I have been wondering, is the new corporate service dress uniform in violation of the UCMJ and USC codes? I have heard both yes and no answers, so I figured it's time to find out once and for all.
Quote from: Guardrail on February 05, 2007, 06:39:26 PM
I have been wondering, is the new corporate service dress uniform in violation of the UCMJ and USC codes? I have heard both yes and no answers, so I figured it's time to find out once and for all.
It may have violated statutes, for CAP members who were also members of the Uniformed Services/Armed Forces, in its original design. The subsequent modifications of the uniform (new CAP distinctive nameplate, CAP cutouts - not US, no grade on flight cap, etc.) were done to bring the uniform in line with the UCMJ and/or USC and guidance from above.
So your answer: It may not have been before; it is compliant now.
Haven't we already discussed this in another similar thread?
With the latest tweaks done to it, I feel it doesn't violate US Code/UCMJ.
It's of a darker shade (AF 1625 polyester) than the current service dress (AF 1620 polyester/wool). The silver sleeve braid I could do without, as it is a big contrast with the blue and may be mistaken for sleeve rank.
I would have rather seen them bring back the CAP blue shouldermarks for wear with the TPU shirt instead of the USAF officer ones.
As we are not bound by UCMJ, no.
And otherwise, I would imagine no more than any police or fire uniform.
It is the uniform of a civilian organization. Nothing more.
No.....not sure how it would or could violate the UCMJ though. People violate the UCMJ, and since CAP members are civilians, the UCMJ does not apply. I also do believe I read somewhere (not sure where, but will try to find it) that the secretaries of the military departments and the secretary of defense can allow civilians to wear military uniforms as long as there are enough changes in appearance as so the civilian will not be mistaken as being in the military.
Short answere no. They could have left the "US" cutouts on the TPU jacket, it was already distinctive enough with the silver braid and new nameplate.
As I said in my first post: The original UCMJ compliance concern was directed at CAP members who are also members of the Armed Forces, and in that Armed Forces capacity they are subject to the UCMJ. For them, it may have been too similar (i/e: nothing distinctive that says "CAP" and not "Uniformed Services"). The reasoning behind the changes was to bring the TPU in line with those needs.
Quote from: mikeylikey on February 05, 2007, 06:57:24 PMI also do believe I read somewhere (not sure where, but will try to find it) that the secretaries of the military departments and the secretary of defense can allow civilians to wear military uniforms as long as there are enough changes in appearance as so the civilian will not be mistaken as being in the military
Yes, in fact there a lot of civilians in the sandbox right now wearing BDU's with "DOD CIVILIAN" on the nametape...
Since the TPU does not, to my knowledge, duplicate an existing US military uniform, there are no violations. As has already been said, we are not subject to the UCMJ anyway.
Actually, the Service Dress uniform would violate the US Code, except that the Air Force has specifically allowed CAP members to wear it, with appropriate modifications. This is similar to the US Army allowing the different State Defense Forces to wear the Army uniform with modifications.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 05, 2007, 07:02:05 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on February 05, 2007, 06:57:24 PMI also do believe I read somewhere (not sure where, but will try to find it) that the secretaries of the military departments and the secretary of defense can allow civilians to wear military uniforms as long as there are enough changes in appearance as so the civilian will not be mistaken as being in the military
Yes, in fact there a lot of civilians in the sandbox right now wearing BDU's with "DOD CIVILIAN" on the nametape...
Yes, this is done in operational environments where it is better for the military and civilians to blend together. Up close, they are still identified as civilians; from farther away, it is harder to tell them apart. Terrorists, being the cowards they are, would rather target civilians than military, so this provides another layer of protection to civilians.
Quote from: Guardrail on February 05, 2007, 06:39:26 PM
I have been wondering, is the new corporate service dress uniform in violation of the UCMJ and USC codes? I have heard both yes and no answers, so I figured it's time to find out once and for all.
UCMJ only applies to military personnel so...no the CAP uniforms (of any type) do not violate them. USCs? Again the answer is no because no one is trying to impersonate a commissioned officer.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 05, 2007, 07:22:07 PMUCMJ only applies to military personnel so...no the CAP uniforms (of any type) do not violate them. USCs? Again the answer is no because no one is trying to impersonate a commissioned officer.
So, if I understand correctly, the corporate service dress uniform (in its original design) violated UCMJ codes for members who were also in the military. But now that the appropriate changes have been made, it doesn't violate the UCMJ for CAP members who are also members of the military. And for CAP members who choose to wear the uniform, and do not serve in the military, it's never been an issue.
Quote from: Guardrail on February 05, 2007, 07:28:30 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on February 05, 2007, 07:22:07 PMUCMJ only applies to military personnel so...no the CAP uniforms (of any type) do not violate them. USCs? Again the answer is no because no one is trying to impersonate a commissioned officer.
So, if I understand correctly, the corporate service dress uniform (in its original design) violated UCMJ codes for members who were also in the military. But now that the appropriate changes have been made, it doesn't violate the UCMJ for CAP members who are also members of the military. And for CAP members who choose to wear the uniform, and do not serve in the military, it's never been an issue.
That seems to be my summary take of it, yep.
I disagree only in that I don't see how it could violate UCMJ for anyone as it does not apply.
IMHO the changes were mae to pacify the USAF, not for legal reasons.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 05, 2007, 07:38:38 PM
I disagree only in that I don't see how it could violate UCMJ for anyone as it does not apply.
The UCMJ doesn't apply to service members, as long as they join CAP?
Quote from: Guardrail on February 05, 2007, 07:28:30 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on February 05, 2007, 07:22:07 PMUCMJ only applies to military personnel so...no the CAP uniforms (of any type) do not violate them. USCs? Again the answer is no because no one is trying to impersonate a commissioned officer.
So, if I understand correctly, the corporate service dress uniform (in its original design) violated UCMJ codes for members who were also in the military. But now that the appropriate changes have been made, it doesn't violate the UCMJ for CAP members who are also members of the military. And for CAP members who choose to wear the uniform, and do not serve in the military, it's never been an issue.
No I don't think it was ever a UCMJ issue. The USAF was concerned that the blue corporate uniforms was too close to USAF uniforms for their comfort. They were worried that some CAP officer would impersonate an USAF officer (either intentionally or by accident). Yes that would be a violation of the UCMJ for military people and a violation of the USCs, however, the uniform itself was technically not a USAF uniform and therefore does not violate anything just in wearing it.
It is sort of like the toy gun laws. They are not really guns, but they look enough like them that they could cause problems....so they passed laws to make the look less like real guns. Same deal with the uniform.
From the USAF's point of view (I am surmising) the less we look like USAF officers the better.
Quote from: Pylon on February 05, 2007, 07:39:24 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on February 05, 2007, 07:38:38 PM
I disagree only in that I don't see how it could violate UCMJ for anyone as it does not apply.
The UCMJ doesn't apply to service members, as long as they join CAP?
Well, for starters, the UCMJ doesn't really have anything to do with uniform wear, per-se. Its the the basis for military law.
Improperly wearing YOUR military uniform while on duty could be a violation charged under the UCMJ, but the UCMJ itself isn't going to define what that uniform is.
Nor, would I think, could it prohibit you from wearing a different uniform while participating with a different, civilian organization.
I suppose if you were ORDERED for whatever reason by your CC to not wear a CAP uniform (for whatever reaason) it could be an article 91, but otherwise I don't see how the UCMJ, in and of itself would be an issue.
Now, it could possibly be a problem with the Geneva Convention with regards to uniformed non-combatants, which might be why the yanked the US, but that won't let those of us in blues off the hook, when the enemy comes storming through Wheeling, IL and attackes Palwaukee.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 05, 2007, 07:48:17 PMNow, it could possibly be a problem with the Geneva Convention with regards to uniformed non-combatants, which might be why the yanked the US, but that won't let those of us in blues off the hook, when the enemy comes storming through Wheeling, IL and attackes Palwaukee.
No such provision in the Geneva Convention. We as CAP members are legal combatants by the GC no matter what uniform we wear. We are NOT non-combatants under the GC. We may be relegated to non combat duties...but if Mexico or Canada ever invaded....it would be legal under the GC for them to attack our CAP bases and take us as POWs.
Thats why we've got these guys: http://www.geocities.com/cap7sos/
Quote from: Pylon on February 05, 2007, 06:54:57 PM
Quote from: Guardrail on February 05, 2007, 06:39:26 PM
I have been wondering, is the new corporate service dress uniform in violation of the UCMJ and USC codes? I have heard both yes and no answers, so I figured it's time to find out once and for all.
It may have violated statutes, for CAP members who were also members of the Uniformed Services/Armed Forces, in its original design. The subsequent modifications of the uniform (new CAP distinctive nameplate, CAP cutouts - not US, no grade on flight cap, etc.) were done to bring the uniform in line with the UCMJ and/or USC and guidance from above.
So your answer: It may not have been before; it is compliant now.
Actually, those changes were ordered to bring it into compliance with the Geneva Conventions. Which is to say we could be taken as POWs but would not be treated as commissioned officers.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 05, 2007, 09:23:26 PM
No such provision in the Geneva Convention. We as CAP members are legal combatants by the GC no matter what uniform we wear. We are NOT non-combatants under the GC. We may be relegated to non combat duties...but if Mexico or Canada ever invaded....it would be legal under the GC for them to attack our CAP bases and take us as POWs.
That's 100% correct. The Congressional provisions of non-combat missions does NOT make us non-combatants, it accepts that we are combatants & instructs AF not to assign us direct action combat jobs. However, just as the unarmed transport plane is a valid target, so is the CAP plane w/ a radio.
The uniform still violates USC/UCMJ in a couple ways. Objectively, according to the UCMJ, enlisted service members cannot wear the AF officer slides in any form regardless of the shirt color. It also states that Military uniform items may not be worn in combination w/ civilian apparel. Subjectivly, by USC & for civilians, if it can be confused with a military officer than you are impersonating an officer & that's a crime. Hence there's silver sleeve braid. Still a lot of people are not real happy with it in these terms.
QuoteThe uniform still violates USC/UCMJ in a couple ways. Objectively, according to the UCMJ, enlisted service members cannot wear the AF officer slides in any form regardless of the shirt color. It also states that Military uniform items may not be worn in combination w/ civilian apparel. Subjectivly, by USC & for civilians, if it can be confused with a military officer than you are impersonating an officer & that's a crime. Hence there's silver sleeve braid. Still a lot of people are not real happy with it in these terms.
I have to call BS on this one! I hope someone can produce the ucmj articles and case law that back this up. Since the AF allows CAP members to wear thier uniform there is no problem. There is no issue of UCMJ violations or USC violations or anything else.
HOWEVER, there could be problems when a CAP member starts going around saying " I am Major Jones, Air Force" I have corrected this issue before, the member is no longer a member and he is forbiden on the Air Force base where we meet.
Quote from: DNall on February 05, 2007, 10:36:03 PMThe uniform still violates USC/UCMJ in a couple ways. Objectively, according to the UCMJ, enlisted service members cannot wear the AF officer slides in any form regardless of the shirt color. It also states that Military uniform items may not be worn in combination w/ civilian apparel. Subjectivly, by USC & for civilians, if it can be confused with a military officer than you are impersonating an officer & that's a crime. Hence there's silver sleeve braid. Still a lot of people are not real happy with it in these terms.
Well this is definately a very gray area depending on how you interpret the meaning of those particular laws and regulations.
The reg that says not to wear military items on civilian clothing did NOT mean on CAP uniforms...because they were not even thinking about it.....I'm sure they would have made a written execption if it were going to be a problem. And you got to remember....back in the 80's before the maroon-toons the CAP uniform was much closer to AD USAF officer uniforms. If it was not a problem back then it is not a problem now.
No...concerns about the UCMJ is not why the USAF balked at the TPU....it was the worry that some USAF personnel would mistakenly think the CAP officer was a USAF officer and loan out a bunch of rifles or computers or other improper stuff.
QuoteUCMJ § 934, Article 134. General article. Includes offenses that are not specifically listed in the Manual for Courts-Martial and which may "cause disorder and neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, or conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces." Article 134 is often considered to be a "catch-all" for various offenses that aren't necessarily covered by the other articles in the UCMJ. Article 134 offenses include disloyal statements, unclean equipment, improper wear of military uniform, abuse of public animals, adultery, bigamy, bribery, fraternization, et al.
Unauthorized wear of any military insignia item not awarded to that individual by competent military authority, be that while in uniform or not, is specifically deemed to be a violation. This has never been an issue with CAP before because we don't wear any military badge not awarded by competent authority (the "US" cutouts being authorized). The AF slides are however a military uniform item not specifically authroized for wear. Because they don't go on the AF-style uniform the AF wasn't consulted in adding them, but it is a violation for military personnel. At least that's the interpretation I've gotten & I sure wouldn't press my luck to find out.
The hope of course is that they'll embroider CAP onto those slides & be done with it, or stick tot he gray slides.
QuoteUCMJ § 934, Article 134. General article. Includes offenses that are not specifically listed in the Manual for Courts-Martial and which may "cause disorder and neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, or conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces." Article 134 is often considered to be a "catch-all" for various offenses that aren't necessarily covered by the other articles in the UCMJ. Article 134 offenses include disloyal statements, unclean equipment, improper wear of military uniform, abuse of public animals, adultery, bigamy, bribery, fraternization, et al.
Quote from: DNall on February 05, 2007, 11:44:10 PMUnauthorized wear of any military insignia item not awarded to that individual by competent military authority, be that while in uniform or not, is specifically deemed to be a violation.
Where is this specifically spelled out in the UCMJ? I didn't see this in the quote you cited. I don't doubt that it's there, I'd just like to see where it's written.
Quote from: DNall on February 05, 2007, 11:44:10 PMThis has never been an issue with CAP before because we don't wear any military badge not awarded by competent authority (the "US" cutouts being authorized). The AF slides are however a military uniform item not specifically authorized for wear.
Have you been able to find documentation to back that claim? I can't see how National could justify authorizing an item of the Air Force uniform for wear by CAP without prior Air Force approval.
Quote from: DNall on February 05, 2007, 11:44:10 PMBecause they [AF Slides] don't go on the AF-style uniform the AF wasn't consulted in adding them, but it is a violation for military personnel. At least that's the interpretation I've gotten & I sure wouldn't press my luck to find out.
If this is true, it was a foolish decision by National. It undermines the Air Force, regardless of the circumstances.
Quote from: DNall on February 05, 2007, 11:44:10 PMThe hope of course is that they'll embroider CAP onto those slides & be done with it, or stick tot he gray slides.
I wish National would just authorize the blue AF slides with CAP embroidered on them for every uniform, but I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon.
I think going to the gray slides would be the best course of action right now. Besides, they'd go better with that uniform than any of the AF dress combinations.
Quote from: DNall on February 05, 2007, 11:44:10 PM
QuoteUCMJ § 934, Article 134. General article. Includes offenses that are not specifically listed in the Manual for Courts-Martial and which may "cause disorder and neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, or conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces." Article 134 is often considered to be a "catch-all" for various offenses that aren't necessarily covered by the other articles in the UCMJ. Article 134 offenses include disloyal statements, unclean equipment, improper wear of military uniform, abuse of public animals, adultery, bigamy, bribery, fraternization, et al.
Unauthorized wear of any military insignia item not awarded to that individual by competent military authority, be that while in uniform or not, is specifically deemed to be a violation.
Go back and read the article again. It says improper wear of uniform. Being a member of CAP and wearing the CAP uniform is not the improper wear of the "military" uniform.
Quote from: DNall on February 05, 2007, 11:44:10 PMThis has never been an issue with CAP before because we don't wear any military badge not awarded by competent authority (the "US" cutouts being authorized). The AF slides are however a military uniform item not specifically authroized for wear. Because they don't go on the AF-style uniform the AF wasn't consulted in adding them, but it is a violation for military personnel. At least that's the interpretation I've gotten & I sure wouldn't press my luck to find out.
Then why were the military slides kept? The only thing that was change was that the rank came off the flight cap and we changed the "US" cutouts with "CAP". Back in the 80's when we wore blue cut outs...they were the same as the USAF IIRC. There was no problem with military people wearing them back then. No....I think you are looking for "good" excuses for the USAF for not allow us to be more like them. The real answer is that they still do not trust us to police that 1% who give CAP a bad name.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 06, 2007, 08:28:38 AMBack in the 80's when we wore blue cut outs...they were the same as the USAF IIRC. There was no problem with military people wearing them back then. No....I think you are looking for "good" excuses for the USAF for not allow us to be more like them. The real answer is that they still do not trust us to police that 1% who give CAP a bad name.
The blue grade slides had CAP above the grade, just like the grays do now. Until recently all we could wear on the lapels of the service dress (new and old style) was the CAP cutouts and not the US.
Way I look at the whole thing ('cause I'm getting tired of all the barracks lawyering in this thread):
- If you wear the TPUs, it's unlikely you will be sent to the stockade/brig/confinement facility/. However, If you overstep your authority as a CAP officer and pretend to be a RealMilitary® officer by deeds, actions or words, you deserve to be strung up the base flagpole at dawn.
- IT'S A CORPORATE UNIFORM - NOT AN AIR FORCE UNIFORM!!!! So it resembles the uniform of our 'parent' service, Bravo Foxtrot Delta! USAF approval is not required (The NEC asked Col. Hodgkins, and he promptly turned around and said 'it's a corporate thing'). Apparently, they may later have mentioned those items in the early rollout needed to be changed, and we did 'em.
Granted, I'd prefer wearing AF-style, but I feel much more comfortable wearing the TPU.
no, we are not subject to UCMJ. even the members on active duty, who are performing a mission for CAP, are just like "non"-active duty members, imo.
This is the exact wording of the article:
QuoteThough not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.
It mentions nothing about uniforms, but it is the section under which you would be charged for uniform issues (see also cut & pasted explination in previous post).
Quote from: Guardrail on February 06, 2007, 07:41:28 AM
Quote from: DNall on February 05, 2007, 11:44:10 PMThis has never been an issue with CAP before because we don't wear any military badge not awarded by competent authority (the "US" cutouts being authorized). The AF slides are however a military uniform item not specifically authorized for wear.
Have you been able to find documentation to back that claim? I can't see how National could justify authorizing an item of the Air Force uniform for wear by CAP without prior Air Force approval.
What the hell are you talking about? Documentation that CAP has never before authorized wear of military uniform items unless: A) specifically authorized by AF (ie AF-style uniform), or B) devices awarded by competent military authority while serving in the armed services.
Quote from: DNall on February 05, 2007, 11:44:10 PMBecause they [AF Slides] don't go on the AF-style uniform the AF wasn't consulted in adding them, but it is a violation for military personnel. At least that's the interpretation I've gotten & I sure wouldn't press my luck to find out.
If this is true, it was a foolish decision by National. It undermines the Air Force, regardless of the circumstances. [/quote]
That would be correct. Feel free to drive the CAP-USAF CC to the airport & let him tell you all about it.
Quote from: DNall on February 05, 2007, 11:44:10 PMThe hope of course is that they'll embroider CAP onto those slides & be done with it, or stick tot he gray slides.
I wish National would just authorize the blue AF slides with CAP embroidered on them for every uniform, but I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon.
I think going to the gray slides would be the best course of action right now. Besides, they'd go better with that uniform than any of the AF dress combinations.
[/quote]
The take lemons & make lemonade theory on this is... make them embroider CAP on the AF slides for the corporate version (transition: allow pin on cutouts w/ a 2-yr wearout date & option to send in their slides for embroidery), wait a couple years till the time is right & we've earned it, cite what NGB lets SDFs get away with... then standardize to the blue-CAP-slides & the single blue two-line nametage on everything (silver nameplate on jacket, slides on jacket not metal grade - need something to give up off the corporate version to get blue CAP slides on blues) - same nametage for cadets & adults, hey look how the proces go down when you work in volume.
Quote from: brasda91 on February 06, 2007, 04:02:58 PM
no, we are not subject to UCMJ. even the members on active duty, who are performing a mission for CAP, are just like "non"-active duty members, imo.
Regardless of your opinion, people in the military are bound by UCMJ when at home asleep in their beds. If UCMJ says they can't wear jump wings on their civilian jacket cause they didn't earn them in the military, then they can get in trouble for that. Are they going to prison over it? No, not a chance, but it is going to piss off airborne troops who earned them legitimate & know this guy didn't. And that has a negative effect on good order & discipline if it's allowed to continue. Now take that scenerio, insert AF officer slides on a CAP uniform not authorized by AF & being viewed by real AF officers who spend a career of hard work making those grades & find the combination disturbing. That's what it's about. They may not have power to tell CAP to change it (which is why Col Hodgkins was not allowed to officially speak his or the AF's mind on a corporate uniform issue in a fomal/public setting), but that doesn't mean it's okay or that someone who doesn't like it may not try to make an example out of an NCO wearing the combo to make that point to CAP. Crazier things have happened. I still wouldn't expect anyone to go to jail over it, not in a million years, but that's not the question that was asked in teh thread.
Quote from: Guardrail on February 06, 2007, 07:41:28 AM
Quote from: DNall on February 05, 2007, 11:44:10 PMThis has never been an issue with CAP before because we don't wear any military badge not awarded by competent authority (the "US" cutouts being authorized). The AF slides are however a military uniform item not specifically authorized for wear.
Have you been able to find documentation to back that claim? I can't see how National could justify authorizing an item of the Air Force uniform for wear by CAP without prior Air Force approval.
Quote from: DNall on February 05, 2007, 11:44:10 PMWhat the hell are you talking about? Documentation that CAP has never before authorized wear of military uniform items unless: A) specifically authorized by AF (ie AF-style uniform), or B) devices awarded by competent military authority while serving in the armed services.
No. I'm looking for documentation that the AF slides are a military uniform item not specifically authorized for wear.
Here's the best I could do on short notice.
In the USAF Uniform Reg (AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 36-2903), in table 1-3 it says DO NOT wear:
"in civilian attire. For example: grade insignia, cap devices,
badges and other U.S. or Air Force insignia, distinctive
buttons, etc."
Footnote 6 of that table spells it out
"Officers and Enlisted: Do not wear or mix unique uniform items with civilian clothes.
These items are those unique to the uniform. They include grade insignia, cap devices,
badges and other U. S. or Air Force insignia, such as items with the "Wing and Star"
design, and so forth. Exception: Tie tacs and lapel pins when wearing business attire
authorized."
Now, to me, the CAP corporate uniforms counts as "civilian attire." (After all that's the whole reason to have them - so we can avoid military oversight.) Others may have a different view.
So yeah, the grade insignia, both slides and pin-on, would seem to be covered by this. And, I think so would the "U.S." collar insignia.
Of course, like all rules, it only matters if it's enforced. If USAF tells its military members who are also in CAP not to wear the corporate service dress, we'll know for sure. My guess is they won't get around to it.
Definate gray area....this is one of those spirit vs. letter of the law things.
Obviously they do not want USAF guys pinning their captains bars to their T-shirts or someone sewing his stripes to an old jean jacket......but again obviously they did not mean USAF personnel could not join CAP and wear CAP uniforms. (or any other volunteer organisation that uses military style rank...that is police/fire department/emt that some times use Lt or Capt bars as their rank insignia).
Then you have the equally gray area of USAF style uniforms in the CAP and active duty personnel. From the AFI point of view....are the USAF Style CAP uniforms "civilian cloths" or not?
Also....I have to point out....our corporate uniforms are not so we can avoid military oversight. They are there because the military does not want some people they deem outside of the proper image in USAF uniforms. We did not invent the corporate uniforms to piss off the USAF....they mandated them to us.
We invented the TPU to make our corporate uniforms closer to USAF uniforms...which in fact pisses the USAF off...because they want us to be different.
So bottom line....technically any CAP uniform (corporate or USAF style) is a violation of the UCMJ and AFI's...but in practice it is not.
The reason the USAF balked at the original TPU design was because they are worried we look too much like "real" officers not that they were worried that they would have to take UCMJ actions agains USAF personnel who were also CAP members.
You have to keep that in mind. It is the USAF (for what ever reason) that is holding CAP at arms length not the other way around.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 06, 2007, 09:33:23 PM
We invented the TPU to make our corporate uniforms closer to USAF uniforms...which in fact pisses the USAF off...because they want us to be different.
I don't know if
we invented the TPU... it's more like Maj Gen Pineda invented the TPU. There's a reason people call it the
Tony Pineda Uniform.
Yes, the USAF wants us to be different. I wouldn't be surprised if the Air Force eventually orders CAP to get rid of the TPU. It seems like the only reason the TPU exists is because someone in the higher echelon of command in CAP has a hatred for the Air Force and wants CAP to be as different from the Air Force as possible.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 06, 2007, 09:33:23 PMSo bottom line....technically any CAP uniform (corporate or USAF style) is a violation of the UCMJ and AFI's...but in practice it is not.
I'm not sure about that... the blue service dress uniform has U.S. cutouts and is not considered in violation of the UCMJ/AFI because the U.S. cutouts have been approved by the Air Force in writing.
The problem with the TPU is that it includes AF officer shoulder marks which, to my knowledge, were not approved by the Air Force in writing.
Some may argue that this argument holds not water because these shoulder marks also are found on fire fighter's uniform and soforth, but that is normally not true because most of those uniform shoulder marks do not have the silver line on the end of the shoulder mark. The shoulder marks for those uniforms are also normally black, not blue.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 06, 2007, 09:33:23 PMThe reason the USAF balked at the original TPU design was because they are worried we look too much like "real" officers not that they were worried that they would have to take UCMJ actions against USAF personnel who were also CAP members.
I've been told that yes, the original design of the TPU could cause USAF personnel who were also CAP members, (and wearing the TPU), to be subject to an Article 16. However, I've also been told that changes were made to the uniform that now prevents that from happening.
Nevertheless, I don't believe that because if the shoulder marks were not authorized by the Air Force in writing, then having them on the TPU is the same as having them on a civilian dress shirt or business suit.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 06, 2007, 09:33:23 PMYou have to keep that in mind. It is the USAF (for what ever reason) that is holding CAP at arms length not the other way around.
I agree, Capt Harris. And sadly, there are people out there in CAP who want to keep it that way.
Quote from: Guardrail on February 06, 2007, 10:54:14 PMYes, the USAF wants us to be different. I wouldn't be surprised if the Air Force eventually orders CAP to get rid of the TPU. It seems like the only reason the TPU exists is because someone in the higher echelon of command in CAP has a hatred for the Air Force and wants CAP to be as different from the Air Force as possible.
It will be awful hard for them to do so. They already approved it...and technically they do not have any say in our corporate uniforms.....we listened to their concerns and made changes to the TPU because we ARE trying to be a team...but the USAF cannot order us to ditch the TPU. The could order us to ditch the USAF style uniforms or wear pink arm bands and tutus....but that is far as they can go.
(I am not advocating this...I am only pointing out a legal distinction...we should work very closely with the USAF on uniform issues (and I think we do for the most part.))
Quote from: Guardrail on February 06, 2007, 10:54:14 PMQuote from: lordmonar on February 06, 2007, 09:33:23 PMSo bottom line....technically any CAP uniform (corporate or USAF style) is a violation of the UCMJ and AFI's...but in practice it is not.
I'm not sure about that... the blue service dress uniform has U.S. cutouts and is not considered in violation of the UCMJ/AFI because the U.S. cutouts have been approved by the Air Force in writing.
The problem with the TPU is that it includes AF officer shoulder marks which, to my knowledge, were not approved by the Air Force in writing.
But the TPU is a corporate uniform and does not need USAF permission...any more than the local police department needs permission to use Lt/Capt Bars, Col's Eagles and Gen's Stars, all of which I see all the time. Are they in violation of the law in wearing military insignia on their uniforms? Probably in a technical sense...but the law was written to make impersonation of a military official illegal not the simple use of the insignia. It is a matter of spirit vs letter of the law.
Quote from: Guardrail on February 06, 2007, 10:54:14 PMSome may argue that this argument holds not water because these shoulder marks also are found on fire fighter's uniform and so forth, but that is normally not true because most of those uniform shoulder marks do not have the silver line on the end of the shoulder mark. The shoulder marks for those uniforms are also normally black, not blue.
See my remarks above.
Quote from: Guardrail on February 06, 2007, 10:54:14 PMQuote from: lordmonar on February 06, 2007, 09:33:23 PMThe reason the USAF balked at the original TPU design was because they are worried we look too much like "real" officers not that they were worried that they would have to take UCMJ actions against USAF personnel who were also CAP members.
I've been told that yes, the original design of the TPU could cause USAF personnel who were also CAP members, (and wearing the TPU), to be subject to an Article 16. However, I've also been told that changes were made to the uniform that now prevents that from happening.
Nevertheless, I don't believe that because if the shoulder marks were not authorized by the Air Force in writing, then having them on the TPU is the same as having them on a civilian dress shirt or business suit.
First it is Article 15....and secondly...think the whole UCMJ thing is just an urban (CAP) myth. The concern is and always has been...the fear that some AD military personnel would mistake a CAP member in the TPU as being a member of the USAF with all the rights and authority of an officer....and issue them some weapons/computers/furniture/BX privileges. We are still living under the same fall out that perpetrated the maroon shoulder marks.
Quote from: Guardrail on February 06, 2007, 10:54:14 PMQuote from: lordmonar on February 06, 2007, 09:33:23 PMYou have to keep that in mind. It is the USAF (for what ever reason) that is holding CAP at arms length not the other way around.
I agree, Capt Harris. And sadly, there are people out there in CAP who want to keep it that way.
This I disagree with....I think that there are some people out there (and I am one of them) that think that if the USAF is not going to let us improve our relationship we should go elsewhere for support. We can work our asses off trying to please someone who will always have their doubts and hold a grudge....sometimes you have to just cut you losses and look elsewhere for support.
This is basically what Iowa did and I applaud them!
I just don't see the reasoning of the TPU or corporate uniforms violating UCMJ if an AD member wore them. First, why would an AD member be wearing them, I think that they should be meeting height/weight and grooming standards for the AF style service dress. Second, they are masquerading around as a CAP officer, not an AD military officer. Third who cares. If it were such a huge problem, JAG would ahve been on the phone to CAP-USAF/ CAP NHQ so fast, we would be writing about the short life of the TPU instead!
The main problem I see with people posting on this issue is ignorance. The Civil Air Patrol, although civilian, is authorized to wear the uniform as prescribed by the Air force. The Secretary of the Air Force oversees the CAP. As someones has already noted, State Defense Forces are authorized to wear Army uniforms slightly modified, and it goes the same way with CAP and the Air Force. So to say that CAP is violating Air Force regs would be to argue that the Secretary of the Air Force is violating them.
As for the UCMJ and USC, the UCMJ is a part of the USC. They are not two different things. The UCMJ would not be applicable in this case. Federal law, which governs the wear of military uniforms, only prohibits unauthorized wear. CAP uniform wear is just as authorized as SDF's wearing Army uniforms or civil service personnel/contractors wearing military uniforms.
Quote from: Guardrail on February 06, 2007, 07:51:51 PM
No. I'm looking for documentation that the AF slides are a military uniform item not specifically authorized for wear.
Seems pretty simple. The slides are an official military uniform item. No question of that. And because they are on a corporate-style uniform no uniform board was consulted & no permissions attained. Again, that's perfectly clear facts of the case. AF has not & would not grant permission for this if allowed to rule on it.
LM, I understand where you're coming from... now if you, as an NCO, pinned captain bars on a T-shirt & went walking around base talking to people, even your dress never comes up in conversation, you can see where some people would have a problem with that right? Where your commander
could call you in & cite good order & discipline & it'd make perfect sense right? That's the basis. I understand CAP says it's okay to do, but the AF never blessed it. Hell yeah it's a technicality, but means it's technically wrong too. Is there any chance of you getting in trouble? Probably not, again that wasn't the question.
Honestly I don't care that it's an AF uniform item or if it violates the UCMJ. My problem with it is the risk of someone mixing up shirts & slides as I've seen now several times & having the wrong person see it, then it comes down on all of us.
Mikey... You'd be suprised actually. I don't liek the combo, but a lot of prior-service NCOs that do meet the ht/wt choose to wear this combo for the real slides. Some of the AD NCOs on here say they prefer the corporate alternative uniforms while working with CAP. They've given some verrious reasons & I'm in no position to tell them what they prefer. However, this is a narrow problem that hasn't come up a lot. I'd suspect no AF JA has ever been consulted on it. They would have been if it'd gone to a uniform board, that's part of the process, but that's not the route this took. In fact it came up after metal grade on the AF-style service coat was rejected, again.
gallagheria.... CAP goes thru the AU & AETC uniform boards, SDFs go thru a state board & then the NGB board, each SDF having dif uniforms, and don't forget the State Air Guards in that mix either. The point being made is that the USAF slides are a military uniform item not authorized for wear by CAP members, this rule only being enforcable in the UCMJ, & therefore only applicable to members of the armed forces.
Quote from: mikeylikey on February 07, 2007, 03:16:15 AM
I just don't see the reasoning of the TPU or corporate uniforms violating UCMJ if an AD member wore them. First, why would an AD member be wearing them, I think that they should be meeting height/weight and grooming standards for the AF style service dress.
I'm AD, meet height/weight and grooming, and for the most part I prefer corporate CAP uniforms. Primarily because those are the uniforms that ALL CAP members can wear, and I'm a team player kinda guy. 8)
Completely not true. The federal law that regulates uniform wear is not a part of the UCMJ. The UCMJ is a part of the USC, but all the USC is not a part of the UCMJ.
10 USC 771:
QuoteExcept as otherwise provided by law, no person except a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, as the case may be, may wear—
(1) the uniform, or a distinctive part of the uniform, of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps; or
(2) a uniform any part of which is similar to a distinctive part of the uniform of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps.
and
10 USC 772
Quote(a) A member of the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard may wear the uniform prescribed for the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard, as the case may be.
(b) A member of the Naval Militia may wear the uniform prescribed for the Naval Militia.
(c) A retired officer of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps may bear the title and wear the uniform of his retired grade.
(d) A person who is discharged honorably or under honorable conditions from the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps may wear his uniform while going from the place of discharge to his home, within three months after his discharge.
(e) A person not on active duty who served honorably in time of war in the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps may bear the title, and, when authorized by regulations prescribed by the President, wear the uniform, of the highest grade held by him during that war.
(f) While portraying a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, an actor in a theatrical or motion-picture production may wear the uniform of that armed force if the portrayal does not tend to discredit that armed force.
(g) An officer or resident of a veterans' home administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs may wear such uniform as the Secretary of the military department concerned may prescribe.
(h) While attending a course of military instruction conducted by the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, a civilian may wear the uniform prescribed by that armed force if the wear of such uniform is specifically authorized under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the military department concerned.
(i) Under such regulations as the Secretary of the Air Force may prescribe, a citizen of a foreign country who graduates from an Air Force school may wear the appropriate aviation badges of the Air Force.
(j) A person in any of the following categories may wear the uniform prescribed for that category:
(1) Members of the Boy Scouts of America.
(2) Members of any other organization designated by the Secretary of a military department.
Quote from: Guardrail on February 06, 2007, 07:51:51 PM
No. I'm looking for documentation that the AF slides are a military uniform item not specifically authorized for wear.
Quote from: DNall on February 07, 2007, 08:39:56 AMSeems pretty simple. The slides are an official military uniform item. No question of that. And because they are on a corporate-style uniform no uniform board was consulted & no permissions attained. Again, that's perfectly clear facts of the case. AF has not & would not grant permission for this if allowed to rule on it.
Then why has the Air Force allowed for the production and wear of the TPU? Something doesn't add up here.
I wonder if anyone out there has any evidence that a uniform board was never consulted and no permissions attained. I don't doubt it, I would just like to see some proof.
Quote from: DNall on February 07, 2007, 08:39:56 AMHonestly I don't care that it's an AF uniform item or if it violates the UCMJ. My problem with it is the risk of someone mixing up shirts & slides as I've seen now several times & having the wrong person see it, then it comes down on all of us.
I'm concerned about this, too. I think it will happen sooner than we all think. Maj Gen Pineda's appearance at the Pentagon in the Corporate Service Dress Uniform has already sparked controversy, with one AF Lt Gen getting pretty steamed about it.
Quote from: DNall on February 07, 2007, 08:39:56 AMHowever, this is a narrow problem that hasn't come up a lot. I'd suspect no AF JA has ever been consulted on it. They would have been if it'd gone to a uniform board, that's part of the process, but that's not the route this took. In fact it came up after metal grade on the AF-style service coat was rejected, again.
I doubt any AF JA has been consulted about it, too. I feel that
every proposed CAP uniform needs to go through the AETC & AU Uniform boards - no exceptions.
Quote from: DNall on February 07, 2007, 08:39:56 AMgallagheria.... CAP goes thru the AU & AETC uniform boards, SDFs go thru a state board & then the NGB board, each SDF having dif uniforms, and don't forget the State Air Guards in that mix either. The point being made is that the USAF slides are a military uniform item not authorized for wear by CAP members, this rule only being enforcable in the UCMJ, & therefore only applicable to members of the armed forces.
I believe that is correct. I have a friend in the AF who has told me he would be subject to an Article 16 if he were to wear the TPU, and I believe it is all because of the AF officer shoulder marks on the aviator shirt.
I used to think that the TPU originally contradicted the UCMJ, but now doesn't because of changes that have been made. However, if no AF approval was sought for this uniform, then it still contradicts the UCMJ. Therefore, it has not been made an official uniform of an organization recognized by the SECAF.
Quote from: Guardrail on February 07, 2007, 06:12:24 PMI wonder if anyone out there has any evidence that a uniform board was never consulted and no permissions attained. I don't doubt it, I would just like to see some proof.
You can't prove a negative. You might find evidence if they WERE consulted, but if they weren't consulted you'd find, well, nothing.
Quote from: gallagheria on February 07, 2007, 04:37:07 PM
Completely not true. The federal law that regulates uniform wear is not a part of the UCMJ. The UCMJ is a part of the USC, but all the USC is not a part of the UCMJ.
Yes, uniform violations by members of the armed services are charged under the cited article on the basis of violation of good order & discipline. Wear of military items not earned in military service is an offense. Do your research before you quote laws.
Quote10 USC 771: Except as otherwise provided by law, no person except a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, as the case may be, may wear—
(1) the uniform, or a distinctive part of the uniform, of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps; or
(2) a uniform any part of which is similar to a distinctive part of the uniform of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps.
That would be a specific violation then & not okay UNLESS specifically authorized under the authority below.
Quote10 USC 772(2) Members of any other organization designated by the Secretary of a military department.
That's the legal authority for CAP to wear A uniform, it is NOT a free ticket to put anything you want on that uniform. The AF has specific control over all military insignia items worn on any real military uniform or appearing similiar enough to those items that they might reasonably be confused.
Quote from: Guardrail on February 07, 2007, 06:12:24 PM
Quote from: DNall on February 07, 2007, 08:39:56 AMSeems pretty simple. The slides are an official military uniform item. No question of that. And because they are on a corporate-style uniform no uniform board was consulted & no permissions attained. Again, that's perfectly clear facts of the case. AF has not & would not grant permission for this if allowed to rule on it.
Then why has the Air Force allowed for the production and wear of the TPU? Something doesn't add up here.
I wonder if anyone out there has any evidence that a uniform board was never consulted and no permissions attained. I don't doubt it, I would just like to see some proof.
Allowed for? As a corporate uniform, it would not go thru the AF approval channel, because they have no authority over it. They do however have authority over actual AF uniform items & were not consulted in that regard. I'm not sure they've realized they could use that angle to fix this thing, nor do I think they've looked at the UCMJ ramifications for current service members.
QuoteI doubt any AF JA has been consulted about it, too. I feel that every proposed CAP uniform needs to go through the AETC & AU Uniform boards - no exceptions.
The real problem with this is you understand there's not just a full-time uniform board. AETC puts one together every few years to make minor practical changes. The AF uniform board on top is the one that makes big changes, but we don't deal with them. When CAP proposes a change to the AF-style between boards, it has to be approved by CAP-USAF CC (no big deal), then gets staffed at AU & AU CC has to approve, then the same process at AETC. Now that's fine, but you understand those folks have some kind of important non-uniform & non-CAP things to spend their time on. I think it would be appropriate to have a CAP uniform board that builds a package & meets with the AETC board every 4-5 years to have changes made, and asking for their endorsement on corporates, even if they don't have veto power, would be a nice way to help the relationship & gain official feedback. It'd also keep us from changing things every five minutes.
QuoteQuote from: DNall on February 07, 2007, 08:39:56 AMHonestly I don't care that it's an AF uniform item or if it violates the UCMJ. My problem with it is the risk of someone mixing up shirts & slides as I've seen now several times & having the wrong person see it, then it comes down on all of us.
I'm concerned about this, too. I think it will happen sooner than we all think. Maj Gen Pineda's appearance at the Pentagon in the Corporate Service Dress Uniform has already sparked controversy, with one AF Lt Gen getting pretty steamed about it.
I hadn't heard that, but it doesn't suprise me. I have a guy here that I wear repeatedly puts the blue slides on the blues shirt. He hadn't been to a meeting in blues since last tiem I warned him, till last night, but he didn't take off his jacket all night, still wearing the enlisted flight hat though. I've seen it at a couple events as well where I made people go in the bathroom & take them off. Amazingly, in each of these cases the people have had the gray set in the car or a jacket pocket. I'm telling you it's a matter of time before someone does that in front of AF personnel, & it didn't take anything nearly that bad to get marroon slides.
Quote from: DNall on February 07, 2007, 08:39:56 AMgallagheria.... CAP goes thru the AU & AETC uniform boards, SDFs go thru a state board & then the NGB board, each SDF having dif uniforms, and don't forget the State Air Guards in that mix either. The point being made is that the USAF slides are a military uniform item not authorized for wear by CAP members, this rule only being enforcable in the UCMJ, & therefore only applicable to members of the armed forces.
I believe that is correct. I have a friend in the AF who has told me he would be subject to an Article 16 if he were to wear the TPU, and I believe it is all because of the AF officer shoulder marks on the aviator shirt.
I used to think that the TPU originally contradicted the UCMJ, but now doesn't because of changes that have been made. However, if no AF approval was sought for this uniform, then it still contradicts the UCMJ. Therefore, it has not been made an official uniform of an organization recognized by the SECAF.[/quote]
Well it has been made an official uniform of an org recorgnized by the SecAF. That just means you can wear a uniform at all. That doesn't mean use of military insignia & uniform items w/o authorization is okay.
Now that I have seen it more, I like the TPU service coat. I'd like to see the US-cutouts back on the lapels, and the CAP-cutouts on the shoulder epaulets, midway between the metal rank and button--like the TPU [Army officer] black windbreaker has. I'd also like to see the silver braid removed from the service cap and service coat too (and replaced with "CAP grey"--a darker shade of grey). This would make it distinctive enough for Title 10 USC regs (with the two line name tag--which could also bechanged from silver to a "CAP grey as described above), which is what we REALLY should be concerned with. AD CAP members should check with there commanders to check on the whether THEIR wear of any TPU combo is a violation of UCMJ. It's that simple [to me], really. We can debate here all we want on UCMJ--when the pavemewnt hits the road, though, it's really up to each AD person's commander whether the wear of the TPU is and Article 15 or 16.
Also while I personally like being able to buy AF shoulder marks off-the-shelf at an AAFES outlet on base for wear with the TPU combo, I agree that maybe the shoulder marks should have the CAP cutouts on them two to be more distictive. But, as I said, I like the simplicity of wearing the AF shoulder marks off-the-shelf.
Quote from: Guardrail on February 07, 2007, 06:12:24 PM
Quote from: DNall on February 07, 2007, 08:39:56 AMHonestly I don't care that it's an AF uniform item or if it violates the UCMJ. My problem with it is the risk of someone mixing up shirts & slides as I've seen now several times & having the wrong person see it, then it comes down on all of us.
I'm concerned about this, too. I think it will happen sooner than we all think. Maj Gen Pineda's appearance at the Pentagon in the Corporate Service Dress Uniform has already sparked controversy, with one AF Lt Gen getting pretty steamed about it.
What I found disturbing is a photo with Pineda at some function, and a senior member wearing what appears to be the white/blue with an Air Force nametag. It was taken outside, so the blue shirt may be washed out by the sun, but it is enough to bother me.
I'll post the photo if anyone is interested.
Quote from: Hawk200 on February 07, 2007, 07:23:55 PM
What I found disturbing is a photo with Pineda at some function, and a senior member wearing what appears to be the white/blue with an Air Force nametag. It was taken outside, so the blue shirt may be washed out by the sun, but it is enough to bother me.
I'll post the photo if anyone is interested.
Yes, please post the photo. I'm interested.
I'm curious--I have not read where the USAF has gotten "steamed" by our TPU, thus being the reason why the US-cutouts were removed from the TPU. Also, as Hawk references in his post above (he himself did not state it--I don't know who did), he states that a 3-star got upset at Pineda's wearing the TPU at the Pentagon. Any sites on these? Where can I confirm this? Or is it all hearsay?
I did have a senior member attmept to mix and match the AF blue slides with the AF shirt, and wore the blue tag also. He also put the a "mini rank" Captains bars on his flight cap. Being the commander at the time, I showed him the regs, expalined that his wearing the AF slides, metal rank, and blue name tag was only for the TPU (at the time), he'd have to go home and change. He did go home immediately (if somewhat unhappy), and wore the correct uniform. So yeah, I've see the "mix and match" too. People just have to be diligent and correct that stuff as soon as they see it. Mistakes will happen--just don't keep letting it happen.
Quote from: Guardrail on February 07, 2007, 07:27:01 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on February 07, 2007, 07:23:55 PM
What I found disturbing is a photo with Pineda at some function, and a senior member wearing what appears to be the white/blue with an Air Force nametag. It was taken outside, so the blue shirt may be washed out by the sun, but it is enough to bother me.
I'll post the photo if anyone is interested.
Yes, please post the photo. I'm interested.
OK.
This picture was taken before the PA Wing Conference was held. I know for a FACT that that CAP officer was wearing the TWO LINE CAP name tag, as he should have been. He wore the same uniform to the PA Wing Conference. He seemed to be a very helpful, nice guy, and is an active CAP'er.
The tall, big guy holding the balloons in the blazer uniform is the PA Wingfcommander, Col. Appelbaum. In talking with him (Col. Appelbaum) a few times, I'm pretty sure he would've corrected such a thing right, quick, and in a hurry.
And, well, TP was there too. Don't you think HE would've said something?
Quote from: NAYBOR on February 07, 2007, 07:38:41 PM
This picture was taken before the PA Wing Conference was held. I know for a FACT that that CAP officer was wearing the TWO LINE CAP name tag, as he should have been. He wore the same uniform to the PA Wing Conference. He seemed to be a very helpful, nice guy, and is an active CAP'er.
Just looks awfully thin to me. The problem is that if it looks that way to me, I'm probably not the only one. One way that perception, even if wrong, can create problems for us.
You're right, it does look thin, and I may have thought the same thing had I not known he was wearing a two-liner. But he is, and it's a moot point. The picture is taken at a distance. If you compare his name tag to one of the cadets (which is a 3-liner), the sizes are practically the same.
Quote from: Hawk200 on February 07, 2007, 07:30:25 PM
Quote from: Guardrail on February 07, 2007, 07:27:01 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on February 07, 2007, 07:23:55 PM
What I found disturbing is a photo with Pineda at some function, and a senior member wearing what appears to be the white/blue with an Air Force nametag. It was taken outside, so the blue shirt may be washed out by the sun, but it is enough to bother me.
I'll post the photo if anyone is interested.
Yes, please post the photo. I'm interested.
OK.
What seems to be the problem here. From what it looks like this individual is wearing the Blue/White uniform to regs, the name tag looks to be a 2 line CAP distinctive tag. And although he is not wearing it while outside he does have the appropriate cover with proper cap device.
What was the site again where three star general post their personal comments & feelings? I hadn't heard that story till this thread, but ask around any AFB & you'll get the same answers. Literally the most common reaction I've seen with the coat on is to think it's a wer test of some new design (that they hate by the way).
QuoteI did have a senior member attempt to mix and match the AF blue slides with the AF shirt, and wore the blue tag also. -snip- So yeah, I've see the "mix and match" too. People just have to be diligent and correct that stuff as soon as they see it. Mistakes will happen--just don't keep letting it happen.
What's CAP's record like on keeping senior members in correct uniforms again? Cause I'm trying to think how we can keep from pissing off the AF & damaging CAP & I can't seem to recall if our "diligence" on this issue has been sufficient at any point in our history so that raising the stakes in their face is something we can long pull off. /sarasam off
Looks like you're right on that pic, but hard to tell, hard to tell shirt color in a lot of pics actually, and sometimes in real life too.
Quote from: DNall on February 07, 2007, 07:53:53 PM
Looks like you're right on that pic, but hard to tell, hard to tell shirt color in a lot of pics actually, and sometimes in real life too.
Hence the problem. It's basically the "appearance of evil" issue, not an actual violation.
In my opinion (which is not a fact or any such thing), it seems like Pineda did an end run around the Air Force in creating the TPU. And wearing it for a Armed Services Hearing Comittee for the first time was a serious problem. It seemed like the Air Force was unaware of it before that (from what I've been reading). I think that was one of the major problems.
Please, notice that I said "It
appears to be an end run". I'm not stating that it is one, just that it looks like it. And I don't think I'm alone in these thoughts.
We have people arguing that it violates federal law when federal law clearly authorizes military uniforms to be worn by anyone the secretary of each respective branch authorizes. CAP is is governed by a Board of Governors: four Civil Air Patrol members (currently the National Commander, National Vice Commander, and two members-at-large appointed by the CAP National Executive Committee), four Air Force representatives appointed by the Secretary of the Air Force, and three members from the aviation community jointly appointed by the CAP National Commander and the Secretary of the Air Force.
Seems to me that they would have authority to authorize various uniforms, just as the National Guard Bureau authorizes SDF uniforms.
As for
The BoG does not hear or authorize uniform items. I'm sure it has beena topic of conversation, but Congress specifically established BoG to provide fiscal & strategic oversight where AF did not have the legal authority. The BoG in your example would merely be the commander of the SDF that still has to get clearance form the state board & the NGB board to make a uniform change. At least in the area of using military uniform items CAP can't just go off & do as it pleases.
CAP is authorized to wear certan specified elements of the AF uniform as specified by AETC (who has been delegated that power by the SecAF). CAP made a mistake in assuming that because corporate-style uniforms are not approved by AETC that they were rfree to do whatever they pleased, and that is not the case. If the AETC CC issues a letter stating that use of AF grade slides, ties, belts, etc are authorized for wear with CAP corporate-style uniforms, then they are, until then it is not legal. Just cause the issue hasn't been forced yet doesn't mean that's not the case. You can only try someone's patience for so long before they run out of good will & snap back.
As an interesting aside,
The BOG controls CAP's constitution and bylaws. So far, they have not altered those to take power away from the NB (like the power to write regs) and give it to themselves.
But they could.
I would think that the legal counsel at NHQ studied every aspect of the TPU before it was introduced. I am sure legally we can wear the US cutouts and rank on the flight cap, but when the AF asked us not to, NHQ agreed. This uniform was not just put together spur of the momnet, it was signed off on by various departments at NHQ. I am also aware that it did make its way to CAP-USAF and they had no problem with it initially in its first version. They came back and asked for changes (not demanded).
Although the CAP-USAF/CC may say "its corporate, so we have no care or say", trust me, it was presented to them before it was "officially" introduced for their opinion.
Come on, NHQ and CAP-USAF staffers share space and most are friends. If the AF objected to anything on the uniform or its mere presence, we would have never seen it.
The AF does have their hands in CAP more than is widely known!
As for those who say we should replace the AF blue slides with blue slides that have an embroidered "CAP" on them, I say wake up! IF you can't distinguish between the two line CAP nameplate and the AF nameplate, how the heck are you going to see the letters "CAP" on the slides. Unless you are standing next to the person or close enough, you will not even notice. Heck even the SM flight cap device looks like Lt Col from a distance. Even in the AF style service dress a 2nd Lt when wearing his flight cap looks like a Lt Col from a distance. If anything they should remove that "distinctive" item. Don't want some Airman to mistake the person for a Lt Col now do we?
RANT OVER
Does it violate the UCMJ or USC? I don't know but none of that changes the fact that the TPU is much better suited for the formal at the ex-tugboat captains association.
I'm no uniform expert but it also has no history behind it other than TP himself. I can't think of any air force or related service in the history of aviation that wore a double breasted service coat. I'd rather go back to a WWII style tan service coat than wear that silly thing.
The civilian attorney at NHQ that tries to protect us from lawsuits & manage our risk mgmt policy & response is not exactly the person you ask for a legal ruling on UCMJ, USC, or the Geneva Conventions. No AF JA has been consulted & provided an opinion on this, certainly not the ones tapped by uniform boards for their expertise in this area. The changes that were ordered were only to address concerns over the Genevea conventions. That obviously came from a good bit higher than CAP-USAF.
I'll say this again... because CAP-USAF is in the position to speak for the the AF, they are not allowed to state opinions outside the areas where AF has authority. In otherwords, if you ask them about a corporate uniform change, they have to say it's a corporate matter that's your thing. That doesn't meant they personally agree with it or that the AF approves, or more specifically that the AF doesn't disapprove. NHQ staff didn't have anything to do with this. It's not called the TPU for nothing.
The idea of embroidering CAP on the blue slides has nothing to do with it being distinguishable up close or from a distance. It's about what happens to CAP when someone puts the blue slides & two line nameplate on the blue shirt & goes walking around in front of people in the AF, which most people believe is only a matter of time. Because AF can't order this uniform changed but can order the other one changed, and because spats of silly issues like this lead to problems in the greater relationship... there's a lot of reason to change it.
QuoteIt's about what happens to CAP when someone puts the blue slides & two line nameplate on the blue shirt & goes walking around in front of people in the AF, which most people believe is only a matter of time.
I forsee all of us in a few years being forced into the grey pants and CAP polo. Ground teams get to choose whatever suits their taste and comfort off the rack at say Gander Mountain or EMS or some other outdoor adventurer type store. Members that fly get the polo shirt and grey pants too.
I am also missing the whole "change the TPU because of Geneva Conventions" thing to I guess. Can someone explain it to me in more of an elementary school way?
If we wear the AF style service dress does that make us CAT 3 under the Geneva conventions because of the rank slides and "US" cutouts. If we wear the TPU we are just civilians because the "US" cutouts are not there? So if I get this straight, an example would be (heaven forbid) some future enemy invades across the Mexican border, and they capture a group of CAP Senior Members. Half the group is wearing the AF style Service Dress, the other half is wearing the TPU. Accordingly they take the half wearing the AF style service dress and throw them into a POW camp with other military officers and Senior NCO's. BUT they release the members wearing the TPU because they are considered civilians because the "US" cutouts are missing and the "CAP" cutouts are on.
Quote from: mikeylikey on February 08, 2007, 12:18:25 AMI am also missing the whole "change the TPU because of Geneva Conventions" thing to I guess. Can someone explain it to me in more of an elementary school way?
Well it is simple...it is a non issue...an urban legend....a myth...it never existed and was not a USAF concern.
Quote from: mikeylikey on February 08, 2007, 12:18:25 AMIf we wear the AF style service dress does that make us CAT 3 under the Geneva conventions because of the rank slides and "US" cutouts. If we wear the TPU we are just civilians because the "US" cutouts are not there?
Not so. Under the Geneva convention we are legal combatants no matter what uniform you wear. Legal combatants are defined by the GC as
Quote(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." (From Article 4)
So...we have a command structure. We have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (uniforms, CAP markings on planes and vehicles). We carry arms openly (our aircraft are defined as weapon systems...ergo they are arms) and finally we conduct our operations IAW the laws and customs of war...as enforced by US law and the USAF.
So....it does not matter if we wore green fatigues, blue BDU's or even t-shirts and geans...we are and will always remain lawful combatants in the eyes of the GC.
Quote from: mikeylikey on February 08, 2007, 12:18:25 AM
So if I get this straight, an example would be (heaven forbid) some future enemy invades across the Mexican border, and they capture a group of CAP Senior Members. Half the group is wearing the AF style Service Dress, the other half is wearing the TPU. Accordingly they take the half wearing the AF style service dress and throw them into a POW camp with other military officers and Senior NCO's. BUT they release the members wearing the TPU because they are considered civilians because the "US" cutouts are missing and the "CAP" cutouts are on.
Nope...they would all be lawful combatants and would all be accorded POW rights. The alternative is that the "illegal combatants" would not be subject to the GC and they could be thrown into jail or other prisons and would not be allowed POW rights. (such as the detainees at GITMO). In no case...would we ever be considered non-combatants if we were captured while doing CAP buisness....we would either be legal or illegal combatants because we operate weapon systems (our airplanes).
Quote from: NAYBOR on February 07, 2007, 07:47:45 PM
You're right, it does look thin, and I may have thought the same thing had I not known he was wearing a two-liner. But he is, and it's a moot point. The picture is taken at a distance. If you compare his name tag to one of the cadets (which is a 3-liner), the sizes are practically the same.
Zooming the picture clearly shows two lines of text.
lordmonar......Thank you!
That's correct at the base level of the Geneva Conventions. We are combatants. The changes apply to how the US choses to designate officers. By changing what they did, if you were captured then you would not be considered an officer, I don't know with the AF-style, I think it's the same. The idea being if you were in a POW camp, you as a CAP officer cannot be senior & take charge of the other prisoners. Obviously this is way off into never happen world, but someone over there cares about formailities & precedent. Which is fine.
Quote from: mikeylikey on February 08, 2007, 12:18:25 AM
QuoteIt's about what happens to CAP when someone puts the blue slides & two line nameplate on the blue shirt & goes walking around in front of people in the AF, which most people believe is only a matter of time.
I forsee all of us in a few years being forced into the grey pants and CAP polo. Ground teams get to choose whatever suits their taste and comfort off the rack at say Gander Mountain or EMS or some other outdoor adventurer type store. Members that fly get the polo shirt and grey pants too.
You assume if we piss them off that we'll still be doing GT missions. Even if there were money to support such a thing, we only get corporate missions now cause of our affiliation with the Air Force. Otherwise we're unqualified & not equipped right for work that there's paid experts out there willing to do.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 08, 2007, 04:07:47 AM
Zooming the picture clearly shows two lines of text.
So does that equate to seeing them fifty feet away? From a distance it looks questionable. And the military is used to looking at us from a distance.
Quote from: Hawk200 on February 08, 2007, 07:13:49 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on February 08, 2007, 04:07:47 AM
Zooming the picture clearly shows two lines of text.
So does that equate to seeing them fifty feet away? From a distance it looks questionable. And the military is used to looking at us from a distance.
So?
Quote from: Eclipse on February 08, 2007, 07:49:13 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on February 08, 2007, 07:13:49 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on February 08, 2007, 04:07:47 AM
Zooming the picture clearly shows two lines of text.
So does that equate to seeing them fifty feet away? From a distance it looks questionable. And the military is used to looking at us from a distance.
So?
Blowing it off isn't helping us. How we look can be just as important as what we do. In the military, a lot of people don't consider you reliable if your uniform isn't up to snuff. A uniform that military personnel have bad opinions of is a bad thing. Doesn't matter if
technically it's OK, it still generates problems.
Quote from: Hawk200 on February 08, 2007, 07:13:49 PM
So does that equate to seeing them fifty feet away? From a distance it looks questionable. And the military is used to looking at us from a distance.
You want hard to figure out? The Texas state air guard (SDF) uniform is exactly the AF uniform - blues, AF slides, etc - with only a distinctive nametag, nothing else.
(http://www.militarynames.com/ProductImages/texasstateguard/txsg-af-plastic.jpg)
I know that's apples & organges to compare them & try to read any mutual respect/value statemetn from the AF into the degree of varriation, but it is annoying to see CAP treated that way when we do so musch more productive stuff with defined missions, assets, contributions, etc.
Quote from: DNall on February 08, 2007, 08:14:57 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on February 08, 2007, 07:13:49 PM
So does that equate to seeing them fifty feet away? From a distance it looks questionable. And the military is used to looking at us from a distance.
You want hard to figure out? The Texas state air guard (SDF) uniform is exactly the AF uniform - blues, AF slides, etc - with only a distinctive nametag, nothing else.
I know that's apples & organges to compare them & try to read any mutual respect/value statemetn from the AF into the degree of varriation, but it is annoying to see CAP treated that way when we do so musch more productive stuff with defined missions, assets, contributions, etc.
I agree that's an issue, but that's an issue the Air Force needs to deal with. The Texas state Air Guard doesn't answer to us. We have a responsibility to ourselves, getting our own house in order. And we have to make sure we don't endanger our own missions, assets, and contributions.
No, I agree with that 100%. It's just frustrating to try to convince people that AF slides on a white shirt are a problem when the SDF over here is doing it on blue w/ a two-line nametag that's even less ditinctive than our two-liner, not to mention the three liner on blues or the gray version for adults. Feels hamstrung trying to make an argument that really seems like AF needs to correct the uniform process for CAP to be more congruant with the others they let wear their uniform.
Seems like lot of time worrying about a few nearsighted RealMilitary types.
OUR uniform meets OUR regulations. What another service thinks or doesn't think about it is irrelevent, and I am sure no one cares.
Not to mention the fact that the issue being dicussed here is basically the perception of a nametag in a low-resolution photo from a bad light angle.
Our standard service dress is much easier to mistake, as would the TPU.
well, one major difference is that the SDF is subject to the respective state codes of military justice, just as the air national guards and army national guards. The SDF is military, versus the CAP is nonmilitary.
But as for the uniform issue itself, I agree that CAP should not be screwed over so much on small uniform issues when you can enroll in an ROTC course at a local college and be noncontracted yet still wear a legitimate military uniform that even says "U.S. Army" with all the bells and whistles and I am sure it is the same with Air Force ROTC cadets.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 08, 2007, 09:01:32 PM
What another service thinks or doesn't think about it is irrelevent, and I am sure no one cares.
Not the first time I've been told I'm noone. And I'm sure all the other noones here probably do care.
QuoteNot to mention the fact that the issue being dicussed here is basically the perception of a nametag in a low-resolution photo from a bad light angle.
No, it's not the issue being discussed. The issue is that it can be mistaken for something else. Nearsighted is not looking at the bigger issues. Judging from your posts, I don't think you're going to acknowledge that.
But here is something to chew on. Why was it created in the first place? What need does the TPU fill that other uniforms didn't? I can't really see any. You're arguing for a uniform that has no justification to even exist. That should be the real discussion.
The TPU is a pet project, just like McPeak's changes. And most of those weren't welcome, either.
SDFs are a weird animal & there's already threads discussing that, but CAP is bound by more than we acknowledge & SDFs are not bound by UCMJ even when on state active duty. The larger point though is that they are unpaid volunteers doing much the same sort of work as us in much the same kind of organization. That makes them an interesting precedent with regard to uniforms, and one the AF should take a harder look at when considering CAP uniforms. That's just a side issue of the side issue on two-line nametags. Don't get bogged down on it.
It's not the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, & CAP. We're not a separate service, we're part of the AF. We may have a split personality & function as a semi-independent corporation part of the time, but the other part of the time we are treated as AF civilian employees, and considered by international law to be uniformed military combatants. Technicalities aside though... It very much matters what AF thinks. We get missions, funding, & support from them out of the goodness of their hearts. You kick them around a little bit & you can just go walk your happy asz all the way home telling yourself how important you are & that they'll realize sooner or later. Meantime they've brushed away a fly buzzing in their ear & moved on with life in the real world. When you function at someones mercy & serve at their pleasure, you need to respect & exceed their expectations, which are based on their world, not yours.
Quoting Hawk200:
"Why was it created in the first place? What need does the TPU fill that other uniforms didn't? I can't really see any. You're arguing for a uniform that has no justification to even exist. That should be the real discussion."
I can't speak to why it was created, but it does indeed fill a need -- the need for some members of Civil Air Patrol to feel that they, too, are members of the organization and to wear a uniform for that organization. Folks like me, f'rinstance, who do not meet height/weight standards but contribute (or have contributed) in many ways to CAP's success. Why should we not have a military-style uniform? Because we're overweight? Well, I would hold off on casting the stones before making sure that the weight problem isn't just overindulgence at McDonald's.
Maybe the uniform was created because Maj. Gen. Pineda himself is getting a little too "large" for his AF blue suit. Maybe it really was created as an end-run around the metal grade on the epaulet issue. Maybe it was created for the reasons I stated -- so the larger-than-issue-size members can have a military-style uniform to feel as if they belong as well. Maybe it was for all of these reasons; maybe for none of the above.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, Hawk200, but for me, saying something created by higher headquarters "doesn't have the justification to exist" is a bit above my pay grade. As I've said before, if you don't like the uniform, don't wear it. That's why it's optional. For folks like me -- who want to serve, and who want to feel as if we belong because we're dressed at least somewhat similar to everyone else -- the uniform is justified.
My two cents. Your mileage will, of course, vary.
Jack
And on the topic at hand (potential violations of UCMJ):
It seems to me as if those who say the Corporate uniform somehow violates the UCMJ are simply looking for reasons to do away with the uniform, rather than worry about whether someone is actually violating the law. Saying, "See! I told you! Wearing AF rank slides violates the UCMJ, USC, and probably the Constitution too! Now get rid of the whole idea!" is what I think they're trying to do, not raise questions about the legality of this and/or that.
Jack
I feel you'll find that there are as many pro and con opinions of the TPU as there are members of the Civil Air Patrol. Whether you hate it, like it, or indifferent the fact is that the uniform is here and will most likely be around for a very long time.
So. What next? There are obvious design issues that I personally don't like. (double breasted, CAP cutout rather than US, and the brushed nametag says Civil Air Patrol on it. Fact is, it is a military appearing distinctive CAP uniform that meets the intended purpose. If you chose not to wear it then don't. It is however a uniform that some like and some are willing to pay the extra money for.
The issue now should be that it is worn correctly, neatly, clean and more importantly, proudly. The uniform and the wearer represents the Civil Air Patrol, the Auxiliary, United States Air Force.
You can hash out the blue rank slides, metal pin on rank until you are blue in the face but it won't change the fact that the uniform is here and has been accepted by a growing number of our members.
-Chuck
Quote from: CAP Safety Dude on February 09, 2007, 04:36:46 PM
You can hash out the blue rank slides, metal pin on rank until you are blue in the face but it won't change the fact that the uniform is here and has been accepted by a growing number of our members.
I do not own said uniform, but when it first came out I was indifferent. Since then it has been clear to me that there is a segment within CAP that has a need for such a uniform. There is also a segment that seems to be wearing it who do meet USAF standards and, for some reason, wear it because they like it. What do y'all make of that?
Also, when this first came out...I pointed out that it wasn't as "unpopular" are people thought and that it was being seen and purchased by an ever growing number. I was basically labled a crackpot and told "where is your proof?"
Well, we have had significant time that it has been available for sale at Vanguard, we have WING/REGION CONFERENCE CYCLE coming up. If we take HONEST accounting of how many we see...we should have an answer.
Quote from: Major Carrales on February 09, 2007, 05:19:29 PMWell, we have had significant time that it has been available for sale at Vanguard, we have WING/REGION CONFERENCE CYCLE coming up. If we take HONEST accounting of how many we see...we should have an answer.
Maj. C. - I've had one on order at Vanguard since late December, and it's currently held up at the manufacturer so they can put on the distinctive CAP buttons before they ship it to Vanguard and then to me. I'm hoping I have it received in the next couple of weeks so I can get the thing tailored and sleeve braid put on before the Wing conference. Got all the doodads (including hard rank) for it already.
Quote from: ColonelJack on February 09, 2007, 03:56:39 PM
...it does indeed fill a need -- the need for some members of Civil Air Patrol to feel that they, too, are members of the organization and to wear a uniform for that organization.
The majority of senior members do NOT wear the AF-style uniform. Therefore, if anything you should be complaining that their choice to do so is separating them from the pack. Thats not a need. It has already been stated that the purpose of this uniform was to put everyone into a para-military uniform as part of an attempt to slowly re-militarize CAP. You just can't actually do that while going against the military & doing things your own way cause you think you're smarter than everyone else on the planet.
QuoteAs I've said before, if you don't like the uniform, don't wear it. That's why it's optional. For folks like me -- who want to serve, and who want to feel as if we belong because we're dressed at least somewhat similar to everyone else -- the uniform is justified.
See above... and what you wear reflects on me. If one CAP officer wears the wrong slides on the wrong shirt in front of the wrong person, whamo, we're all screwed royally, and what did we gain from pushing our luck?
Just because a lot of pressure has been put down on members to accept it & it really isn't that bad, better than the grays, none of that makes it right. That just makes it shrewd. We need to address issues rank-in-file have with it & take away any ammunition (UCMJ/USC) that could be used if someone mixes things up in the dark one early morning.
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on February 09, 2007, 05:34:30 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on February 09, 2007, 05:19:29 PMWell, we have had significant time that it has been available for sale at Vanguard, we have WING/REGION CONFERENCE CYCLE coming up. If we take HONEST accounting of how many we see...we should have an answer.
Maj. C. - I've had one on order at Vanguard since late December, and it's currently held up at the manufacturer so they can put on the distinctive CAP buttons before they ship it to Vanguard and then to me. I'm hoping I have it received in the next couple of weeks so I can get the thing tailored and sleeve braid put on before the Wing conference. Got all the doodads (including hard rank) for it already.
So, y'think I should save up for one? Is it the "wave of the future?
I am half-tempted to put on a set of old CAP blue shoulder marks on my TPU shirt just to see the reaction. (Have a set of 1st Lt, Capt and Maj in old-style blue. And I'm not selling 'em.)
Quote from: Major Carrales on February 09, 2007, 05:38:40 PMSo, y'think I should save up for one? Is it the "wave of the future?
Entirely up to you. Knowing how AF-style clothing runs small, and I'm right at the borderline (+/- 10 lbs) of meeting CAP weight standards, I'd rather wear the TPU for now. I won't consider buying USAF service dress unless I actually go to an MCSS and try one on.
Quote from: ColonelJack on February 09, 2007, 03:56:39 PMI can't speak to why it was created, but it does indeed fill a need -- the need for some members of Civil Air Patrol to feel that they, too, are members of the organization and to wear a uniform for that organization. Folks like me, f'rinstance, who do not meet height/weight standards but contribute (or have contributed) in many ways to CAP's success. Why should we not have a military-style uniform? Because we're overweight?...
I find this amusing in so many ways. One, so many people that talk about how we're are not the military, yet people demanding a military style uniform. Do you see the irony?
Two, this military style corporate uniform goes against the military's concept of uniform wear. How many
obviously overweight personnel do you see in the military? Not many, not many at all. I'm not talking about five, ten or even fifteen pounds, heck, you can still wear the blues within those limits (more or less).
As for wearing a uniform for the organization, what do you think you were wearing before? This doesn't look to me like a uniformity issue, it looks like people jumping on the "latest and greatest". The TPU didn't introduce another option when you didn't have one. You're only arguing it because you went out and bought one. Which could be considered a self control issue in itself.
QuoteMaybe the uniform was created because Maj. Gen. Pineda himself is getting a little too "large" for his AF blue suit. Maybe it really was created as an end-run around the metal grade on the epaulet issue. Maybe it was created for the reasons I stated -- so the larger-than-issue-size members can have a military-style uniform to feel as if they belong as well. Maybe it was for all of these reasons; maybe for none of the above.
So what you're telling me is that when the General gets too big for his britches, he can just design a new uniform? Back to the military angle, how many fat military generals have you seen? Not many of those around. He could have changed the Blazer combo into something prettier. But he didn't, he created a new one. How many times do you buy a new car because you have a flat tire on your old one?
QuoteMaybe I'm misinterpreting you, Hawk200, but for me, saying something created by higher headquarters "doesn't have the justification to exist" is a bit above my pay grade.
I'm really not sure how you thought I wouldn't know what this really means. Just come out and and say what you mean, don't get creative on the writing.
QuoteAs I've said before, if you don't like the uniform, don't wear it. That's why it's optional. For folks like me -- who want to serve, and who want to feel as if we belong because we're dressed at least somewhat similar to everyone else -- the uniform is justified.
Funny, I never said anything about wearing it. Really, thank you for the permission, though.
I don't really buy the "feel as if we belong". There were other things available. And the TPU isn't so similar to the Air Force that people associate the two. Most people I know think it looks like some kind of Coast Guard uniform. You're dresssed similar, just not to the target you wanted to be.
Hawk200, first let me assure you I wasn't trying to be a smartass. Not at all. But I do employ creative writing because ... well, because I'm a writer.
I see your points; I just don't agree with them. (You did score a hit, however, with your line about me arguing for it because I bought one. I do admit to that being part of the reason I support the Corporate uniform.) This uniform combination is really a non-issue, since it isn't going to go away -- not after a lot of officers have gone to the expense to purchase one.
I think we can agree to disagree.
Jack
Send your collective bills to....
Well anyway, I don't think anyone's necessarily arguing for it to go away. I think modification is the word. Embroider CAP on the AF grade slides so they are now "distinctivly marked blue CAP grade slides" & not an AF uniform item. Also go to pin on CAP halfway btwn the metal grade & button for the jacket & all the Army style outter wear, all that allows you to put the US back on the lapel. Okay now so that hasn't negatetd the investment anyone has made. Just swap out a couple insignia items & everyone's okay, maybe not loving it, but satisfied.
Plus here's the thing, that becomes the precedent to standardize some things down the road: For instance, it'd be nice to be able to sue the same AF-style lightweight & all-weather coats w/ both combinations & the same insignia setup. It'd be nice to bring blue grade slides w/ CAP embroidered on them over to the blues side some day, back like it used to be. I don't think they'd let us wear metal grade on the blues service coat even in teh way specified, but that same blue slide in that postion would be nice, as would a black one for that matter. Be nice to get down the road to a uniform along those lines, and this TPU fiasco could be used a s a stepping tone to that stuff some day in theory maybe, but not as it's set up now. So what's the big deal making a couple minor changes.
Quote from: DNall on February 10, 2007, 12:20:29 AM
Well anyway, I don't think anyone's necessarily arguing for it to go away. I think modification is the word. Embroider CAP on the AF grade slides so they are now "distinctivly marked blue CAP grade slides" & not an AF uniform item. Also go to pin on CAP halfway btwn the metal grade & button for the jacket & all the Army style outter wear, all that allows you to put the US back on the lapel. Okay now so that hasn't negatetd the investment anyone has made. Just swap out a couple insignia items & everyone's okay, maybe not loving it, but satisfied.
I'd like to see the blue corporate service dress uniform go away. I don't see what purpose it serves. There's nothing wrong with wearing the grays/blazer uniform combo if you're overweight/don't meet the grooming standards. In my view, if there is any reason the blue corporate service dress uniform came into being, it was to slap the AF in the face for not allowing blue shoulder marks/blue nametag/metal rank on the AF style service uniforms for CAP.
My theory is that the corporate service dress uniform exists because its accoutrements (AF rank slides, metal rank and blue AF-like nametag) were not allowed on the AF style service uniforms for CAP. IT has nothing to do with allowing those who are overweight to wear a more Air Force-like uniform. YMMV.
I would like to see the modifications DNall has suggested, since I don't think the blue corporate service dress uniform is going anywhere anytime soon.
Quote from: DNall on February 10, 2007, 12:20:29 AMPlus here's the thing, that becomes the precedent to standardize some things down the road: For instance, it'd be nice to be able to sue the same AF-style lightweight & all-weather coats w/ both combinations & the same insignia setup. It'd be nice to bring blue grade slides w/ CAP embroidered on them over to the blues side some day, back like it used to be. I don't think they'd let us wear metal grade on the blues service coat even in teh way specified, but that same blue slide in that postion would be nice, as would a black one for that matter. Be nice to get down the road to a uniform along those lines, and this TPU fiasco could be used a s a stepping tone to that stuff some day in theory maybe, but not as it's set up now. So what's the big deal making a couple minor changes.
I agree. It should not be that big a deal to make the TPU more CAP-specific. But if my theory about how this uniform came into being is correct, making the TPU more CAP-specific will be very difficult.
I, too long for the day when all CAP personnel can again wear blue shoulder marks, blue nametags, and metal rank insignia on the blue AF service/service dress uniforms.
What I said abou tthe vision is avail out in the ether, just do some looking.
Quote from: DNall on February 10, 2007, 12:20:29 AM
Well anyway, I don't think anyone's necessarily arguing for it to go away. I think modification is the word. Embroider CAP on the AF grade slides so they are now "distinctivly marked blue CAP grade slides" & not an AF uniform item. Also go to pin on CAP halfway btwn the metal grade & button for the jacket & all the Army style outter wear, all that allows you to put the US back on the lapel. Okay now so that hasn't negatetd the investment anyone has made. Just swap out a couple insignia items & everyone's okay, maybe not loving it, but satisfied.
But don't you think the USAF would have asked us to do that, if they had a problem with is? I mean they asked us to go to two line name tag and up CAP cut-outs on the TPU service coat.
Again...I think this is a non-issue.
CAP was strongly encouraged to do those things, but it wasn't an order from AF. AF cannot officially comment on things they do not have oversight on, and that includes this uniform. I'm sure the Secretary can do whatever he wants, but no one from there to CAP-USAF can. They could actually arrest somebody, but obviously that's not a good idea for anyone. Feel free to swing out there to Maxwell with beer money & ask what the deal is. Go track down your JA, present a fair telling of both sides & ask if they can see a legal or risk mgmt issues for concurrently serving enlisted and/or CAP organizationally if problems occur that they were negligent in preventing.
Don't need to...I know I am not in volation of the UCMJ. CAP-USAF would have sent out a notice to all us military type folks in CAP warning us off of wearing the uniform...they would have also pushed the issue with the BOG and SECAF would have said something.
Seeing as how the paid professionals at CAP-USAF are not sending out warning to us airman I'm pretty sure I'm safe.
So bottom line. This is NOT an issue. Next subject.
So the lack of action you take to mean you're in the clear? Kinda like there's no proof santa is fake so he must be real. I mean you're right no one is going to get charged with a crime, no one staid in this thread that they would. The contention was just that it's a technical violation that isn't well liked by most people in the AF & it's not good to puch them around on these things cause it tends to come back to haunt you elsewhere.
I've talked to some people I trust with my life that have been very close to the situation & relay a less than pretty picture of the issue in the eyes of CAP-USAF & supposedly that view was handed to them from higher in the chain.
Dnall...PM me your E-mail and I will send a E-mail to the CAP-USAF/JA and ask the question. I'll CC you on the inital E-mail and forward any response I may get.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 10, 2007, 05:49:22 AM
Quote from: DNall on February 10, 2007, 12:20:29 AM
Well anyway, I don't think anyone's necessarily arguing for it to go away. I think modification is the word. Embroider CAP on the AF grade slides so they are now "distinctivly marked blue CAP grade slides" & not an AF uniform item. Also go to pin on CAP halfway btwn the metal grade & button for the jacket & all the Army style outter wear, all that allows you to put the US back on the lapel. Okay now so that hasn't negatetd the investment anyone has made. Just swap out a couple insignia items & everyone's okay, maybe not loving it, but satisfied.
But don't you think the USAF would have asked us to do that, if they had a problem with is? I mean they asked us to go to two line name tag and up CAP cut-outs on the TPU service coat.
Again...I think this is a non-issue.
Very much a non-issue that we are mashing into the ground. If the Air Force (via CAP-USAF) had a problem with the uniform they would have very much made their opinion know, case in point the whole ID card adventure we had.
The clincher on the TPU that seperated it away from the Air Force was probably the white shirt and double (ugly) breasted service coat.
Once again, CAP-USAF cannot comment on items they do not have jurisdiction over. Hence they do control ID cards & do NOT control corporate uniforms. They CAP-USAF CC cannot go running off at the mouth when everyone assumes he's speaking on behalf of the AF. The AF in general cannot push CAP around on such issues, and they've been slapped down several times by Congress for trying, most recently there in 2000.
Quote from: DNall on February 11, 2007, 01:32:23 AM
Once again, CAP-USAF cannot comment on items they do not have jurisdiction over.
They certainly advise me as a USAF member on whether I may be buying an Article 15 by wearing the TPU....that in fact is there job!
Quote from: DNall on February 11, 2007, 01:32:23 AMHence they do control ID cards & do NOT control corporate uniforms. They CAP-USAF CC cannot go running off at the mouth when everyone assumes he's speaking on behalf of the AF. The AF in general cannot push CAP around on such issues, and they've been slapped down several times by Congress for trying, most recently there in 2000.
Then where are you getting all your intel about how the USAF is upset about this and that. You have seveal times hinted that you knew some, who knew someone who in fact is running off at the mouth.
Actually their job is NOT to advise you as an AF member. They provide oversight on behalf of Air Staff, and that's it. I PM'd you about the other & the individual I mentioned as primary source does not work for CAP-USAF.
WHAT??!!?!!? SANTA AIN'T REAL???!!?!?!? ;D
Quote from: NAYBOR on February 11, 2007, 10:10:28 PM
WHAT??!!?!!? SANTA AIN'T REAL???!!?!?!? ;D
Bah, humbug... it's all one crassly commercialized holiday! ;D
Quote from: DNall on February 11, 2007, 01:55:11 AM
Actually their job is NOT to advise you as an AF member. They provide oversight on behalf of Air Staff, and that's it. I PM'd you about the other & the individual I mentioned as primary source does not work for CAP-USAF.
I did not say that it was their job....but they would certainly be the experts on the spot to advice an Airman of the legal consequences of also being a member of CAP.
Sure...I should go to my local JAG office...and they would go up their chain to AF JAG who would staff the issue down to CAP-USAF.
So I am just going to cut out the middle man and get a flat no nonsense answer. (I hope).
It's fine, they are just in a wierd ethical position that they can't by orders talk about CAP policies the AF doesn't control, cause it gives the appearance they're talking for the AF, who has been slapped around for doing that in the past. I'm affraid what you'll get is something like... 'There's been no legal ruling to that effect (cause there's not cause no one's been charged, and they aren't about to be), but if your local Chain has an issue with it then our advice is don't wear that combination.' or maybe just the brush that USAF doesn't have policy control over CAP corporate uniforms. I don't know, maybe they'll give you a great straight forward no BS answer, but knowing a past CAP-USAF commander pretty well I worry they won't be able to give you a decisive statement.
I do understand not going thru your local JA though. I wouldn't either. If they decide against it then that makes trouble locally that your guys don't need.
Quote from: DNall on February 10, 2007, 12:20:29 AM
Also go to pin on CAP halfway btwn the metal grade & button for the jacket & all the Army style outter wear, all that allows you to put the US back on the lapel.
Actually, TP tried to run that up the flagpole about two years ago: we were to wear pin-on rank on the USAF coat, with the CAP shield as a "unit crest." It got shot down, and the rest you already know....
Quote from: O-Rex on February 12, 2007, 03:22:46 AM
Quote from: DNall on February 10, 2007, 12:20:29 AM
Also go to pin on CAP halfway btwn the metal grade & button for the jacket & all the Army style outter wear, all that allows you to put the US back on the lapel.
Actually, TP tried to run that up the flagpole about two years ago: we were to wear pin-on rank on the USAF coat, with the CAP shield as a "unit crest." It got shot down, and the rest you already know....
That's an especially problematic issue since it'd look like army officer. can't be a unit crest
Not really: have you seen the windbreaker? Black! Sound familiar?? Rumor has it that they might use the black trenchcoat too.
I'd like to be a fly on the wall for that dscussion:
Army: "Hey, nobody asked us.."
USAF: "Welcome to our world."
Just a related...but sort of off topic not.....doe the ACA have permission from the Navy, Army and Marines to use their uniforms?
You know I have no idea about that. They aren't affiliated formally like we are, but get pretty good support none the less.
Quote from: O-Rex on February 12, 2007, 03:43:24 AM
Not really: have you seen the windbreaker? Black! Sound familiar?? Rumor has it that they might use the black trenchcoat too.
I'd like to be a fly on the wall for that dscussion:
Army: "Hey, nobody asked us.."
USAF: "Welcome to our world."
Funny. Really funny.
But also disturbing, too. How many different branches of service do we risk torquing off, before someone does something about it?
The Air Force may have their directive to support us, but the Army doesn't. And the encampments in my wing? Run on an Army installation. If Pineda decides to relabel the black Army trenchcoat as a "corporate" item, and make it an outergarment for the TPU, how long til the Army refuses to assist us?
Or maybe some states that offer support to our wings mandate that the TPU not be worn on their facilities. Could happen. May not be likely, but it could.
Quote from: Hawk200 on February 12, 2007, 04:09:35 AM
How many different branches of service do we risk torquing off, before someone does something about it?
The Air Force may have their directive to support us, but the Army doesn't. And the encampments in my wing? Run on an Army installation. If Pineda decides to relabel the black Army trenchcoat as a "corporate" item, and make it an outergarment for the TPU, how long til the Army refuses to assist us?
That's a
great point! I never thought of that. That is reason enough to get rid of this uniform (or change the outergarments to AF ones, at the very least).
Quote from: RiverAux on February 12, 2007, 02:57:16 AMOr maybe some states that offer support to our wings mandate that the TPU not be worn on their facilities. Could happen. May not be likely, but it could.
Perhaps, but I don't think that will happen without the Army getting torqued off first.
Full length trenchcoat, with grade on, kinda hard to see the blue pants. Yeah I could see where that would be a problem.
What's the word on the Army conversion to blue service dress. It is going to be a white epaulet shirt w/ black nameplate & black graed slides over the blue pants? Cause yeah most people should be able to tell the difference in those pants & see that the slides are black & not blue & that the stripe on them is gold not silver, but you know that's going to bother some people right?
The shirt will be gray, not white.
Quote from: DNall on February 12, 2007, 04:37:54 AM
Full length trenchcoat, with grade on, kinda hard to see the blue pants. Yeah I could see where that would be a problem.
What's the word on the Army conversion to blue service dress. It is going to be a white epaulet shirt w/ black nameplate & black graed slides over the blue pants? Cause yeah most people should be able to tell the difference in those pants & see that the slides are black & not blue & that the stripe on them is gold not silver, but you know that's going to bother some people right?
I keep seeing different information on the stripe. Some sources say their will be one, others say they don't. Even the last time I looked on army.mil, they hadn't decided yet.
Although there will be a little more similarity between Army and Air Force. The thing is, either way, if you show up on an Army installation with Army uniform pieces on, it's going to get someone's blood pressure rising.
It's bad enough that we have the Army windbreaker. It's still an Army uniform item, and the Army may not take well to Civil Air Patrol members wearing it, especially with rank insignia. It won't matter if you can confuse the two or not.
I think this is the biggest danger with the TPU. Other than the coat (which looks Coastie to a lot of folks) it was made up with a number of uniform pieces from various branches. Air Force pants, headgear, rank slides. Army windbreaker, and as mentioned above, possibly the trenchcoat. Those branches weren't consulted, and it may cause issues. Even a black leather jacket extremely similar to an Air Force issue item can be misconstrued.
I know the BDU's are considered military uniform, so we wear it under allowance from the Air Force. Was the Air Force consulted on when the Blue Beret was authorized? I suspect not. And I think limiting it to BDU's (both blue and cammie) was a way of hopefully escaping notice by the Air Force. I still think that one day an Air Force cop is going to really notice, and then there is going to be some problems.
It may or may not be an issue of UCMJ or USC violations. But even if not, there is capacity for great conflict here.
Quote from: Hawk200 on February 12, 2007, 06:30:31 PM
It may or may not be an issue of UCMJ or USC violations. But even if not, there is capacity for great conflict here.
Which I think we can all agree is pretty easily avoided with some minor changes, right?
Quote from: DNall on February 12, 2007, 08:23:25 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on February 12, 2007, 06:30:31 PM
It may or may not be an issue of UCMJ or USC violations. But even if not, there is capacity for great conflict here.
Which I think we can all agree is pretty easily avoided with some minor changes, right?
I think it would all depend on the changes.
There's some mentioned here. Outterwear is a real probelm cause you shouldn't use the AF or Army style w/ or w/o grade. Obviously the best course is to submit corporate uniform items & changes to the aETC uniform board, not for approval but for endorsement.
Question: how much longer is Pineda in office?
Second question: after TP leaves office, how long will the TPU last before it is thrown out by the next CC ?
Quote from: Dragoon on February 06, 2007, 08:00:39 PM
Here's the best I could do on short notice.
In the USAF Uniform Reg (AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 36-2903), in table 1-3 it says DO NOT wear:
"in civilian attire. For example: grade insignia, cap devices,
badges and other U.S. or Air Force insignia, distinctive
buttons, etc."
Footnote 6 of that table spells it out
"Officers and Enlisted: Do not wear or mix unique uniform items with civilian clothes.
These items are those unique to the uniform. They include grade insignia, cap devices,
badges and other U. S. or Air Force insignia, such as items with the "Wing and Star"
design, and so forth. Exception: Tie tacs and lapel pins when wearing business attire
authorized."
Now, to me, the CAP corporate uniforms counts as "civilian attire." (After all that's the whole reason to have them - so we can avoid military oversight.) Others may have a different view.
So yeah, the grade insignia, both slides and pin-on, would seem to be covered by this. And, I think so would the "U.S." collar insignia.
Of course, like all rules, it only matters if it's enforced. If USAF tells its military members who are also in CAP not to wear the corporate service dress, we'll know for sure. My guess is they won't get around to it.
Let me ask a sensable question: From what you quoted from the AFI, it's illegal for me to wear the Air Force Hap Arnold cuff links on my white dress shirt?!?! Is that right or wrong?
Quote from: Hammer on February 21, 2007, 05:29:16 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on February 06, 2007, 08:00:39 PM
Here's the best I could do on short notice.
In the USAF Uniform Reg (AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 36-2903), in table 1-3 it says DO NOT wear:
"in civilian attire. For example: grade insignia, cap devices,
badges and other U.S. or Air Force insignia, distinctive
buttons, etc."
Footnote 6 of that table spells it out
"Officers and Enlisted: Do not wear or mix unique uniform items with civilian clothes.
These items are those unique to the uniform. They include grade insignia, cap devices,
badges and other U. S. or Air Force insignia, such as items with the "Wing and Star"
design, and so forth. Exception: Tie tacs and lapel pins when wearing business attire
authorized."
Now, to me, the CAP corporate uniforms counts as "civilian attire." (After all that's the whole reason to have them - so we can avoid military oversight.) Others may have a different view.
So yeah, the grade insignia, both slides and pin-on, would seem to be covered by this. And, I think so would the "U.S." collar insignia.
Of course, like all rules, it only matters if it's enforced. If USAF tells its military members who are also in CAP not to wear the corporate service dress, we'll know for sure. My guess is they won't get around to it.
Let me ask a sensable question: From what you quoted from the AFI, it's illegal for me to wear the Air Force Hap Arnold cuff links on my white dress shirt?!?! Is that right or wrong?
Strictly speaking, yes.
However, let's wade into the those murky gray waters called "spirit of the regs."
The goal of the "no mixing" rule is to avoid wear/use of the uniform or protected items in a way that would reflect poorly on the Service. We don't want people wearing the Service Dress jacket as a sport coat, for example. This is similar to the "no wearing to KKK meetings" rule.
While there are lots of people breaking the letter, they're not doing it in a way that reflects poorly on the service. Wearing your cuff links or putting your grade insignia on your VFW cap probably wouldn't be considered a disrespectful act.
The TPU, as long as you wear it properly and don't try to pass yourself off as a AF officer, will also not break the spirit of the rules. I liken this to the PD/FD/EMT uniforms that wear military officer insignia - you can be an AD E-6 and a VFD Lieutenant without stepping on anyone's toes.
In truth, with the removal of the grade from the flight cap and the "US" cutouts from the lapels, I think the AF had changed what they considered the heartburn areas.
Quoting SAR-EMT1:
"Question: how much longer is Pineda in office?
Second question: after TP leaves office, how long will the TPU last before it is thrown out by the next CC ?"
Major General Pineda has, I believe, one more year left in his term (more or less).
To answer your second question ... I seriously doubt the Corporate Service Uniform will be "thrown out" by the next National Commander. Though there is a vocal group that doesn't like it and doesn't want it, there's a growing number of CAP officers who either have one or are getting one ... and the new CC isn't going to intentionally torque off a large percentage of his membership by taking that $160 jacket and making it instantly obsolete. (Not if the next CC is a person of at least moderate intelligence, anyway.)
I really am having a hard time understanding some of the vicious hatred of the uniform. The "it doesn't look good" line, I can understand, though I disagree with it. The "it wasn't properly approved/introduced" line I can deal with, though once again, I can't see how it could've been done otherwise. But to just plain hate the thing with such vitriol and demand its immediate rescindance -- or outright banning -- or worse ... this I don't understand.
Remember, we're the Air Force's Auxiliary. We're not the Air Force. We're supposed to look somewhat different.
Jack
Quote from: ddelaney103 on February 21, 2007, 05:54:58 PM
Quote from: Hammer on February 21, 2007, 05:29:16 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on February 06, 2007, 08:00:39 PM
Here's the best I could do on short notice.
In the USAF Uniform Reg (AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 36-2903), in table 1-3 it says DO NOT wear:
"in civilian attire. For example: grade insignia, cap devices,
badges and other U.S. or Air Force insignia, distinctive
buttons, etc."
Footnote 6 of that table spells it out
"Officers and Enlisted: Do not wear or mix unique uniform items with civilian clothes.
These items are those unique to the uniform. They include grade insignia, cap devices,
badges and other U. S. or Air Force insignia, such as items with the "Wing and Star"
design, and so forth. Exception: Tie tacs and lapel pins when wearing business attire
authorized."
Now, to me, the CAP corporate uniforms counts as "civilian attire." (After all that's the whole reason to have them - so we can avoid military oversight.) Others may have a different view.
So yeah, the grade insignia, both slides and pin-on, would seem to be covered by this. And, I think so would the "U.S." collar insignia.
Of course, like all rules, it only matters if it's enforced. If USAF tells its military members who are also in CAP not to wear the corporate service dress, we'll know for sure. My guess is they won't get around to it.
Let me ask a sensable question: From what you quoted from the AFI, it's illegal for me to wear the Air Force Hap Arnold cuff links on my white dress shirt?!?! Is that right or wrong?
Strictly speaking, yes.
However, let's wade into the those murky gray waters called "spirit of the regs."
The goal of the "no mixing" rule is to avoid wear/use of the uniform or protected items in a way that would reflect poorly on the Service. We don't want people wearing the Service Dress jacket as a sport coat, for example. This is similar to the "no wearing to KKK meetings" rule.
While there are lots of people breaking the letter, they're not doing it in a way that reflects poorly on the service. Wearing your cuff links or putting your grade insignia on your VFW cap probably wouldn't be considered a disrespectful act.
The TPU, as long as you wear it properly and don't try to pass yourself off as a AF officer, will also not break the spirit of the rules. I liken this to the PD/FD/EMT uniforms that wear military officer insignia - you can be an AD E-6 and a VFD Lieutenant without stepping on anyone's toes.
In truth, with the removal of the grade from the flight cap and the "US" cutouts from the lapels, I think the AF had changed what they considered the heartburn areas.
Oh great, I can wear the tie tac but not the matching cuff links... Legally, since it says tie tac, I can't wear clip. Nice.
If the individual did earn the MoH, then legally he CAN wear his uniform to KKK meetings. Pretty handy since now they are wearing BDU's, or so I saw on the History Channel.
Quote from: Hawk200 on February 12, 2007, 06:30:31 PM
It's bad enough that we have the Army windbreaker. It's still an Army uniform item, and the Army may not take well to Civil Air Patrol members wearing it, especially with rank insignia. It won't matter if you can confuse the two or not.
Technically, the windbreaker is not an official uniform item, it is a piece of civilian style clothing that has been authorized for optional uniform wear. The regs allow the wear of the windbreaker as a civilian item:
27–30. Windbreaker, black (from AR 670-1)
c. How worn. All personnel may wear the windbreaker with the class B, hospital duty, and food service uniforms. Personnel will not wear the windbreaker in formations unless authorized by the commander. Personnel will wear the windbreaker zipped to at least the second button down from the top of the shirt. Only non-subdued, pin-on grade insignia is worn on the windbreaker.
Personnel may wear the windbreaker without insignia when wearing civilian clothing. (emphasis mine.)
Now the problem comes when you try to add insignia and such:
1–12. Distinctive uniforms and uniform items
a. The following uniform items are distinctive and will not be sold to or worn by unauthorized personnel:
(1) All Army headgear, when worn with insignia.
(2) Badges and tabs (identification, marksmanship, combat, and special skill).
(3) Uniform buttons (U.S. Army or Corps of Engineers).
(4) Decorations, service medals, service and training ribbons, and other awards and their appurtenances.
(5) Insignia of any design or color that the Army has adopted.
b. Individuals will remove all distinctive items before disposing of unserviceable uniform items.
So, it could be adopted for CAP corporate wear with no rank insignia or CAP distinctive insignia, but not anything that looks like Army insignia.
Quote from: ColonelJack on February 21, 2007, 06:10:27 PM
Quoting SAR-EMT1:
"Question: how much longer is Pineda in office?
Second question: after TP leaves office, how long will the TPU last before it is thrown out by the next CC ?"
Major General Pineda has, I believe, one more year left in his term (more or less).
To answer your second question ... I seriously doubt the Corporate Service Uniform will be "thrown out" by the next National Commander. Though there is a vocal group that doesn't like it and doesn't want it, there's a growing number of CAP officers who either have one or are getting one ... and the new CC isn't going to intentionally torque off a large percentage of his membership by taking that $160 jacket and making it instantly obsolete. (Not if the next CC is a person of at least moderate intelligence, anyway.)
I really am having a hard time understanding some of the vicious hatred of the uniform. The "it doesn't look good" line, I can understand, though I disagree with it. The "it wasn't properly approved/introduced" line I can deal with, though once again, I can't see how it could've been done otherwise. But to just plain hate the thing with such vitriol and demand its immediate rescindance -- or outright banning -- or worse ... this I don't understand.
Remember, we're the Air Force's Auxiliary. We're not the Air Force. We're supposed to look somewhat different.
We're supposed to be somewhat different by THEIR choice & according to what THEY designate for us. The corporate-STYLE unforms have never until recently even been uniforms. They were always standardized business attire people were likely to already have in their closet before joining. And, they were wupposed to look distinctly un-military. For better or worse the current shift is a big one that has gone far beyond the spirit of having alternative uniforms in the first place. At some point it's going to go too far & require sweeping corrective action by AF that will hurt us all. A lot of people will argue this uniform combination is that step across the line that's going to eventually piss them off enough to slap us down again.
A uniform change like this that seduces members into buying it even though it's problematic around the military & approved by a VERY unacceptable process, is very very bad. A new CC that lets that stand w/o modification merely because members are still caught up in that seduction is seriously lacking in moral courage, and if that's the case they aren't capable of doing the job.
It's absolutely fact that this combination w/ AF slides on the white shirt IS pissing off people on AF bases all over the place. It's matter of time before that alone or in combination with other factors causes serious problems. That's not something CAP can deal with & not worth any amount of gain from this combination.
Anyway, the only thing I'm asking for is embroider CAP on the top of those AF slides & that's it. I don't care about the nametag, I like the two-line tag & think it ought to be adopted across the board for blue or white shirts & for cadets too. I think that potentially sets the stage for CAP to get back the blue CAP slides or something like them (black maybe) down the road. I really don't understand why this was done in the first place though. I got no problem with the blue pants & such, do think it should include the flight hat exactly as worn with blues, but why not stick with gray slides? What made them think this was a good idea when AF already said no over & over again to similiar changes in the uniforms they do control.
Quote from: davedove on February 21, 2007, 06:42:09 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on February 12, 2007, 06:30:31 PM
It's bad enough that we have the Army windbreaker. It's still an Army uniform item, and the Army may not take well to Civil Air Patrol members wearing it, especially with rank insignia. It won't matter if you can confuse the two or not.
Technically, the windbreaker is not an official uniform item, it is a piece of civilian style clothing that has been authorized for optional uniform wear. The regs allow the wear of the windbreaker as a civilian item
Yes but it's being worn WITH metal grade AND with a uniform, not as civilian attire. I think you'll find they have a problem with that.
Quote from: DNall on February 21, 2007, 06:59:55 PM
Quote from: davedove on February 21, 2007, 06:42:09 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on February 12, 2007, 06:30:31 PM
It's bad enough that we have the Army windbreaker. It's still an Army uniform item, and the Army may not take well to Civil Air Patrol members wearing it, especially with rank insignia. It won't matter if you can confuse the two or not.
Technically, the windbreaker is not an official uniform item, it is a piece of civilian style clothing that has been authorized for optional uniform wear. The regs allow the wear of the windbreaker as a civilian item
Yes but it's being worn WITH metal grade AND with a uniform, not as civilian attire. I think you'll find they have a problem with that.
I would think so too, as the metal insignia are definitely "distinctive uniform items." I would also make that argument about the blue AF slides.
I really wonder what possessed them to use the blue slides instead of just using the gray slides.
Quote from: davedove on February 21, 2007, 07:41:26 PM
I really wonder what possessed them to use the blue slides instead of just using the gray slides.
Probably the same reason as the metal grade.
You know & let me tell you a little story...
1) I got a member older than dirt in my Sq that repeatedly wears the blue slides on the blue shirt w/ an enlisted hat & no device. I've warned him 5 times now. I've had the Sq CC warn him & offer to give him a set of gray slides, which he said he already had. I got an AF res Capt just joined the unit & a new CAP-USAF Maj that lives a couple minutes away & will be visiting regularly after he's made the rounds a bit. Steps are going to have to be taken soon.
2) I was at a Wg event this past wknd. Saw an old friend who I deeply respect. He's a retired Major from a service other than the AF. He was wearing the white/blue combo w/ mil badges & a BLUE lightweight over it w/ metal grade, and the hat w/ SM device on the left & mini-grade on the right.
3) later that day, my own Sq CC (a retired Army officer & former Gp CC) told me that AF outerwear (lightweight jacket & overcoat) are now authorized w/ metal grade over the white/blue combo, said he'd gotten the word on it from above.
4) Another Major at that event, this one in the ANG, was wearing the white shirt w/ a blue overcoat & gray slides on that.
There's a difference between honest mistakes, mis-positioning an item, accidents, confusion over a thousand changes... but there is a line that CANNOT be crossed, and this uniform is right on top of it - debatably across that line in a couple areas.
I have no agenda in taking this position or asking this question, but literally how long do you think we can make it before someone in the military sees this, worn correctly or incorrectly, and makes a big enough stink that it comes down on all of CAP regardless of how we felt about this thing? Is that massive risk worth what we get out of it in the interm? And what is it specifically that we gain from this that we couldn't have had without testing the limits of good will?
The regs & UCMJ, that's details. I do think it's a violation & I do think the mil personnel that decide to make a stink about it later will use that as justifcation to slap us around, but that's not ultimately why I think this uniform is a BAD idea that needs some alterations done to squirm out from under teh technicalities & make it more defensible, even potentially good for our members in the long run.
Quote from: Hammer on February 21, 2007, 06:13:09 PM
Oh great, I can wear the tie tac but not the matching cuff links... Legally, since it says tie tac, I can't wear clip. Nice.
If the individual did earn the MoH, then legally he CAN wear his uniform to KKK meetings. Pretty handy since now they are wearing BDU's, or so I saw on the History Channel.
You might want to take another gander at AFI36-2903, highspeed:
QuoteTable 6.1. When Reserve, ANG, Retired, Or Separated Personnel Are Required Or Authorized To
Wear The Uniform (See note 1).
If the member is may wear the uniform
in any of the categories 2 at any time, when he or she has
been awarded the Medal of Honor
and Chapter 1 does not prohibit
wear of the uniform.
NOTE:
1. Members will conform to the same standards of appearance, military customs, practices, and conduct
in uniform prescribed for active duty members.
Table 1.3. Wearing the Uniform
Do Not Wear when: participating in public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches or rallies, or in any public demonstration when the Air Force sanction of the cause for which the activity is conducted may be implied.
That should put that myth to bed...
Quote from: ddelaney103 on February 21, 2007, 09:52:34 PM
Quote from: Hammer on February 21, 2007, 06:13:09 PM
Oh great, I can wear the tie tac but not the matching cuff links... Legally, since it says tie tac, I can't wear clip. Nice.
If the individual did earn the MoH, then legally he CAN wear his uniform to KKK meetings. Pretty handy since now they are wearing BDU's, or so I saw on the History Channel.
You might want to take another gander at AFI36-2903, highspeed:
QuoteTable 6.1. When Reserve, ANG, Retired, Or Separated Personnel Are Required Or Authorized To
Wear The Uniform (See note 1).
If the member is may wear the uniform
in any of the categories 2 at any time, when he or she has
been awarded the Medal of Honor
and Chapter 1 does not prohibit
wear of the uniform.
NOTE:
1. Members will conform to the same standards of appearance, military customs, practices, and conduct
in uniform prescribed for active duty members.
Table 1.3. Wearing the Uniform
Do Not Wear when: participating in public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches or rallies, or in any public demonstration when the Air Force sanction of the cause for which the activity is conducted may be implied.
That should put that myth to bed...
Sir, check out DoD 1348-M, Manual of Military Decorations & Awards, Paragraph C2.4.4, which reads as follows" C2.4.4. Unlike military personnel and retirees, MOH recipients may wear their
uniforms at any time or place they choose."
Lot of trouble with MOH recips even going to klan meetings, much less in uniform?