Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 06, 2008, 02:49:43 PM
Boonie hats would be good for the field, for ground teams, and for the flight line.  I would LIKE to see the bush hat restricted to actual ES operators who need sun protection, (and NOT headquarters pukes like me who only see the sun while going to and from chow).  If you ain't workin' you ain't wearin'!

Amen!

Quote from: JThemann on April 06, 2008, 12:46:26 PM

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on April 06, 2008, 03:56:18 AM
If anyone's talking about "two Civil Air Patrols," it's not the aviators vs. the rest. It's the identity crisis between those who identify with the mothership (the Air Force) and those who are a lot more casual. You join the Air Force Auxiliary, you should be expected to wear at least a semiprofessional uniform, not the equivalent of blue jeans.

Am I wrong?

Yes, you are sir.

I don't normally wear the Air Force style uniforms for a lot of reasons. But that doesn't mean that the creases on my shirt and DFU's aren't just as sharp. I'm definately proud to be part of the US Air Force, even in a small way, but I'm also equally proud to be part of the Civil Air Patrol, and wear those uniforms.

Just because I don't look Air Force doesn't mean I'm 'casual.'

Furthermore, I think that the polo shirt and blazer uniforms do have their useful moments.

Mr.  Themann,

I can understand your feelings. Maybe I need to restate a little.

I have no problem with CAP having an alternative uniform for those who can't or won't wear the AF uniforms. But the uniforms have dumbed down and become so confusing that members' best bet is either the AF uniforms or the golf shirt, the latter of which is really not a uniform. Investing in the CAP civilian uniform (whatever that has been/is/will be) seems an exercise in futility.

You join CAP, you've joined a military instrumentality. They wear uniforms for a reason, and so do we. If you choose to wear the CAP alternative to its Air Force counterpart (blue BDU vs. BDU, "corporate" blue uniform or white-and-grays vs. AF blues), that's fine. Those uniforms are there to allow those who can't/won't meet Air Force weight/grooming standards to be "uniform." We are traditionally a military organization that follows military organizational lines and (at least, used to) meet military conduct and appearance standards.

Unfortunately, in my nearly 25 years in CAP, I've seen that "civilian CAP uniform" undergo such diddling that it's futile to keep up with it. It's not worth investing in it if every six months, it changes. (My sentiment: Stick to the Air Force uniforms, where there's some stability, and your wallet will thank you.) The new corporate blues were poorly conceived, and in the end, did nothing but add a non-AF blues uniform for people who meet the weight/grooming standards. Ask me, it needs to be phased out. The idea should be to come up with a semi-military uniform for those who don't meet the standards, so for them, I'm assuming the white-and-grays with the blazer are still around. That should be enough.

The golf shirt doesn't really serve much useful purpose, except in a pinch. As a mission IO and as a PA, I won't submit a photo for publication with anyone in a golf shirt in it. We're not a flying club, and that's not what the public perception should be, especially post-Sept. 11.

(Excuse me in advance, I have a bad head cold at the moment and I have an impressive combination of drugs in my system.)

Good post Major, but I would like to make a few points.


CAP today has many missions (too many I think, sometimes, but that's a different discussion.) Sometimes, I do think that those missions many be better served by the non military style uniforms. I could see the golf shirt combination being more appropriate for, lets say, interfacing with local Emergency Managment guys who will proberly be in something similar. I know some of the local special police squads wear a golf shirt uniform. So in that case, I think that the golf shirt would be 'better' so to speak then the service uniform or BDU's or flight gear.

For external Aerospace education, I think that the blazer uniform just 'fits' better when interfacing with educators.

That being said, the jury is still out for me on the wear of the polo shirt for anything else. Weekly meetings? Eh. ES/Mission Base staff? Sure. Ground Team/UDF? Eh. Flying? I don't know, I'm paranoid about flying in anything but nomex.

I don't think that the polo shirt presents a 'pilots club' image. I think that a member in service uniform with mechanics gloves and a greenbay packers jacket presents a much worst image.

Topic?

Regarding the need for uniformity, I have a question for you all to ponder that I am sure is politically incorrect, but worthwhile anyway.  Why are overweight members not allowed to wear the USAF uniform?  I know the actual reason, the Air Force Says so, but why?  A person in a wheel chair, a blind person, a person missing an arm or leg, or a person using a cane or crutches is allowed to wear the USAF uniform, so why not allow an overweight person to wear a USAF uniform?  The policy is against discrimination for disabilities, and obesity has been considered a disability for a long time by Social Security.  Most medical authorities recognize obesity is not necessarily a mind over matter lack of discipline issue and is much more complex than that.  I propose that grooming requirements be required as that is usually a decision to shave or cut your hair, but to get rid of the weight standards and quit discriminating against obese members.  This  would increase uniformity in CAP immediately.  If one is to continue with weight discrimination, one might as well discriminate against age also, because we all become slower, physically and mentally as we age.  Limit CAP membership to 12-45 year olds that are mentally and physically in USAF standards and you have instant uniformity.  Unfortunately you lose the expertise and experience of the 60 year old, 30 year member.  I sometimes think we confuse ourselves with being an active duty organization and not an auxiliary. 

First of all, obesity isn't, in and of itself, a reason to get social security disability. I'd refer you to this paragraph (found here ):

QuoteQ. Effects of obesity. Obesity is a medically determinable impairment that is often associated with disturbance of the musculoskeletal system, and disturbance of this system can be a major cause of disability in individuals with obesity. The combined effects of obesity with musculoskeletal impairments can be greater than the effects of each of the impairments considered separately. Therefore, when determining whether an individual with obesity has a listing-level impairment or combination of impairments, and when assessing a claim at other steps of the sequential evaluation process, including when assessing an individual's residual functional capacity, adjudicators must consider any additional and cumulative effects of obesity.

There has to be some type of mitigating issue in order to make it a considered disability. In this particular case, there is musculoskeletal breakdown or deformity caused by obesity.

Secondly, there is some truth in that weight can be uncontrollable. This is particularly true to those who have some type of thyroid issue or another type of polyendocrinopathy. There is also issues involving Haemocromotosis. However, these things can be controlled in some way and weight can be lost bringing the person down to a more healthy, though likely not ideal, weight. The idea that obesity in itself cannot be controlled is, in most circumstances, untrue, at best. People make choices in what they eat and how much they eat. The sad fact is that people give up on dieting without exercising, or they give up too soon. Those who do struggle with it for a prolonged period give up without seeking medical advice that could prove advantageous.

Why limit those people from wearing the AF uniform? I suppose that the AF wants to keep to the image of a fit person. There are standards that must be met in order for an active duty person to wear it and, though there are those on active duty who do not conform to the minimum standards, it is only fair to those who do to not have others walking around in ill fitting uniforms. Same goes for those who wish to grow facial hair outside of regulations, or wish to have their hair in a manner that is not indicative of the AF's standards.

Having said that, there is no reason we should limit those who can serve from serving due to a disability or due to their physical shape. Granted, I'm not sure how comfortable I'd feel sending someone who is 300+ lbs into the field. Then again, it's not because I want to protect someone from themselves. It's because I don't want to be the guy who has to carry him back to the road so an ambulance can pick him up and cart him to the nearest hospital. That being said, I know of a bunch of people who are morbidly obese and who can handle the rigors of field work just fine. So, we give them an alternate uniform to wear and send them on their merry way.

I'm not denying that uniformity gets sacrificed at the alter of volunteer coddling. The missions are different and no one uniform should make the person any more or less valuable than any other. I choose to wear the AF uniform because I fall in the standards and because I work with cadets. I try to make myself a role model for how to treat the uniform and wear it properly. I work with those who refuse to or cannot meet the standards and I treat them with no more or less respect as someone else in the blues. It's not politically incorrect to ask why someone can wear something while someone else cannot. It is factually incorrect in saying that obesity, by and large, is a disability that cannot otherwise be controlled by the person suffering from it.

Quote from: chiles on April 06, 2008, 11:52:21 PM
First of all, obesity isn't, in and of itself, a reason to get social security disability. I'd refer you to this paragraph (found here ):

QuoteQ. Effects of obesity. Obesity is a medically determinable impairment that is often associated with disturbance of the musculoskeletal system, and disturbance of this system can be a major cause of disability in individuals with obesity. The combined effects of obesity with musculoskeletal impairments can be greater than the effects of each of the impairments considered separately. Therefore, when determining whether an individual with obesity has a listing-level impairment or combination of impairments, and when assessing a claim at other steps of the sequential evaluation process, including when assessing an individual's residual functional capacity, adjudicators must consider any additional and cumulative effects of obesity.

There has to be some type of mitigating issue in order to make it a considered disability. In this particular case, there is musculoskeletal breakdown or deformity caused by obesity.

Secondly, there is some truth in that weight can be uncontrollable. This is particularly true to those who have some type of thyroid issue or another type of polyendocrinopathy. There is also issues involving Haemocromotosis. However, these things can be controlled in some way and weight can be lost bringing the person down to a more healthy, though likely not ideal, weight. The idea that obesity in itself cannot be controlled is, in most circumstances, untrue, at best. People make choices in what they eat and how much they eat. The sad fact is that people give up on dieting without exercising, or they give up too soon. Those who do struggle with it for a prolonged period give up without seeking medical advice that could prove advantageous.

Why limit those people from wearing the AF uniform? I suppose that the AF wants to keep to the image of a fit person. There are standards that must be met in order for an active duty person to wear it and, though there are those on active duty who do not conform to the minimum standards, it is only fair to those who do to not have others walking around in ill fitting uniforms. Same goes for those who wish to grow facial hair outside of regulations, or wish to have their hair in a manner that is not indicative of the AF's standards.

Having said that, there is no reason we should limit those who can serve from serving due to a disability or due to their physical shape. Granted, I'm not sure how comfortable I'd feel sending someone who is 300+ lbs into the field. Then again, it's not because I want to protect someone from themselves. It's because I don't want to be the guy who has to carry him back to the road so an ambulance can pick him up and cart him to the nearest hospital. That being said, I know of a bunch of people who are morbidly obese and who can handle the rigors of field work just fine. So, we give them an alternate uniform to wear and send them on their merry way.

I'm not denying that uniformity gets sacrificed at the alter of volunteer coddling. The missions are different and no one uniform should make the person any more or less valuable than any other. I choose to wear the AF uniform because I fall in the standards and because I work with cadets. I try to make myself a role model for how to treat the uniform and wear it properly. I work with those who refuse to or cannot meet the standards and I treat them with no more or less respect as someone else in the blues. It's not politically incorrect to ask why someone can wear something while someone else cannot. It is factually incorrect in saying that obesity, by and large, is a disability that cannot otherwise be controlled by the person suffering from it.

Chris:

I'd like to hear you address his central point, that a person can be obviously medically unqualified, in a wheelchair, blind with a seeing-eye dog, missing limbs, etc. and still wear the AF uniform.  Why not allow the obese to wear the AF uniform but order that it must be tailored so as not to appear snug nor to bunch during normal movement?

From my personal opinion, it relates to the standards given versus what can be changed and what cannot. Weight can be changed, blindness cannot. It's really the definition of disability that applies. For some, obesity is a disability, as it relates to other pathologies listed in my long winded response above. For other, it is not. It is a choice, though a hard one to change.

People who are blind or wheelchair bound have a legit disability that cannot be changed. As I imagine the AF makes little provision for such disabilities, as having one would stop someone from enlisting, and what provisions do exist, be they written or generally accepted, exists for the sake of injured and disfigured veterans who may not be able to participate in combat operations, but are capable of other missions that are essential.

The Air Force prides itself on its focus towards fitness. A legitimate goal, particularly for an organization whose existence is necessitated by war. CAP does not have a mission that precludes the involvement of either those with a disability or those who are simply overweight. However, the Air Force does extend its fitness goal to CAP members insofar as the cadet PT program, and various Presidential Fitness Programs. I've submitted a senior member PT program to my Wing Commander that, though not forcing people to PT by way of PD, it rewards those who do. In any case, the AF sets the health standard for the people in their uniforms as this is often a representation of the Air Force as a whole (e.g. someone seeing my in uniform may easily mistake me as an AF officer, and since I'm not sporting extra pounds, I look the part and do not reflect negatively on the AF).

Those members not meeting the physical fitness standards requisite in wearing the uniform (which, unlike the PT requirements of the various branches, we only must be in a certain weight range) should not be allowed to wear the uniform. They have not met the AF's goal of fitness. This is not discrimination. It becomes discrimination when people are forced to wear a uniform as a means of punishment or to ostracize them from the rank and file. The intention isn't to make them feel less wanted than it is to maintain the image of an active duty officer in uniform. The same goes for the grooming standards.

I suppose my question is, what does medically unqualified mean? I assume it can either mean medically unqualified to serve (in CAP or the AF) or unqualified to wear the uniform. To m knowledge, as I stated in the previous post, there is no regulation restricting the wear of the uniform to someone who is blind or confined to a wheel chair. So, there is no reason to believe that, all other things being equal, they can't wear the AF uniform. As for fitness to serve, those with disabilities can play a roll in a response. Those who are blind can work perfectly well as a mission radio operator. They can assist with public information statement releases, they can advise on medical issues and safety issues. People who are wheelchair bound may not be able to trek out across the swamp but they certainly can do every mission base staff position there is. And some would likely fit in well with flight crews, assuming they didn't mind helping him in and out of an aircraft.

I just don't see the reasoning behind considering people with various disabilities unqualified to wear the uniform so long as they are capable of taking care of it and ensure it is worn properly. As for obesity, it's the same thing. They can serve quite handily in a great deal of positions. Why not let them wear the uniform, even if it is tailored perfectly? It's an AF uniform and, as it has been explained to me and in some of my research on the topic for that PT program I suggested, one of the missions of the AF is to see to it that its membership be physically fit. Granted, this is sometimes impossible to those with another issue precipitating in obesity, as that of hypothyroidism, but the difference is the power to change and attempt to meet the AF's lofty goal of universal physical fitness. Being overweight can often be changed. Being blind or having lost a limb is, until restorative medical techniques are discovered, a permanent condition, but not one that would force somebody to otherwise fall out of the regulations for physical fitness.

Did I hit the question? I know I get a bit lengthy when I talk medical. Drives my wife nuts!

Nope....you all missed it.

It has to do with image.

Even the AF rules are all about image.

It has nothing to do with physical fitness, military performance, combat readiness, or any one of the 50 or so reasons given for us to be a "fit to fight" force.

It hall has to do with "looking" bad in uniform.  Always has...always will.

And this has to do with the ICL how?