform that is almost identical to the AF. 

A real nice benefit of being in both CAP and CG Aux is that you can use some uniform items for both. 

[PHall]

The Coasties have been wearing a modified Air Force Service and Service Dress uniform since the late 70's IIRC.

[MIKE]

^ There are noticeable differences between the uniforms.  Both in shade and weave and actual construction. i.e. the trouser pockets.  In fact Air Force trousers are prohibited by regulation.  It is not an older style Air Force uniform with Coast Guard buttons.

[JohnKachenmeister]

OK, so the pants and shirt are the same and the dress jacket is completely different.  The light windbreaker jacket is also AF. 

None of the guys I saw yesterday were wearing any type of jacket, since we were in the low 80's.

[MIKE]

The pants are not the same.  I guess I really should post a pic of some CG dress trousers next to some 1620s, but the gallery is broken.  What you saw was most likely Tropical Blue... The only item of that combo with an AF certification label is the short-sleeved shirt.

[Major Carrales]

The pants are not the same.  I guess I really should post a pic of some CG dress trousers next to some 1620s, but the gallery is broken.  What you saw was most likely Tropical Blue... The only item of that combo with an AF certification label is the short-sleeved shirt.

Mike,
I had some donations of uniforms a few years back and amid the trousers were three that were of a different shade and even had a flap on the back pocket.  The tagging had been removed and thus, I did not fully accept them donating them to our schools' clothing bank.

Might these have been of that type you mention?

[MIKE]

The back pockets on mine are the same style as my 1620s.  It's the "hand-warmer" pockets that are different.  Can only speak for current issue.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

The pants, service dress coat and garrison cap are not the same as the AF, in cut or shade of blue.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Thanks for the information.

I accepted their invitation to visit a meeting, and I came away with some impressions as an outsider.

Good things:  Augmentation of the USCG by the Aux is smooth.  An Aux. officer matches USCG needs with Aux skills.  CAP should do that to augment the USAF, but all I see of the USAF augmentation program is that National designed a new uniform for it.

     Everyone was in ONE uniform.  And everyone appeared to wear it properly.

Bad things:  Very confusing alphabet-soup system of assignments.  It must take forever to learn, especially with "Division" and "District" both starting with the letter "D."

     The absence of earned rank but rank insignia used for office holders, some with red letters, some with blue, and always wearing the highest office earned seemed to me to be confusing.   

[RiverAux]

The Aux is pretty addicted to using two-letter identifiers for its various staff officer positions and that had me confused as a new member for quite a while.   The only confusing equivalent I've seen in CAP is that crazy staff structure used in Southeast Region.  Otherwise I've almost never heard a CAP staff office position referred to by the two letter abbreviation we're supposed to use in correspondence, with the exception of the CC. 

Regarding uniforms we're usually pretty good about mostly being in tropical blue long in the summer, but in the winter a lot of folks wear the ODU because it is warmer so those meetings have quite a mix. 

They're sort of going away from the different colored As -- on the ODU they're all black now.  I suspect the same might happen on the shoulder boards at some point. 

[RVT]

The Aux is pretty addicted to using two-letter identifiers for its various staff officer positions and that had me confused as a new member for quite a while.   The only confusing equivalent I've seen in CAP is that crazy staff structure used in Southeast Region.  Otherwise I've almost never heard a CAP staff office position referred to by the two letter abbreviation we're supposed to use in correspondence, with the exception of the CC. 

They're sort of going away from the different colored "A"s -- on the ODU they're all black now.  I suspect the same might happen on the shoulder boards at some point.

The red & blue "A"'s are already gone on ODU.  All of them are black now.  The "A" is being taken off the shoulder boards completely next revision.

Which brings me to another point - my favorite CG Aux uniform is the Ops Polo.  I've been wondering why CAP doesn't use a combination like that.   We already have all of the pieces for it.  No development time or procurement issues.

For those who don't know - the CG Aux Ops Polo outfit consists of a blue polo shirt (which CAP already has) and Blue BDU style pants (which CAP also already has).

Its functional, comfortable, durable, and presents a consistant appearance, vs a hundred shades & styles of grey.  And there is also a precedent for it - look at CAWG's ground team uniform.

[MIKE]

The "A" is being taken off the shoulder boards completely next revision.

Source?

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

During my time as an Auxiliarist in that fine, committed organisation of volunteers, I came up with a few conclusions uniform-wise:

Theirs made a lot more sense than CAP.  I saw people of all shapes and sizes with and without facial hair wearing the modified CG uniform.

The alphabet soup of office symbols never made sense to me.  During my time with them I was an FSO-SR (wearing an ensign's gold bar with a red A, and a single sleeve ring with a red A in the shield) and a VFC (wearing a LTJG's silver bar with a blue A and one-and-a-half sleeve rings with a silver A in the shield).

Since you held no rank, you were obligated to salute any and all officers of the Armed Forces, from WO1 to O-10.

I got saluted a fair bit (especially by the Navy) and called by rank titles I did not hold ("Good morning, Ensign," "Good afternoon, Lieutenant").

The CGAUX as a whole were very zealous about not having rank titles.  However, I did see a few proposals floated (ouch!), such as doing away with the different-coloured "A's" (which sounds like is happening; though I never heard anything about deleting the "A" entirely) and standardising on a solid silver shield for sleeve braid.  I heard proposals for having rank titles such as ENS(AUX), LTJG(AUX), CAPT(AUX), but it never went anywhere.

However, confusingly, District Commodores and up do use the rank of "Commodore" (COMO), a title not used in the CG (or Navy), though they wear silver Admiral's-type shoulder boards.

It kind of sucked having to have two sets of insignia - "member" when augmenting the CG, and "office" when not.

However, it was really cool being able to earn some of the same decorations the active CG does...there's no reason we couldn't do that in CAP with the civilian awards the Air Force grants.

[RVT]

However, I did see a few proposals floated (ouch!), such as doing away with the different-coloured "A's" (which sounds like is happening; though I never heard anything about deleting the "A" entirely) and standardising on a solid silver shield for sleeve braid.

When I said the "A was going away I was referring to the solid silver shield.  I should have said "going away on dress uniforms".  I was verifying what you said as being correct, or at least attempting to.

[arBar]

I met my first couple of CGAux members this week while visiting a Bass Pro shop.  They were polite and professional, looked good in their uniforms, and impressed me overall.  I was amazed that one of the gentlemen offered to do an inspection on my boat at my home or other preferred place.

I got information about their meetings and hope to visit soon.  I'd really like to learn more about this flotilla and the organization as a whole.  I doubt seriously that I could join both groups though.

Yes at first glance I swore they were Air Force or CAP until I got upclose.  Their uniforms are distinct from ours and the AF but close enough to be mistaken at a distance.

[Slim]

I met my first couple of CGAux members this week while visiting a Bass Pro shop.  They were polite and professional, looked good in their uniforms, and impressed me overall.  I was amazed that one of the gentlemen offered to do an inspection on my boat at my home or other preferred place.

I got information about their meetings and hope to visit soon.  I'd really like to learn more about this flotilla and the organization as a whole.  I doubt seriously that I could join both groups though.

Yes at first glance I swore they were Air Force or CAP until I got upclose.  Their uniforms are distinct from ours and the AF but close enough to be mistaken at a distance.

If you have the time and ability, go for it.  I was a dual member for about 5 years, and enjoyed the different aspects of both organizations.  I actually got a little more out of my CGAux membership, being in an area with one of the highest concentrations of recreational boaters in the country, and supporting  one of the busiest boat stations in the Coast Guard.  But, when the free time became less and less, and the requirements to stay current in the CGAux started going up, I decided that I had to make a decision as to which master I wanted to serve. 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I have been a member of both, though not simultaneously.  However, I have known a couple of dual-members.  I also knew a few ex-CAP members in the CGAUX who were thoroughly disaffected with CAP and didn't hesitate to let me know it.  That was where I first heard the phrase "the Air Force's red-haired stepchild (sanitised version)."

The financial outlay to be a member of both is considerable, especially maintaining two sets of uniforms.  Some of the items are interchangeable (light blue shirt, wooly pully, lightweight jacket, trenchcoat) but the real expensive stuff isn't.

Both organisations have their value, though very different.  Probably the reason I left the CGAUX was the prevailing attitude among many of the members that "if you don't have your own boat you're less of an Auxie."

The CGAUX is both more and less "military" than CAP.

"More" in the sense that they are far more integrated with their parent service and have a much less adversarial relationship than CAP with the AF.

"Less" in the sense that even though the member you see may have a lot more rings and ribbons than you do, s/he does not "outrank" you, you do not salute one another (though you do render one to any and all commissioned and warrant officers of the Armed Forces; a WO1 outranks a CGAUX officer wearing stars), and you call each other by name.  I found that the CG actually shows up at Auxiliary activities and functions a lot more than the AF does with CAP (YMMV).

I also found that unless you live very near a CGAS, your opportunities to take part in Auxiliary Aviation are extremely limited, as are your opportunities to augment with USCG aircraft.

But it is a worthy pursuit...and the uniforms are cool!

[Patterson]

So how does the CG AUX get away with wearing uniforms and insignia that look so very similar to the actual CG?? 

Sounds to me that they had better leadership at a time when CAP leadership was less than sub-par.

[Major Carrales]

So how does the CG AUX get away with wearing uniforms and insignia that look so very similar to the actual CG?? 

Sounds to me that they had better leadership at a time when CAP leadership was less than sub-par.

No...it is more likely that it is a difference in mission and relationship with their Parent Service.

[Ned]

So how does the CG AUX get away with wearing uniforms and insignia that look so very similar to the actual CG?? 

You're kidding, right?

CAP uniforms and insignia are indistinguishable from USAF uniforms by 95% of the general public as it stands.  Even folks who know the difference would have a hard time distinguishing the two from 10 yards out.

(CAP members, however, may be a different story.  They can be fairly distinctive at times.)

Sounds to me that they had better leadership at a time when CAP leadership was less than sub-par.

Nice.  Very constructive.  Just exactly the kind of anonymous sharpshooting that helps make the Air Force want to bring our uniforms more in line with theirs.

[PA Guy]

Nope.  It has to do with a different service and a different culture.  I'm a dual hatter.

[RVT]

Both organisations have their value, though very different.  Probably the reason I left the CGAUX was the prevailing attitude among many of the members that "if you don't have your own boat you're less of an Auxie."

Not if you are boat crew qualified!  The boat owners love you then since they need a crew to take the boat out and the boat owners all want to use their own.  Fully qualified boat crew members who do NOT own their own boat are a valued commodity and you will have many friends.

Not to mention at least in my flotilla the boats are rather large.  You can't put an entire CAP squadron in any airplane we have - but we can send the flotilla commanders boat out with a crew of 23 if it ever made sense

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Nope.  It has to do with a different service and a different culture.  I'm a dual hatter.

Agreed.

The Coast Guard is the smallest armed service, hence it needs more "help."  It doesn't have the benefit of a very large Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve the way the AF does.  I'm not sure how big the CGRES is, but it's probably the smallest reserve component.  That's a big reason why the CGAUX is called upon so much by the CG brass.

And the uniforms aren't that similar to the CG.  All the insignia is silver - you even have to change-out the buttons from CG gold to Aux silver on the CG service dress.

When I was an Auxie we called the Aux the "silver side" and the CG/Res the "gold side."

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Not if you are boat crew qualified!

I was.

But also I lived inland, and the only boat I ever crewed on was quite small.

[RiverAux]

The reason I enjoy being in both is that with CG Aux I get to plan out when and where I do almost everything.  If I want to go do vessel safety checks on a nice sunny day, I go do them.  If I feel like patrolling, I find a coxswain going on patrol, etc., etc. 

With CAP you are pretty much restricted to waiting around for a SAR or DR to happen, and those are pretty few and far between.  But, when they happen, you have a chance to be somewhat useful.  For the most part, CG Aux doesn't get involved in such emergency situations.  Yes, I know that there is plenty of work to do in CAP, but just about all of it is mission support, not actual missions. 

[JK657]

Does anyone have a link to a CAPTALK- like forum for CGAUX?

[MIKE]

http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/frm/f/7501922942

[RiverAux]

Unfortunately, it isn't very active in general and a fair percentage of the participants are former Aux members (some with serious axes to grind).  Also, military.com has some very dumb linking policies that make it a very difficult forum to use, but it is the most used one out there.

[DG]

So how does the CG AUX get away with wearing uniforms and insignia that look so very similar to the actual CG?? 

Sounds to me that they had better leadership at a time when CAP leadership was less than sub-par.

The CG Aux is part of the USCG.

The same organization.

Not so with CAP and the USAF.

[RiverAux]

Well, actually there is a "corporate" side of the CG Aux too, known as the CG Auxiliary Association that collects all our dues so there isn't really much difference except that the CG retains almost total control over anything important in the CG Aux (regulations, operational money, etc.) while the AF has delegated that authority to CAP the corporation (for the most part).  It wouldn't take much to put CAP in much the same situation as the CG Aux is.  Might even be able to do it under the current federal law regarding CAP. 

[Ltc Browne]

The Coast Guard wears the same color shirt, but a  brighter blue trouser.  The shirts do not have epilets on them, which was the old AF style prior to their eplilet shirts.

The USCG Auxiliary does wear simular uniforms as the Coast Guard, but the shoulderboards are different, just like CAP's Uniforms are simular to the AF.

[MIKE]

Your information is a little dated.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Your information is a little dated.

nah...it would have really been out of date if the Lieutenant Colonel's information still had the CG and Aux wearing the double-breasted Navy uniform.

[SAR-EMT1]

Nope.  It has to do with a different service and a different culture.  I'm a dual hatter.

Agreed.

The Coast Guard is the smallest armed service, hence it needs more "help."  It doesn't have the benefit of a very large Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve the way the AF does.  I'm not sure how big the CGRES is, but it's probably the smallest reserve component.  That's a big reason why the CGAUX is called upon so much by the CG brass.

A decade or so ago the USCG Aux was actually larger than the Active duty force and Reserves combined.

Coast Guard AD 40,000
Coast Guard Auxiliary 30,000
Coast Guard Reserve used to be 7,500  pre 9/11. Since then it has gone up to 8,000 world-wide with the addition of the Port Security Units which are manned 100 percent by Reservists.
Coast Guard Civilian 7,000

TOTAL: 85,000

By comparison

USAF AD 330,000
USAF Reserve  68,000
Air Guard  95,000
AF Website does not list numbers for Civilian Employees
But back when I was in ROTC they told us Civilians were around 50,000

TOTAL 550,000 give or take.

Approximately 75% of USCG Auxies actively participate in USCG designated missions from lake patrol to communications watchstanding on Active duty bases and everything in between. When he retired ADM Thad Allen  (former USCG/CC) remarked that without  Auxiliary support  the Coast Guard "would not have survived" in the period after 9/11. He then announced that the Coast Guard Auxiliary would as a whole receive the CG Unit Commendation for "performance of duty and support for the service... which was nothing short of stellar"

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

When he retired ADM Thad Allen  (former USCG/CC) remarked that without  Auxiliary support  the Coast Guard "would not have survived" in the period after 9/11. He then announced that the Coast Guard Auxiliary would as a whole receive the CG Unit Commendation for "performance of duty and support for the service... which was nothing short of stellar"

I was a CGAUXist then, and I received that ribbon, with the "O" operational device.

It takes a proud place on my USAF-type CAP uniform.

That's a big difference in the CGAUX and CAP...we haven't been eligible for military decorations since the Air Medals awarded during WWII, while the CGAUX can get most, if not all, of the noncombat related USCG decorations.

[GroundHawg]

I want to say there are 10-12 USCG awards that can be earned by Auxiliarists. I have a few for my service in the Auxiliary. I get questions on them all the time from people in both the CAP and the USAF Reserves. That by itself has gotten people from my reserve unit interested in the CG Aux. Honestly, I cant belive that as much as CAP does for the USAF, that they have never received any type of Unit Citation.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Honestly, I cant belive that as much as CAP does for the USAF, that they have never received any type of Unit Citation.

That would take AF acknowledgement of CAP as an integral part of Air Force operations.

Maybe 30+ years ago, but sadly not now, nor anytime in the foreseeable future.

Part of that is the Air Force's fault (they don't even instruct new Airmen on who we are) but part of it is also the corporatist element in CAP that would like to see us ditch all connections with the Air Force (including uniforms and ranks) and be nothing more than a flying ES group.

[SAR-EMT1]

I was a CGAUXist then, and I received that ribbon, with the "O" operational device.

It takes a proud place on my USAF-type CAP uniform.

That's a big difference in the CGAUX and CAP...we haven't been eligible for military decorations since the Air Medals awarded during WWII, while the CGAUX can get most, if not all, of the noncombat related USCG decorations.

I ASSUME the "O" came from your actually being sent down there?

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

^^I think our wires may be a bit crossed.  You are referring to Katrina(?), while I am referring to the CG awarding the entire CGAux the Unit Commendation with "O" device after 9/11, before Katrina happened.



I couldn't find a decent graphic with the "O" device.

I'd have to dig through my old Aux papers to find the COMDTINST authorising the award.

[MIKE]

Link: http://www.uscg.mil/auxiliary/awards/unitcitation2002.asp

"The Operational Distinguishing Device is authorized."  Not "Only the cool kids get the Operational Distinguishing Device, and the rest of you can haz ribbon only." Note that this is only for those Auxiliarists who were members during the period cited.  MIKEs CGUC does not haz O or gold stars on it.

[GroundHawg]

Link: http://www.uscg.mil/auxiliary/awards/unitcitation2002.asp

"The Operational Distinguishing Device is authorized."  Not "Only the cool kids get the Operational Distinguishing Device, and the rest of you can haz ribbon only." Note that this is only for those Auxiliarists who were members during the period cited.  MIKEs CGUC does not haz O or gold stars on it.

I didnt know we were awarded the "O". I will have to update my rack, thanks. Funny that I got this info from a CAP board

[SAR-EMT1]

No one in my flotilla was provided with the "O"... will look into it. (Am referring to the CGUC awarded June '09  to the entire Aux)

[MIKE]

No one in my flotilla was provided with the "O"... will look into it. (Am referring to the CGUC awarded June '09  to the entire Aux)

Because no Operational Distinguishing Device was authorized for that one... Only those who were members between 11 September 2001 - 1 September 2002 are authorized the "O".  You have to be a member during each of the cited periods to qualify for the ribbon or associated attachments.  Your Flotilla would have gotten a list of who qualifies for the '09 award with the package of ribbons and gold stars.  Your enrollment date is '06, so you only qualify for the '09 award.

[SAR-EMT1]

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought he was refering to the latest ribbon.

[SoCalMarine]

So how does the CG AUX get away with wearing uniforms and insignia that look so very similar to the actual CG?? 

Sounds to me that they had better leadership at a time when CAP leadership was less than sub-par.

For several reasons.

1. Simply put, there is a better relationship between the USCG and the CGAUX than you have between the USAF and CAP.

2. The CGAUX is a true Auxiliary. Everything you do as an Auxiliarist is considered a CG mission of some type. Technically, members of CAP are NOT... I repeat are NOT in the USAF Auxiliary. CAP members are only considered USAF Auxiliary when they are under orders with a mission code. I did not know this until I just took the Corporate Leadership Course (CLC) at the USAF Academy last month.

3. The CGAUX has a different mission. This is due, in part, to be only adults versus CAP having cadets. CGAUX members can be issued orders to work onboard CG installations, or onboard CG facilities such as boats and/or airframes. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find any CG installation or facility that does not have an Auxiliarist on board. One of the dentists are AIRSTA Clearwater is an Auxiliarist. I was the XO for the D7 Material Center onboard AIRSTA Clearwater in 2008. I had official orders from the USCG to do the job.

4. CGAUX members actually perform missions handed down to them by the USCG that are Congressionally mandated. We do this so that the USCG can focus on new missions they've been given since 9/11. CAP members don't perform any USAF missions. Air SAR missions from AFRCC aren't missions that the USAF is Congressionally mandated to perform, but don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that they aren't important and valuable.

5. Finally, you have considerably less issues with CG Auxiliarists portraying themselves as active duty personnel as compared to CAP members. I'm not saying its a rampant problem in CAP. Its just that its happened enough in CAP that the every time the AF gets around to forgetting about past transgressions you have some moron demanding to be saluted by security forces at the base gate.

*** Anyway, I tend to wear my CGAUX uniform to both CGAUX meetings and CAP. One, because I'm lazy! Sorry. Two, because I can consider it a recruiting mission as long as I talk about the AUX and so on. I can also get PE hours in because I am wearing the AUX uniform and teaching classes on safety and so on.

Trust me, there are issues with the CGAUX uniform that many of us think need changed. For instance, you have the red or blue "A" on our insignia. For us newer and/or younger members, we could care less whether you were appointed or elected to office. In many cases, either to align the AUX with the CG better, or out of necessity (shoulder boards the blue "A" doesn't show up), you'll have the "A" be a different color anyway. Actually, I think that's the only uniform issue I've heard addressed. Many believe we should go with a simple silver "A" on metal ranks, sleeve shields and shoulder boards, and that we should keep the black "A" with our ODUs.

The other issue would be to change the office names and start calling them ranks. We're told they aren't ranks but a symbol of the office we hold, but if the powers that be don't want us to call them a rank than they should use a symbol that isn't a rank in the rest of the military!

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Simply put, there is a better relationship between the USCG and the CGAUX than you have between the USAF and CAP.

I doubt there are few who would dispute this.  I have been a member of both and found this to be true.

The CGAUX is a true Auxiliary. Everything you do as an Auxiliarist is considered a CG mission of some type.

This is splitting hairs, but when I worked at boat shows doing nothing  but sitting on my bum waiting for someone to ask a question...I don't think there were CG orders issued for me to do that.

Technically, members of CAP are NOT... I repeat are NOT in the USAF Auxiliary. CAP members are only considered USAF Auxiliary when they are under orders with a mission code. I did not know this until I just took the Corporate Leadership Course (CLC) at the USAF Academy last month.

If there is one thing that will destroy CAP, it is the slow-but-sure distancing from the Air Force.  But it also must be remembered that CAP existed before the Air Force.

The CGAUX has a different mission. This is due, in part, to be only adults versus CAP having cadets. CGAUX members can be issued orders to work onboard CG installations, or onboard CG facilities such as boats and/or airframes.

IF you are cleared to do so.  In fact, when I was in the CGAUX, one point of contention was the two-tier background check issue.  Unless you have had the full check, you cannot augment the CG directly.

In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find any CG installation or facility that does not have an Auxiliarist on board.

Most of these don't exist anymore, but it wouldn't be common to find some LORAN station out in the middle of BFE with Auxiliarists crewing...because there's nothing for them to do.  I know.  I tried to augment at a LORAN station and was told that exact same statement.

One of the dentists are AIRSTA Clearwater is an Auxiliarist.

I thought the USPHS handled that for the CG...

I was the XO for the D7 Material Center onboard AIRSTA Clearwater in 2008. I had official orders from the USCG to do the job.

If you were the XO, by implication that means you had authority to give CG members, who are military, orders, when you were not military.  I'd be interested in seeing how that fits in with the UCMJ.

CGAUX members actually perform missions handed down to them by the USCG that are Congressionally mandated. We do this so that the USCG can focus on new missions they've been given since 9/11.

Also, the CG is the smallest of the Armed Forces and doesn't have the large reservoir of trained personnel that the AF has in the ANG and AFRES.  If the CG didn't have the Auxiliary, it would have to go to Washington looking for funds to greatly expand personnel numbers.

CAP members don't perform any USAF missions. Air SAR missions from AFRCC aren't missions that the USAF is Congressionally mandated to perform, but don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that they aren't important and valuable.

On this I call Bravo Sierra.  AFRCC exists because someone up the food chain, including but not limited to SECAF/CSAF, believed it needed to be there, and issued orders for it to exist.  If Congress had issues with it, they would have defunded it long ago.

Finally, you have considerably less issues with CG Auxiliarists portraying themselves as active duty personnel as compared to CAP members. I'm not saying its a rampant problem in CAP. Its just that its happened enough in CAP that the every time the AF gets around to forgetting about past transgressions you have some moron demanding to be saluted by security forces at the base gate.

I also lost track of the number of times I was called "Ensign" or "Lieutenant" in the CGAUX by military personnel.  I explained the system of rank v. office to a National Guard E-7 and he was thoroughly confused.

There have been incidents like you mention, and the ones who do that give the entire CAP a black eye.  There is still resentment in CAP (among those who remember) about having the blue shoulder marks and metal grade taken from us because of jerks like that.  However, it's not as rampant as you may think...especially with the rise of the "corporatist" side in CAP who could care less about the quasi-military aspects of CAP and only bother to wear a polo shirt most of the time.

Others will, and have, disputed with me on this issue, but CAP NHQ killed the popular blue/white Corporate Service Uniform because of perceived, not stated, problems that the USAF may have had with the CSU...even though the USAF allowed it for several years.  That, to me, is one of the most inane things CAP has ever done...killing off a popular uniform just because it may have raised issues with some USAF personnel without concrete evidence of this being presented; i.e., a letter from CC AETC.

Anyway, I tend to wear my CGAUX uniform to both CGAUX meetings and CAP. One, because I'm lazy! Sorry. Two, because I can consider it a recruiting mission as long as I talk about the AUX and so on. I can also get PE hours in because I am wearing the AUX uniform and teaching classes on safety and so on.

And you are OUT OF UNIFORM when doing so, and if doing so with cadets you are breaking CAP regs.  You must have a very tolerant CC.  Mine (retired USMC SNCO) would send you home and tell you to come back in the proper uniform - a CAP uniform.

Trust me, there are issues with the CGAUX uniform that many of us think need changed. For instance, you have the red or blue "A" on our insignia. For us newer and/or younger members, we could care less whether you were appointed or elected to office. In many cases, either to align the AUX with the CG better, or out of necessity (shoulder boards the blue "A" doesn't show up), you'll have the "A" be a different color anyway. Actually, I think that's the only uniform issue I've heard addressed. Many believe we should go with a simple silver "A" on metal ranks, sleeve shields and shoulder boards, and that we should keep the black "A" with our ODUs.

But what you think doesn't mean a thing if the Commandant doesn't sign on to it.

The other issue would be to change the office names and start calling them ranks. We're told they aren't ranks but a symbol of the office we hold, but if the powers that be don't want us to call them a rank than they should use a symbol that isn't a rank in the rest of the military!

When I was in the CGAUX, any time that was brought up (rank titles) it was shot down quicker than Squadron Leader Douglas Bader despatching an Me-109.  One of the things I never got straight in the CGAUX was all of the myriad of alphabet-soup office designations, and why Commodores of various levels were the only ones who could use a rank title, one which the USCG/USN doesn't even use most of the time (but which other maritime forces do).

Anyway, I would ask your motivation in coming on a CAP board and basically painting CAP as somehow inferior to the USCGAUX?  It's not a pissing contest of "my Auxiliary can beat up your Auxiliary."

[Eclipse]

Honolulugold, I was going to take the same time Cyborg did to answer your post and then I realized there was no point as it is a mixture of...well it's a mixture.

I will say, however, that your unit CC is doing a disservice to both you and the unit allowing you to wear your CGAux uniform to CAP meetings. Someone needs to set that situation straight ASAP.

[PA Guy]

One of the dentists are AIRSTA Clearwater is an Auxiliarist.

I thought the USPHS handled that for the CG..

FWIW:  http://leadership.cgaux.org/specialprojects/healthandsafety.html

[SoCalMarine]

This is splitting hairs, but when I worked at boat shows doing nothing  but sitting on my bum waiting for someone to ask a question...I don't think there were CG orders issued for me to do that.

I don't see it that way at all. The CGAUX doesn't need orders to be issued to perform AUX missions. Don't really see your point here. My point was that the CGAUX is a full-time Auxiliary while CAP is not.

If there is one thing that will destroy CAP, it is the slow-but-sure distancing from the Air Force.  But it also must be remembered that CAP existed before the Air Force.

Possibility, but I'm not the one distancing CAP fro the AF. I'm simply stating something that is a fact. Certain issues I had with CAP were because I misunderstood the relationship between it and the USAF. I don't have those issues anymore. I understand why some of the differences are in place, and that helps me to work better within CAP.

IF you are cleared to do so.  In fact, when I was in the CGAUX, one point of contention was the two-tier background check issue.  Unless you have had the full check, you cannot augment the CG directly.

Well, that is true to an extent. For some missions you still need to be DO certified such as Marine Safety missions working with an MSU to get certifications for Trident, AUXLO or to fly. Other missions not so much. Also, that is up to the base commander. There are Auxiliarists who are watchstanding at one base in California who are not DO certified. Also, some exceptions have been made now because the CG SECCEN has slowed down so much with the DO package (up to two years before results come back) that you are given a waiver as long as you've submitted the package.

Most of these don't exist anymore, but it wouldn't be common to find some LORAN station out in the middle of BFE with Auxiliarists crewing...because there's nothing for them to do.  I know.  I tried to augment at a LORAN station and was told that exact same statement.

True. I think my statement still stands though. I'd actually already forgotten about the LORAN stations. How quickly stuff like that fades from memory. We even have a new program called AUXCHEF with the purpose to train Auxiliarists to serve onboard cutters and installations to augment (and sometimes replace) Coasties doing the job.

If you were the XO, by implication that means you had authority to give CG members, who are military, orders, when you were not military.  I'd be interested in seeing how that fits in with the UCMJ.

Nope. You've got it wrong. I didn't say I was the XO of a gold side operation. The D7 Material Center is an Auxiliary operation, and it is operating onboard AIRSTA Clearwater in the Navy Annex. I don't even see how you came up with that implication. The XO of a flotilla is the VFC. Does that mean he can give gold side orders too simply because he's the XO? No. XO is simply a descriptor stating what position I was given. Technically, I was appointed the ADSO-MC.

On this I call Bravo Sierra.  AFRCC exists because someone up the food chain, including but not limited to SECAF/CSAF, believed it needed to be there, and issued orders for it to exist.  If Congress had issues with it, they would have defunded it long ago.

OK. You're point? You can call BS all you want, but until you show me that the AF is required by Congressional mandate to perform AFRCC missions than your calling it BS is moot. Now I never said AFRCC isn't important. In fact, I specifically said it was, and that CAPs role was valuable. CAP replaces the AF for what... 94% of the AFRCC missions? Either way, you're confusing what I said. Again, AFRCC is an actual AF operation that CAP helps augment but has not completely taken over. AFRCC missions are not Congressionally mandated.

I also lost track of the number of times I was called "Ensign" or "Lieutenant" in the CGAUX by military personnel.  I explained the system of rank v. office to a National Guard E-7 and he was thoroughly confused.

On this I agree 100%. The best I've been able to do to explain the office titles to non-sea going personnel was to say they are like a rating. Its kind of like being a LT to be an ADSO, but you call them an ADSO since its their "rating." Still confusing to people since ratings are enlisted ideas. Generally speaking, many of us younger Auxiliarists just refer to each other by last name, first name in an informal setting, or by rank. When I was at AIRSTA Clearwater, Station Hawaii and did was given orders to Sector LA/LB to backfill for PAOs that went to New Orleans for the Deepwater Horizon response, not only did the gold side call me LT, but that's how the CO introduced, and referred to, us as to people. Its simply easier than trying to explain the antiquated office system. Sometimes he'd state Auxiliary LT for clarification though.

There have been incidents like you mention, and the ones who do that give the entire CAP a black eye.  There is still resentment in CAP (among those who remember) about having the blue shoulder marks and metal grade taken from us because of jerks like that.  However, it's not as rampant as you may think...especially with the rise of the "corporatist" side in CAP who could care less about the quasi-military aspects of CAP and only bother to wear a polo shirt most of the time.

I was around for it. I was a cadet until 1991. I remember seeing the SMs go from blue epaulets to the horrible maroon. Please don't get me wrong though. I was trying to point out that it is a rarity that stuff like that occurs, but the AF sees those occasions as a big enough issue to make the uniform more distinctive. Fortunately, we have a new national commander who's got a very good relationship with the AF and I've see a lot of positives come about. My squadron in Savannah fits your last statement pretty well to an extent. Not so much that they are corporate, but most are current military. The CO of the squadron is a GA Air National Guard MSgt. Most of the members are Army. They either show up in ACUs/BDUs or they are in civilian clothes. Well, that's the senior squadron side. The two or three SMs with the cadet squadron are always in BDUs.

And you are OUT OF UNIFORM when doing so, and if doing so with cadets you are breaking CAP regs.  You must have a very tolerant CC.  Mine (retired USMC SNCO) would send you home and tell you to come back in the proper uniform - a CAP uniform.

Maybe, but I've yet to come across a squadron that had an issue with it, and I've attended five or six across four states. Even had a wing commander at some of the meetings without issue. SMs are not required to wear the uniform; although, they are greatly encouraged to do so. Regardless, many of the times I've shown up in Trops is because I just finished doing my Academy recruiting and didn't have time to change. Also, as I stated above, my squadron (and MANY like it) have the majority of members as active military. If your CO was in charge, some of these squadrons would have less than 1% attendance. Again, my squadron consists of members who generally come direct from work whether that be Air National Guard, Army or at the Savannah IAP. They simply don't have time to change before showing up.

But what you think doesn't mean a thing if the Commandant doesn't sign on to it.

What's your point? Do you mean to say that no one should have an opinion, or that no one should voice their opinion unless first having that opinion read through, debated and signed off on by the Commandant? Isn't the whole point of a discussion board like this to actually discuss issues, questions and/or concerns?

In fact, statements like yours only further stagnation, and the lack of change for the better. Your statement would be discouraging to many who think that voicing their opinion is unwanted. On the flip side, many of the changes that have occurred in the CGAUX over the last five years are exactly because of people like me who stand up and say, "Hey, we should do this... ." Two close friends of mine are the people who created the CGAUX College Program that now has Flotilla detachments onboard at least six universities across the nation with the stated purpose of training university students to either transfer to the CG Academy, or join the CG upon graduation. So, what they had to say DID matter.

When I was in the CGAUX, any time that was brought up (rank titles) it was shot down quicker than Squadron Leader Douglas Bader despatching an Me-109.

I don't know when you left the AUX, but last year (or the year before) we went through a reorganization as it refers to some of the offices. Division Captains are now Division Commanders. I would imagine that its primarily due to the fact that they wear commander stripes rather than captain stripes. No real reason was given. A few other changes were made too. There are problems that occur in the AUX that CAP doesn't have an issue with (or as much of an issue).

You're right. Many ideas to change things get shot down quick. I think that's very short-sighted. The AUX is currently discovering that they are losing younger members. Many surveys have shown that this is due to the whole "rank" issue for one, as well as the unwillingness of many to accept change or new ideas. Unfortunately, too many of the old-timers have moved up the ranks and have some sort of clinical aversion to change. My old flotilla in FL recently changed divisions to be realigned with the boat station just down the road rather than Sector three times the distance. The only people who had an issue were the guys that have been around for 40 years (literally 40 too...). One thing CAP has been very good at is change; although, it has gone overboard at times with new addendums to the 39-1 every time you turn around!

Anyway, I would ask your motivation in coming on a CAP board and basically painting CAP as somehow inferior to the USCGAUX?  It's not a pissing contest of "my Auxiliary can beat up your Auxiliary."

I didn't paint CAP at all. None of my statements bad-mouthed CAP, nor were intended too. So let me address this... I'm a CAP member. I am on this board for the same reason most others are... to talk about CAP. This particular thread asked questions about the CGAUX so I responded by answering about the CGAUX. I don't have to state what CAP can, and can't do, or what the CAP missions are here on this board because everyone knows... BECAUSE everyone is CAP. I was simply giving knowledge of the AUX to people who did not know much about it.

Nothing personal on this statement at all, but if you believe I was stating that CAP was inferior to the AUX than that is because YOU have an issue with CAP and take things personally through a bias that you have. My statements were completely neutral in respect to which organization is better. So, it is your perception that colored my statements based on insecurities about CAP.

Since you are reading into things I'll state, unequivocally, right now that I feel that CAP is on the same level as the AUX, and that both provide amazing and valuable support to the parent service. Both organizations have their issues unique to each, but that can be said of any organization. If I believed that CAP was inferior, or a joke, or any of the other things I've seen some disgruntled, former members state on this site I wouldn't be a member. I AM a member because I believe in the mission of CAP, and I enjoy CAP.

[Eclipse]

In defense...

[SoCalMarine]

I will say, however, that your unit CC is doing a disservice to both you and the unit allowing you to wear your CGAux uniform to CAP meetings. Someone needs to set that situation straight ASAP.

Well, depends on which squadron I show up to for one. One squadron I attend I'm in my AUX uniform because I come straight from doing AUX duties no different than active military personnel who show up in their uniforms. Heck, no different than people who come straight from work and could be wearing a shirt and tie, or they could be wearing scrubs. The other squadron I attend meetings with I am generally in the CAP uniform of the day for that week.

All over this country I've seen squadrons with member showing up in civilian clothes, or military uniforms. You know, this is a volunteer organization. You want people to volunteer their time than sometimes you've got to make allowances. This is one area I WILL say that CAP has issues that the AUX doesn't. I've never once heard someone complain at a flotilla meeting that a member wasn't in the correct uniform or that they were wearing a uniform that wasn't AUX. Not saying one is right and the other is wrong. Different priorities I guess.

Question... what is CC? I'm guessing its a CAP term for CO.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Maybe, but I've yet to come across a squadron that had an issue with it, and I've attended five or six across four states. Even had a wing commander at some of the meetings without issue.

I can show up to the meeting in AF Blues, over the weight requirements. I probably won't be called out on it, but it doesn't make it right.

SMs are not required to wear the uniform; although, they are greatly encouraged to do so.

Cite please.

Regardless, many of the times I've shown up in Trops is because I just finished doing my Academy recruiting and didn't have time to change.

That's just an excuse. You even said so:

*** Anyway, I tend to wear my CGAUX uniform to both CGAUX meetings and CAP. One, because I'm lazy! Sorry. Two, because I can consider it a recruiting mission as long as I talk about the AUX and so on. I can also get PE hours in because I am wearing the AUX uniform and teaching classes on safety and so on.

Also, as I stated above, my squadron (and MANY like it) have the majority of members as active military. If your CO was in charge, some of these squadrons would have less than 1% attendance.

Explain? I think Military personnel understand things like procedure and policy without taking their ball home.

Again, my squadron consists of members who generally come direct from work whether that be Air National Guard, Army or at the Savannah IAP. They simply don't have time to change before showing up.

Excuses. Two wrongs don't make a right. Etc. Etc.

[Spaceman3750]

Question... what is CC? I'm guessing its a CAP term for CO.

It's the office title/abbreviation for "Commander". It's used in the AF too I believe.

[Eclipse]

I will say, however, that your unit CC is doing a disservice to both you and the unit allowing you to wear your CGAux uniform to CAP meetings. Someone needs to set that situation straight ASAP.

Well, depends on which squadron I show up to for one. One squadron I attend I'm in my AUX uniform because I come straight from doing AUX duties no different than active military personnel who show up in their uniforms. Heck, no different than people who come straight from work and could be wearing a shirt and tie, or they could be wearing scrubs. The other squadron I attend meetings with I am generally in the CAP uniform of the day for that week.

All over this country I've seen squadrons with member showing up in civilian clothes, or military uniforms. You know, this is a volunteer organization. You want people to volunteer their time than sometimes you've got to make allowances. This is one area I WILL say that CAP has issues that the AUX doesn't. I've never once heard someone complain at a flotilla meeting that a member wasn't in the correct uniform or that they were wearing a uniform that wasn't AUX. Not saying one is right and the other is wrong. Different priorities I guess.

Question... what is CC? I'm guessing its a CAP term for CO.

SMs are not required to wear the uniform; although, they are greatly encouraged to do so.

Time to actually read the regs, and whether or not your Foltilla, or CERT, or the local PTA,  cares about how people show up to meetings is irrelevant to CAP.

Showing up in an Aux uniform to a CAP activity is disrespectful to CAP and is not, in any way, the "same" as someone in the military showing up ni their uniform after a day of work (which most of us here think is a bad idea as well).

It is simply you wanting to show off your CGAux uniform to be "different".

Yes, CC is a standard military office symbol for "Commander".

[SoCalMarine]

I can show up to the meeting in AF Blues, over the weight requirements. I probably won't be called out on it, but it doesn't make it right.

Separate issue entirely. Wearing the uniform (any uniform) incorrectly is wrong period, but that is a different issue than showing up to a meeting not wearing the uniform. If you're going to wear the uniform, wear it correctly.

Cite please.

Uh, no? This isn't an academic review and I'm not writing a paper for my university class. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong; however, show me where I'm wrong.

That's just an excuse. You even said so:

And? An excuse is simply a reason why something did, or did not, happen. An excuse is not necessarily a negative thing. Yes, there are times I'm lazy. A few times I could have driven home, changed and headed to the squadron. Yes, those times I would have been late for one (although being late wouldn't have really mattered), but I also would have been waisting gas driving all over the place unnecessarily.

I would say I find it out (but I don't) that you guys have no problem being hardcore on this issue, but I would bet there are things that you don't do "correctly" that you either never mention, ignore or don't have addressed with you. Its easy to pick on me and say you're wrong when its something you don't do, but its a lot harder to turn that focus on yourself. I see SMs every day wear the uniform incorrectly. Heck, no one even knows the correct way because CAP manuals are all over the place on uniform issues and so on.

Explain? I think Military personnel understand things like procedure and policy without taking their ball home.

Yes, WE military personnel (GA Guard) do understand procedure and policy; however, CAP isn't the military. Do I really have to explain this? Just using my squadron for example, I'd say about 1-5 SMs would show up on a regular basis if the was an absolute requirement to wear the CAP uniform. Why? Because the other 35 members simply do not have the time, or opportunity, to change from their work clothes into CAP uniforms prior to the meeting. What's more important: showing up to a meeting and getting your training and safety done, or having a squadron with 3 people show up a week in proper uniform?

Excuses. Two wrongs don't make a right. Etc. Etc.

And its people like you that is causing CAP to lose some members. Oh sorry, I know you've got a job and that you work right up until the start of the meeting so I know you don't have time to change but you can't attend meetings or support this organization unless you show up in uniform. There IS a reason the NSCC is growing very fast, with a lot of former CAP members.

[SoCalMarine]

It's the office title/abbreviation for "Commander". It's used in the AF too I believe.

Aw OK. I'd seen it used occasionally but never thought to ask before. Its just easier to use CO for me anyway.

[Eclipse]

Excuses, excuses.  "I can't, I won't, you don't understand how hard my situation is..."

I love how "certain people" have "jobs" and are too busy to change in the bathroom, yet everyone else seems to be able to figure out this complex problem.

Please feel free to post or cite the study that indicates the growth of the NSCC (oh, you'll have to cite the growth as well), is in any way related to
CAP units expecting members to wear proper uniforms.

[Eclipse]

It's the office title/abbreviation for "Commander". It's used in the AF too I believe.

Aw OK. I'd seen it used occasionally but never thought to ask before. Its just easier to use CO for me anyway.

Clearly.

So here's where we stand based on your statements - either you are so new to CAP that you haven't had time to clearly understand the
culture, dynamic, and organization, or you have chosen to favor the CGAux, which is fine, but wholly inappropriate and disrespectful to
CAP if you carry yourself that way in person at CAP activities.

[SoCalMarine]

Showing up in an Aux uniform to a CAP activity is disrespectful to CAP

You should have finished that statement, "in my opinion." I'm a CAP member, and I don't view it that way. I've also never run across anyone who DOES view it that way except for the few of you here.

is not, in any way, the "same" as someone in the military showing up ni their uniform after a day of work (which most of us here think is a bad idea as well).

Again, its attitudes like that that push people away from CAP. Sorry, we don't want your support if you can't support us the way we think you should. Now that statement I have heard people in CAP say that they've felt. I've seen many parents and SMs who no longer attend meetings and drop off the rolls because people like you are more worried about the wearing the uniform than just showing up to support the organization.

And it is very much the same. I have made a commitment to the USCG to perform Academy partner missions. I am required to be in Trops to do that mission when I show up to high schools and universities as a recruiter. Just because you don't value the CGAUX doesn't mean its less of a job than anything anyone else does.

You can think its a bad idea all you want, but my GA squadron, with all of its SMs wearing ACUs, ABUs, the polos, civilian clothes an all consistently has been rated (and awarded) one of the top squadrons in GA. So, my squadron is fine with it, the group is fine with it, the wing is fine with it and even the region has been fine with it. I'm sorry, but who are you that you think you rate to contradict all of them? Oh, I'm guessing you're the person who is a regulation hound. I'm also guessing you didn't serve in the military. My experiences coming out of the Marine Corps is that mission comes first, everything else is secondary. I've seen instances of Marines who's uniform wasn't up to Marine Corps standards. Was it addressed? Yes. Did the Corps say you can't perform the mission until you look the part? Nope. I can just see it now... hey Marine, sorry, you can't fight in today's battle... you're wearing the wrong uniform items.... or you're missing a rank pin.

So sad that you're priorities are in the wrong place.

It is simply you wanting to show off your CGAux uniform to be "different".

And that is an assumption you've made because you dislike my post, and dislike me wearing the uniform. Its an assumption you've made in spite of me stating otherwise. p.s. Its CGAUX. If you're going to speak about "disrespect" than you shouldn't do the same. CGAux is comparable to CAp.

Yes, CC is a standard military office symbol for "Commander".

Well, standard CAP and maybe USAF. Never once seen it before in all my time in the Marines and dealings with the Navy and Coast Guard.

[Persona non grata]

I had aguy who was dual memeber and he would wear his CG AUX blues. Whne I took over the squadron I told him very nicely to stop waering it.  Come to find out, he hadnt been a memeber of the AUX in years.  I haave meet some good people associated with the AUX.   

[SoCalMarine]

I love how "certain people" have "jobs" and are too busy to change in the bathroom, yet everyone else seems to be able to figure out this complex problem.

Everyone else? Really? So the fact that I constantly run into squadrons with people not wearing the CAP uniform because they don't have time change is just ignored. Yeah, everyone else... except for all the rest of the people who don't wear the uniform. In fact, the squadron I attended last night both the CO and the PAO were in civilian clothes. So, maybe you should stop with the absolutes an veiled attack on me.

I'd love to see you walk up to the Army 1Lt, Army Lt Col, AF MSgt or multitude of others and say your smart*** remark to them. Not only would they laugh you out of the building, but they'd give you an earful while doing it.

Please feel free to post or cite the study that indicates the growth of the NSCC (oh, you'll have to cite the growth as well), is in any way related to CAP units expecting members to wear proper uniforms.

What is it with you people and citing? Did I miss the academic standards at the door? Oh that's right. People who only learned to debate on the internet think demanding citation of any statement is a trump card that wins any argument. Please. Have you ever heard of anecdotal evidence. I just cited my evidence. My experience from what I've seen and heard is evidence.

[Eclipse]

I'd love to see you walk up to the Army 1Lt, Army Lt Col, AF MSgt or multitude of others and say your smart*** remark to them. Not only would they laugh you out of the building, but they'd give you an earful while doing it.

No problem, been there, done that.  This is CAP, not the Army, USAF, or Navy.  A commander not wearing a proper uniform to a unit meeting is part and parcel of the problem, not justification of your behavior. 

What is it with you people and citing? Did I miss the academic standards at the door? Oh that's right. People who only learned to debate on the internet think demanding citation of any statement is a trump card that wins any argument. Please. Have you ever heard of anecdotal evidence. I just cited my evidence. My experience from what I've seen and heard is evidence.

Citing is where you support your made-up argument with actual facts.  People say a lot of things to support their positions, we call them on it when those statements are not supportable by reality, make no sense in context, or connect anecdotal or circumstantial situations in a way which doesn't actually make the argument.

No one is "attacking you" beyond having an issue with the hole you're digging.  You've now indicated that everyone through the Region CC is
unconcerned regarding proper uniform wear, highly doubtful, then you make the statement that the NSCC is growing because of "people like me"
who have the unreasonable expectation that CAP members will wear CAP uniforms.  Again, highly doubtful, and irrelevant to the discussion, since
even if it were a fact, which it isn't, that doesn't change the requirements.

Bottom line, you've decided it is too much trouble to go from one volunteer organization to another and change your clothes, and are reaching all
over the place for justification of a bad idea.  Your excuses are the same ones we've been hearing for years from other members "too busy" to
put on a golf shirt, use proper terminology, or otherwise "just belong" to CAP without it being important to the rest of the world that they are in
some other, unrelated organization.

[RiverAux]

I think some of you may have mininterpreted what he meant by "CG orders".  It is usually not "orders" in the sense that someone in the CG took the time to write them up and specifically approve some activity.   Usually it is "orders" in the sense that someone in the Aux has been told and at least tacitly approves what you are going to do that day thereby making it an official Aux activity and providing whatever legal cover is necessary to undertake it.

For example, if I want to go do boat safety exams I tell the flotilla staff officer over that activity and now I'm "under orders". 

That being said, there are some Aux activities for which specific "orders" are actually issued by the CG, mostly related to boat and air patrols.  Some Auxies are put under orders to respond to various disasters and the like as well. 

[SoCalMarine]

Aw OK. I'd seen it used occasionally but never thought to ask before. Its just easier to use CO for me anyway.

Clearly.

So here's where we stand based on your statements - either you are so new to CAP that you haven't had time to clearly understand the
culture, dynamic, and organization, or you have chosen to favor the CGAux, which is fine, but wholly inappropriate and disrespectful to
CAP if you carry yourself that way in person at CAP activities.
[/quote]

"We?" So, I find it rather presumptuous that you feel you can speak for everyone, but on the other hand it does go along with your posts.

I've been an SM for two years, and I spent three as a cadet in the late 80's and early 90's. So, relatively speaking I am new. Relatively being the operative word.

However, I have noted differences between CAP, CGAUX and the NSCC. On the occasion that I showed up wearing ACUs to an AUX meeting, never once did anyone say anything, nor was it ever deemed disrespectful. Yes, I'm sure SOMEONE didn't like it, but that's because NOTHING in life is an absolute except maybe paying taxes and death. Our CGAUX flotilla sponsors two of the local NSCC units and we wear our AUX uniforms to their events. Some of us have even joined the NSCC to help support them. Never once has the CG uniform been an issue. The person responsible for the move to sponsor these units is retired Army and a member of CAP, CGAUX and now the NSCC. He brought up the issue of our uniforms, and the NSCC unit commander told us he had no issue with it whatsoever. So, apparently, the only people with an issue is CAP... and not even CAP but you particular guys here.

However, here's one thing I've noticed in dealing with the different organizations as well. The concerns, issues and focus of the organizations tend to mimic that of the parent, military branch. NSCC tends to be more concerned with getting the kids involved in the organization, experiencing life in the Navy and Marines by constant trips to Navy/Marine bases, ships and aircraft. There seems to be focus on wearing the uniform properly, but not so much on what goes on the uniform. Haven't seen much in the way of a negative yet.

The CGAUX is primarily concerned with meeting the mission. Wearing the uniform correctly when someone does wear it, but wearing of the uniform to a meeting is not required. Encouraged for sure, but not required. Again, the CGAUX recognizes that while wearing the uniform is the optimal choice, there are exceptions and people do have lives outside of a volunteer organization. Now, there are certain negatives in the CGAUX, but those tend to be old-timers who refuse to change or would rather sit around and tell war stories.

CAP. CAP has two distinct directions: Cadets, and Senior Squadrons. CAP is very good at getting cadets involved, and helping them come out of their shell. CAP is very good at having senior squadrons who are well trained for SAR. The negatives are that CAP tends to get bogged down in the minutia just like the AF does. All last year, all you ever read about in the AF times were Airman complaining about the PT uniform, complaining about not getting enough ribbons, complaining about the ABU and so on. I don't need to cite it. You can go back and read the letters and commentary for yourself. If you look at the other branches you'll see that wasn't the case. Yeah, you'll some complaining. Human nature. No service is perfect, and no one is perfect. Its just that AF seems to have so much time on their hands that they can have a full-scale issue of whether to tuck in the PT shirt or not. Whether to salute in PT gear or not. Weather everyone should wear the same shoes in PT gear or not. As a Marine I looked at that in dismay. Of all the possible things a service could be complaining about today, how in the world is PT gear your hottest argument?

CAP has gotten wrapped up in that. Arguing about stupid stuff that doesn't really matter. The arguments you guys have stated here today. You'd rather see the mission suffer than have someone show up in civilian clothes, or work clothes (whether it be military or another Auxiliary). Absolutism tends to lead to the death of a movement. Ask any history or cultural anthropology professor.

Sad thing is, while I view the AUX as my primary focus, I believe that of all three CAP has the most potential. Not only for CAP, but for the AF. CAP has the capability to continually recruit people into the AF, as well as to augment the AF in more ways for more time. The AF is in every state with multiple installations. The possibilities greatly outweigh those of the AUX or NSCC. Yet rather than come together as CAP members, you guys would rather bicker and have infighting because someone doesn't meat YOUR approval, YOUR opinion and so forth.

[SoCalMarine]

Oh sorry about the quoting mistake. The website was having loading issues and I got focused on that and forgot to change some of the marks. Sorry.

[SoCalMarine]

I had aguy who was dual memeber and he would wear his CG AUX blues. Whne I took over the squadron I told him very nicely to stop waering it.  Come to find out, he hadnt been a memeber of the AUX in years.  I haave meet some good people associated with the AUX.

Now see that one doesn't make sense. Why not just make the switch? If you're not using the other uniform anymore, just switch it over to CAP.

[Майор Хаткевич]

OATH OF MEMBERSHIP
(READ CAREFULLY BEFORE SIGNING)
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that:
I understand membership in the Civil Air Patrol is a privilege, not a right, and that membership is on a year-to-year basis subject to recurring renewal by CAP. I further understand failure to meet membership eligibility criteria will result in automatic termination at any time.
I voluntarily subscribe to the objectives and purposes of the Civil Air Patrol and agree to be guided by CAP Core Values, Ethics Policies, Constitution & Bylaws, Regulations and all applicable Federal, State, and Local Laws.
I understand only the Civil Air Patrol corporate officers are authorized to obligate funds, equipment, or services.
I understand the Civil Air Patrol is not liable for loss or damage to my personal property when operated for or by the Civil Air Patrol. I further understand that safety is critical for the protection of all members and protection of CAP resources. I will at all times follow safe practices and take an active role in safety for myself and others.
I agree to abide by the decisions of those in authority of the Civil Air Patrol.
I certify that all information on this application is presently correct and any false statement may be cause to deny membership. I understand I am obligated to notify the Civil Air Patrol if there are any changes pertaining to the information on the front of this form and further understand that failure to report such changes may be grounds for membership termination.
I fully understand that this Oath of Membership is an integral part of this application for senior membership in the Civil Air Patrol and that my signature on the form constitutes evidence of that understanding and agreement to comply with all contents of this Oath of Membership.

http://capnhq.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/capnhq.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=613

See Table 1-1 below from CAPM 39-1 CAP Uniform Manual  23 Mar 2005 

Table 1-1. Wearing the CAP Uniform
Wear the uniform while participating in or conducting the cadet program or flying in CAP aircraft (corporate and member-owned aircraft used in CAP flight activity). The service uniform, BDU, utility uniform, field uniform, CAP or AF-style flight suit, CAP blazer, aviator shirt, or knit shirt uniform combinations are all authorized. The wing commander, or designee, will prescribe the type clothing to be worn by members while flying or engaging in organized recreational activities. The region commander will prescribe wear policy for members of the region headquarters.

It doesn't say that the uniform is required for meetings. But  common sense dictates that a CAP meeting calls for a CAP uniform. Not ACUs, tropicals, whites, Marpat, etc, etc.

I suppose I'm safe in assuming that you couldn't care any less about cadets and prefer SM only units?

[SoCalMarine]

No problem, been there, done that.  This is CAP, not the Army, USAF, or Navy.  A commander not wearing a proper uniform to a unit meeting is part and parcel of the problem, not justification of your behavior.

And yet, from what I've seen, no one in the squadron has an issue with it, the group commander doesn't have an issue with it, the Wing commander hasn't had an issue and the region commander (who's attended a meeting or two) also did not have an issue with it. Funny how they don't but you do. Guess they aren't as professional or motivated as you, current positions in CAP notwithstanding.

Citing is where you support your made-up argument with actual facts.  People say a lot of things to support their positions, we call them on it when those statements are not supportable by reality, make no sense in context, or connect anecdotal or circumstantial situations in a way which doesn't actually make the argument.

Yes, I know what citation is. I have two college degrees. My argument isn't anymore "made-up" than yours. In everything you've said today I've not seen one citation to back up your statements other than your opinion. Thing is, I don't have a problem with that. I'm not that insecure that I believe everyone who disagrees with me must be lying and that I demand citation to prove otherwise.

Take the request for me to cite evidence to support my statement that CAP members aren't required to wear the uniform (except certain events such as flying, etc) but encouraged to do so. Asking someone to disprove a negative is generally not a good, academic idea. Now, if you can show me CAP regulations requiring the wearing of the uniform I'll admit I was wrong.

No one is "attacking you" beyond having an issue with the hole you're digging.  You've now indicated that everyone through the Region CC is
unconcerned regarding proper uniform wear, highly doubtful, then you make the statement that the NSCC is growing because of "people like me"who have the unreasonable expectation that CAP members will wear CAP uniforms.  Again, highly doubtful, and irrelevant to the discussion, since even if it were a fact, which it isn't, that doesn't change the requirements.

So, the fact that I've seen it and heard it from members of both the CGAUX and NSCC means nothing right? I mean, someone telling me their reasons for no longer being in CAP isn't valid. Unless they can prove why, and how, they feel than its false? That's just retarded. I'm digging a hole? Really? Why? Because you disagree with me? So, when did you become the end all of CAP regulations and how CAP, as a whole, feels about my statements? Just because you presume to speak for everyone doesn't mean you do. I know people who've made the comments you doubt. I've felt that way myself at times. So, are my own feelings false and in doubt as well? You can doubt something all you want because it doesn't fit your perception, but just because you disbelieve doesn't make it not so. The problem here is that you're taking my statements as some grand thing. Stating that NSCC is growing because of people like you isn't mean to infer that its huge numbers or exponential. Even one person who leaves CAP for NSCC because attitudes like yours is the truth of the statement.

Also, I didn't state the reason to be "the unreasonable expectation that CAP members will wear CAP uniforms." Those are your words. I said your attitude. Making the statement you did shows your utter contempt for me and your willingness to overreact and get defensive by using sarcastic phrases such as "unreasonable expectation" when that wasn't my statement at all. I don't think your expectation is unreasonable at all. I think the DEGREE of your expectation is.

Also, until people through the region commander comes and says you can no longer show up to a CAP meeting unless you're in a CAP uniform than you have no standing on that issue. The most I've ever seen at my squadron show up in uniform was four people out of 35 or so. Four. Me in BDUs, an older member in the polo and two in flight suits. Everyone else was in work clothes (civilian and military) or just civilian attire.

So let me put it this way... you can complain all you want about it but that's the way its done in many squadrons including ours and ours has a wall full of awards showing that getting the job done is more important than looking the part.

Bottom line, you've decided it is too much trouble to go from one volunteer organization to another and change your clothes, and are reaching all over the place for justification of a bad idea.  Your excuses are the same ones we've been hearing for years from other members "too busy" to put on a golf shirt, use proper terminology, or otherwise "just belong" to CAP without it being important to the rest of the world that they are in some other, unrelated organization.

Again, another assumption on your part. Seriously, did you learn how to debate on the internet? You'll sarcastically reply about what a citation is, vaguely direct the comment at me, but than you'll assume all over the place? Have you looked up the definition of hypocrite?

Here's the point. You don't know me. I've stated multiple times now my reasons for wearing of the AUX uniform, yet you continue to state your assumptions that are the complete opposite. So, essentially you're calling me a liar without having the courtesy to actually call me a liar. While we're at it, I'd like to know exactly how you know my heart, my mind? How is it that you have such deep insight into the true meaning of my statements?

Now, moving on... I've worn both my AUX uniform and my ACUs to squadron meetings. I wear what I'm in. You don't like it? Don't attend my squadron. Someone stated earlier its not the same thing to wear an AUX uniform as a military uniform. Really? Why? I wasn't implying that AUX service equates to military service. So if that's what you're thinking... move on. Now, let me tell you from my experience... on days I've worn the AUX uniform I did about five times more work than the days I wore the ACUs. The last time I wore ACUs was because I didn't get released until late. We didn't do anything that whole day by sit around bs'ing and going to chow. I busted my butt, though, doing the Academy partner mission for the CGAUX. So, clearly the amount of work couldn't have been what was being implied either. So tell me... why is it different?

[SoCalMarine]

I think some of you may have mininterpreted what he meant by "CG orders".  It is usually not "orders" in the sense that someone in the CG took the time to write them up and specifically approve some activity.   Usually it is "orders" in the sense that someone in the Aux has been told and at least tacitly approves what you are going to do that day thereby making it an official Aux activity and providing whatever legal cover is necessary to undertake it.

For example, if I want to go do boat safety exams I tell the flotilla staff officer over that activity and now I'm "under orders". 

That being said, there are some Aux activities for which specific "orders" are actually issued by the CG, mostly related to boat and air patrols.  Some Auxies are put under orders to respond to various disasters and the like as well.

Correct. Thank you. Although, if I remember right, I did have orders issued by DIRAUX. Can't remember though.

[Eclipse]

Now, moving on... I've worn both my AUX uniform and my ACUs to squadron meetings. I wear what I'm in. You don't like it? Don't attend my squadron. Someone stated earlier its not the same thing to wear an AUX uniform as a military uniform. Really? Why?

Neither is acceptable, but at least the military is understandable.

Both auxiliaries are volunteer organizations separate from professional engagements, meaning you have choice in your schedule, clothing, and level of involvement.  That is not always the case with jobs or the military, though again, neither is an acceptable excuse.

You can dodge the issue all you want, but you will never find an acceptable excuse for wearing a Coast Guard Aux uniform to a CAP activity.  You've already indicated your unit CC's uniforms are lax, so his attitude is not going to fly, and the fact that upstream CC's haven't said anything to you, doesn't mean
they don't have an issue with it.  You simply lost credibility points when they arrived.

[SoCalMarine]

It doesn't say that the uniform is required for meetings. But  common sense dictates that a CAP meeting calls for a CAP uniform. Not ACUs, tropicals, whites, Marpat, etc, etc.

I suppose I'm safe in assuming that you couldn't care any less about cadets and prefer SM only units?

Aw, so what we have so far is that you're admitting... at least from what you can tell so far... is that CAP doesn't have an absolute requirement. I wonder why that is. Just postulating here, but could it be that CAP recognizes that there are exceptions? Could it be that CAP recognizes that members will not always be capable of putting the uniform on, and to expect 100% uniform wear or not attendance allowed, is unreasonable?

No, you are wrong in your assumption, but I will give you credit (and say thank you for being honest about it being an assumption where others don't) for stating it was an assumption. I started as a cadet. When I rejoined CAP, I joined a cadet squadron specifically to work with cadets. Over the last two years I have migrated towards the senior side. Why? Because I prefer the mission more. I have a degree in Homeland Security, and work as an emergency management specialist. Its not that I don't like working with cadets, by I get more out of CAP on the senior side based on my personal interests. Nothing wrong with that. We all perform functions within CAP based on our personal interests. Heck, joining CAP was for our personal interests. Anyway, I still work with cadets a lot. Usually its only military bearing and drill since I have a lot of experience in those areas versus teaching aerospace and so on.

[Eclipse]

Uniforms are required for all CAP activities, including meetings, as has been pointed out and cited here
innumerable times.  The fact that commanders and members choose to ignore that requirement does not change it.

[SoCalMarine]

Both auxiliaries are volunteer organizations separate from professional engagements, meaning you have choice in your schedule, clothing, and level of involvement.  That is not always the case with jobs or the military, though again, neither is an acceptable excuse.

Wrong. I made a commitment (both verbally and in writing) that i would perform a certain number of hours a week for the Academy program. I have to do it on a weekday as that's when secondary schools are in session. The only day of the week I have time off from my job is Monday. One of the two squadrons I attend is on a Monday night. If I do not perform my duties are required, than I am dropped from the Academy partner program. Therefore, it IS an obligation that I am required to meet unless I am no longer interested.

However, what we've determined is that you don't like it, and I don't have a problem with it. No one has yet to show me requirements to wear the CAP uniform, nor regulations forbidding the attendance of a meeting while NOT wearing a CAP uniform. So, clearly your problem is with the CGAUX rather than people just showing up not in a CAP uniform. I frankly don't care what your beef is, but its your beef. Not mine.

...the fact that upstream CC's haven't said anything to you, doesn't mean they don't have an issue with it.  You simply lost credibility points when they arrived.

Really? Interesting. So, the fact that the wing and group commanders have shown up to the squadron in civilian clothes sort of puts a little kink in your logic though. How is it that I'd lose credibility points with someone for not wearing the CAP uniform when they weren't wearing it either? Or is this just another cause of you presuming to know what other people think?

[SoCalMarine]

Uniforms are required for all CAP activities, including meetings, as has been pointed out and cited here
innumerable times.  The fact that commanders and members choose to ignore that requirement does not change it.

And yet I'm now asking for a third time in this thread to show me the regulation stating uniforms are required for squadron meetings by attendees. Any reason you've chosen not to post them?

[MIKE]

when engaged in normal duties as a CAP member or attending local, wing/region, or national CAP functions (see note 1).

Note that the X is in the Wear column.

[Al Sayre]

CAPM 39-1 Table 1-1 Line items 1 & 6

[SoCalMarine]

when engaged in normal duties as a CAP member or attending local, wing/region, or national CAP functions (see note 1).

Note that the X is in the Wear column.

Thank you Mike. One person who has sense. So yes, as I read the manual my squadron, and hundreds of others across the nation, are incorrect. I'm adult enough to admit it; however, I do think that regardless of the manual, exceptions can be made (and obviously are).

[RiverAux]

Yes, a CAP unit that routinely has most of its members at meetings not wearing uniforms is incorrect and in my experience would be unusual. 

[SoCalMarine]

Yes, a CAP unit that routinely has most of its members at meetings not wearing uniforms is incorrect and in my experience would be unusual.

It is my experience that a unit with MOST is unusual as well. I've never been to a single squadron where every member in attendance was in uniform. Again, life happens, but yes I recognize MOST is unusual. It does happen though... obviously.. haha.

[Eclipse]

...the fact that upstream CC's haven't said anything to you, doesn't mean they don't have an issue with it.  You simply lost credibility points when they arrived.

Really? Interesting. So, the fact that the wing and group commanders have shown up to the squadron in civilian clothes sort of puts a little kink in your logic though. How is it that I'd lose credibility points with someone for not wearing the CAP uniform when they weren't wearing it either?

I would say it is additional part and parcel of the problem.

Now, benefit of the doubt being on sale this week, since for whatever reason you were misinformed about the regulations, how you choose to
react and comport yourself forward is really the indicator of the attitude.

[SoCalMarine]

Now, benefit of the doubt being on sale this week, since for whatever reason you were misinformed about the regulations, how you choose to
react and comport yourself forward is really the indicator of the attitude.

Well, now that I've seen the regs I will do my best to meet them; however, in my home squadron if the CO says its alright to show up, on occasion, not in CAP uniform if I can't change than that will probably happen. Again, life happens. There are times I simply cannot change clothes, and if the option is go in what I'm wearing or not go at all... who knows.

But yes, I will do my best to attend in a CAP uniform.

[jeders]

So yes, as I read the manual my squadron, and hundreds of others across the nation, are incorrect. I'm adult enough to admit it; however, I do think that regardless of the manual, exceptions can be made (and obviously are).

I'll admit that I and others in my squadron have come to meetings not in uniform due to extenuating circumstances once in a while. Once when I was commander I had to take care of some paperwork at a meeting but couldn't stay the whole time and showed up in the civies I was already wearing.

However, this is the exception, not the rule. Last night, we had a change of command ceremony. One of our members is an AF pilot. He got off work, went home (off base) to get into uniform for the meeting. This included finding a set of wings to put on his coat as he recently earned a star above them and polishing his GT badge because it was dirty compared to the wings. With all of that he was still early (mostly because the new commander and inspection party was running an hour late).

Yet you and others in your squadron can't stick a pair of grey slacks and a polo in your trunk and take 10 minutes before the meeting to change?

You're at a CAP meeting to do CAP business, not to recruit for the CGAUX or any other organization.

[RiverAux]

I don't think anyone here or anywhere in CAP would freak out about someone occasionally showing up in civies or another uniform even though it is technically "wrong".  It is just an issue when it becomes commonplace (my rule of thumb -- no more than 25% of the time).

[PA Guy]

Honolulugold:

You mention having probs. with explaining office insignia to others when you augmented during DWH.  Why were you wearing office insignia?  When augmenting you are supposed to wear the member insignia, I know it makes things easier for both the  gold and silver sides when I augment.  I mean that was the reason for allowing velcro to be used on the collar with the ODUs. One of the things I really like about the Aux is the lack of "rank".

[MIKE]

Not necessarily for augmenting ashore, although some units do require it as a condition for assignment to duty.  You'll note that AUXMAN Chapter 10 A.9. specifies "when working as crew on a Coast Guard vessel,"

[PA Guy]

OK, must be a local station policy.  I saw the cite in the AUXMAN but thought I saw it was expanded to shore installations in an ALAUX several yrs ago. In any event wearing the member insignia seems to cause less confusion, at least for me.

[SoCalMarine]

Yet you and others in your squadron can't stick a pair of grey slacks and a polo in your trunk and take 10 minutes before the meeting to change?

You're at a CAP meeting to do CAP business, not to recruit for the CGAUX or any other organization.

No. Clearly not a priority for us. As I've said before we're at a CAP meeting to DO CAP business... not LOOK like we're doing CAP business. I will make an effort to wear the CAP uniform, but if given the choice of DOING the work, or LOOKING the part... I'll choose doing all day long.

Look, if its a question of following regs, than I've already admitted I was wrong.

However, you're asking a subjective question about priorities. My priorities are different than yours. Not better, an not worse. Different. I don't judge you for having different priorities, why the judgement back?

[SoCalMarine]

Honolulugold:

You mention having probs. with explaining office insignia to others when you augmented during DWH.  Why were you wearing office insignia?  When augmenting you are supposed to wear the member insignia, I know it makes things easier for both the  gold and silver sides when I augment.  I mean that was the reason for allowing velcro to be used on the collar with the ODUs. One of the things I really like about the Aux is the lack of "rank".

Hey, yeah I know about the member insignia but the base CO stated it was fine to wear the "LT bars" (ADSO symbol). His reasoning was that in public affairs we're supposed to wear the ODU now versus Trops, and since the "rank" is sewn on he didn't expect us to maintain a separate blouse just for this purpose, or to have new ones sewn on for TDY stuff. I think it goes base to base. I've never liked the velcro. Just looks cheesy to me. While I was at the Material Center it was different. Had orders which allowed me to work on the base, but I worked in an all Auxiliary office even though the building was PSU and STAN teams. So, wasn't really an issue.

Besides, the issue wasn't the Coasties not knowing. It was when I would run across civilians or other military.

Even when we would go onboard the AIRSTA not there under orders but for a mission or to pick stuff up we were saluted by officers a lot. That was something I thought odd. The enlisted didn't salute (which isn't an issue at all of course), but we'd have O-3 and above salute. Clearly it was just a matter of respect and courtesy versus seasoned officers not knowing the difference.. or at least I hope!

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

We had a dual-hatter CGAUX/CAP officer in my unit until personal commitments necessitated his transfer to another unit - their gain, our loss.  Great, great guy with a long military career behind him, active, Reserve and Guard.

He never showed up to a CAP activity in his CGAUX uniform.  We only had that happen once...and that person was a guest, who was just curious about CAP.  We welcomed him and showed him every courtesy.  We have a very good relationship with the CG and nearby Auxiliary units.  I've never seen anything but respect shown between us.

Hono, do you have any cadets in your unit?  If so, it must be confusing to them - especially the newer ones - to see your CGAUX office insignia, try to equate it with Navy/CG rank insignia and then be perplexed to find it's not what it seems.  Especially so when you live in an area when you see gold side CG and Navy personnel wearing nearly identical insignia...not to mention the occasional Canadian naval officer...


(Apologies to VADM Bruce Donaldson)

...and saluting, and form of address...

One of our former cadets is now in AFROTC at college, and he shows up in his ABU on the occasions he does show up, but he is not performing CAP activities; he's just dropping in to say hello.

Someone correct me out of 39-1 if I'm wrong, but I do believe, after almost 18 years in CAP, a uniform is required when working with cadets.  I've been in a senior squadron where they did not want to work with cadets (even doing O-rides) but they knew enough to at least throw on a polo shirt when they did.

I remember working a job where I had to virtually go straight from work to CAP.  On CAP meeting nights I took my uniform with, changed in the men's can executive washroom and headed for CAP.

Of course, what do I know...at 45 (and a bit) I'm just one of the "alte Fürze"...and probably too darn rigid to accept such new innovations as wearing a non-CAP uniform on a regular basis to a CAP activity...

[SoCalMarine]

One of our former cadets is now in AFROTC at college, and he shows up in his ABU on the occasions he does show up, but he is not performing CAP activities; he's just dropping in to say hello.

Someone correct me out of 39-1 if I'm wrong, but I do believe, after almost 18 years in CAP, a uniform is required when working with cadets.  I've been in a senior squadron where they did not want to work with cadets (even doing O-rides) but they knew enough to at least throw on a polo shirt when they did.

wearing a non-CAP uniform on a regular basis to a CAP activity...

Couple things. When I'm not in a CAP uniform (regardless of what I'm wearing) I am not taking part in training other personnel or cadets. I think that might be one of the issues people had with the statement. I never interact with cadets or SMs for the purpose of training unless I'm in a CAP uniform. However, I will sit in on a class or safety briefing regardless of what I'm wearing.

Also, I didn't say I wore non-CAP apparel "on a regular basis." I said usually, and usually only applies to one squadron. The other squadron I visit I'm always in a CAP uniform. I've stated those point multiple times now.

[SoCalMarine]

Anyway, look people. I already said I was wrong concerning what to wear to a meeting. I said I would make the effort to change. Is there really a need to continue with sarcastic and/or condescending remarks? Lets just get back to the topic of the post.


Yes the uniforms are pretty close. I've had a few people ask if I was Air Force when I was out and about. You should see some of the looks you'd get at MacDill AFB. Some of those AF guys would almost rip their head off with a double take!

Here's something though... the working uniform is all Coast Guard. The service uniform is close to AF blues, but the dress uniform is all Navy. Dress whites are the Navy chokers, and mess dress are the Navy's white or blue (which is really black) mess uniforms. Makes it cheaper for the Coast Guard for sure.

[Spaceman3750]

Does anyone here wear there polo to work on meeting nights if you know you don't have time to change? I know it's a uniform and we're not supposed to, but it would be significantly better than, say, wearing BDUs to work.

[wuzafuzz]

Does anyone here wear there polo to work on meeting nights if you know you don't have time to change? I know it's a uniform and we're not supposed to, but it would be significantly better than, say, wearing BDUs to work.

Nope!  Sometimes I do wear the polo uniform with a different shirt; it looks like typical business casual attire.  I only have to change shirts before the meeting.  It takes 30 seconds or less.

[Al Sayre]

^ +1  I have several pairs of grey dockers chinos that I wear to work on a regular basis, I just grab a polo shirt on the way out the door when I know I have to go straight to the meeting and change in my office.