Dropping Brown Shirts?

[DC]

I was just browsing through some pictures from the FLWG Summer Encampment. I couldn't help but cringe upon seeing photos like this:

Undershirts: Brown or black. Either V-neck, U-neck, crew neck or athletic style
without pockets. Black or brown turtlenecks, dickeys, or thermal
undershirts without pockets may also be worn. EXCEPTION:
members may wear white thermal undershirts even if exposed at neck.
Unit commanders may prescribe color, unit designation, and cloth or
silk screen emblem, to be worn on left side of chest not to exceed 5
inches in diameter.

Since 39-1 is typically vague on the subject and the military no longer uses the 'Army Brown' color that was generally assumed to be the standard, why not just drop the brown t-shirt option? It would solve the issue depicted above AND finally put an end to the 'black shirts for staff/encampment graduates/<insert special group here> only' silliness that some units engage in.

Plain black t-shirts are also far easier to find and generally cheaper than colored shirts.

EDIT: I just noticed in the quote: V-necks with BDUs? WTF. That would look ridiculous.

[Thunder]

I'd like to see where it says any color shirt is acceptable BDU uniform attire. My understanding is that the BDU jacket stays on, period. You can roll up the sleeves according to specs, but no dressing down.

[davidsinn]

I'd like to see where it says any color shirt is acceptable BDU uniform attire. My understanding is that the BDU jacket stays on, period. You can roll up the sleeves according to specs, but no dressing down.

You must live up north somewhere. It get's hot here. Like pushing 100 this week with nasty humidity. I can only imagine what the southerners have to deal with. You will remove your BDU top if you do anything more than stand in one place for five minutes. Plus there is the simple fact that the tshirt is visible at the collar.

[FlyTiger77]

There is a school of thought that you are better with the BDU blouse on regardless of the temperature. In most places, the Army now subscribes to that school of thought.

[DC]

I'd like to see where it says any color shirt is acceptable BDU uniform attire. My understanding is that the BDU jacket stays on, period. You can roll up the sleeves according to specs, but no dressing down.

You must live up north somewhere. It get's hot here. Like pushing 100 this week with nasty humidity. I can only imagine what the southerners have to deal with. You will remove your BDU top if you do anything more than stand in one place for five minutes. Plus there is the simple fact that the tshirt is visible at the collar.

The high for the week was 105 with 97% humidity. That's miserable no matter how much you are or are not wearing.

Not real relevant to my OP though...

[MSG Mac]

I believe that the FLWG Encampment mandated black T-shirts for staff and brown for attendess.   

[NIN]

Not only that, but some of those old brown shirts discolor in the absolute worst way. I've seen brown shirts that were nowhere near brown after 2-3 washings.

[Hawk200]

I believe that the FLWG Encampment mandated black T-shirts for staff and brown for attendess.

I've seen that thought come back from a lot of encampments, and it's stupid. It's especially stupid when people keep saying, "It's in the regulations!" So far, no one has been able to show it to me. When they can't, I tell them that not being able to back something up is perpetuating a lie. I seriously dislike rule manufacturers.

[DakRadz]

GAWG did much the same thing. What did this accomplish?

Not a whole lot, since we also had specific "Flight Caps" with colors AND embroidered flight letter: A-FLT, B-FLT, etc.

Also, it meant myself and every other cadet in my unit (and many in the Wing) had to spend more money on brown shirts, which Wal-Mart does not carry... We did get a good deal, but guess how many black shirts we had? Yeah, plenty.

[Thunder]

From CAPM39-1 (and I just noticed OP edited and inserted this as well)

Cotton and nylon twill or rip-stop cotton; single-breasted with four
bellow pockets with flaps; straight-cut bottom sleeve tabs, and side body
panels with or without take-up tabs. Long sleeve camouflage pattern
(woodland green) may be rolled up; if rolled up, sleeve material must
match shirt and will touch or come within 1 inch of forearms when arm
is bent at a 90-degree angle; may be removed in the immediate work
area. When removed, T-shirt (other than athletic or sleeveless style)
will be worn. Military creases are prohibited.

(Undershirts) Brown or black. Either V-neck, U-neck, crew neck or athletic style
without pockets. Black or brown turtlenecks, dickeys, or thermal
undershirts without pockets may also be worn. EXCEPTION:
members may wear white thermal undershirts even if exposed at neck.
Unit commanders may prescribe color, unit designation, and cloth or
silk screen emblem, to be worn on left side of chest not to exceed 5
inches in diameter

[Patterson]

Perhaps moving to the color now authorized by the Air Force for the ABU's, along with Black T-Shirts would work??  Also add the boots. 

[Eclipse]

One color for all - pick it and move one.  Allowing for options solves nothing from a uniformity standpoint, because you will always
have a spectrum of materials and shades.  If uniformity is not a concern, then specifying a color at all, for the t-shirt, is a waste of time.

The prescription should be changed to black for all operational uniforms.  Nothing looks worse than a white t-shirt under the BBDU's, especially if it has been a while since the shirt was really "white".  Even if we went to ABU's black would look fine.

You can get black shirts anywhere and everywhere they sell clothes, and you would be hard-pressed to find a anyone who doesn't own at least one black t-shirt, especially cadet-age kids.

With that said, if you say "black", you'll have formations with 12 shades of black.

[Seabee219]

When I was in the Seabees, we used brown t-shirts, but they had to be in good shape and the same shade of brown. Not sure if they did away with that color yet, as I am not up with the times of military attire.

[MIKE]

When I was in the Seabees, we used brown t-shirts, but they had to be in good shape and the same shade of brown. Not sure if they did away with that color yet, as I am not up with the times of military attire.

AG Shade 436 undershirts may not be going away just yet for you purists:

The prescription should be changed to black for all operational uniforms.  Nothing looks worse than a white t-shirt under the BBDU's, especially if it has been a while since the shirt was really "white".  Even if we went to ABU's black would look fine.

I think matching blue looks better than black with the CAP Field Uniform, but I wear ODUs... not BBDUs. 

[Ned]

As a staff officer, my job is to support commanders in the reasonable exercise of their discretion.

If an activity commander decides that a particular color t-shirt (permitted by 39-1) is supportive of her/his training goals, then I will support that decision.

In my view it is poor form to publicly sharpshoot specific commanders for the proper exercise of her/his discretion.  You or I might have made a different decision, but that's just Monday Morning quarterbacking.

If you have a chance to speak with the officer privately, by all means exchange views and constructive criticisms.  That's how we all learn.  But it just doesn't seem helpful or respectful to do so in a public forum such as this, particularly if it is unlikely that the commander in question will see it.

YMMV.

And of course there is certainly nothing wrong with a generic discussion of what color t-shirts should be worn with BDUs (BBDUs, ABUs, whatever).  Heck, that/s what we do about 82% of the time here on CT.  But that is different from stating that a specific commander's policy is "stupid" just because we disagree with it.

Ned Lee

[Hawk200]

But that is different from stating that a specific commander's policy is "stupid" just because we disagree with it.

If that was in reference to my post, I didn't write of commanders putting forth a directive. My problem is when people decide to make a standardized uniform item distinctive by attempting to tell others they can't wear it. That's wrong.

Every single person that I have challenged on the "black tshirts are only for staff" can't back it up. I've asked the wing commander about it, he doesn't know what they're talking about. Neither do the group COs. No one in the chain validates it. It's not in the uniform manual, it's not in any supplements, even the encampment documentation doesn't have it. The supposed rule can't be shown in regulations by those claiming it exists. I've actually looked for it, it's not there.

If you claim something is in regulations when it is not, it's lying. If "somebody told you", then it shouldn't really be a problem for them to show you. As the expression goes: "Trust, but verify."

As far as black T-shirts go, you can pick them up at Walmart. There is no practical reason to restrict a readily available and CAP wide authorized uniform item to just "staff". It doesn't serve any valid purpose.

If people have to have their distinctiveness at encampment, I can think of other ways.

[Ned]

If that was in reference to my post, I didn't write of commanders putting forth a directive. My problem is when people decide to make a standardized uniform item distinctive by attempting to tell others they can't wear it. That's wrong.

But I suspect we would agree that - since the "black shirts for staff" thing is not in the 39-1, and therefore can only be implemented by a commander - commanders can and routinely do set UOD standards.  Why do you think commanders are not entitled to specify t-shirt colors from amongst the available choices in the 39-1?

Every single person that I have challenged on the "black tshirts are only for staff" can't back it up. I've asked the wing commander about it, he doesn't know what they're talking about. Neither do the group COs. No one in the chain validates it. It's not in the uniform manual, it's not in any supplements, even the encampment documentation doesn't have it. The supposed rule can't be shown in regulations by those claiming it exists. I've actually looked for it, it's not there.

If you claim something is in regulations when it is not, it's lying. If "somebody told you", then it shouldn't really be a problem for them to show you. As the expression goes: "Trust, but verify."

Again, what is wrong with an encampment commander specifying "black t-shirts for staff" if  she decides is that it would be helpful in meeting her encampment objectives?

As far as black T-shirts go, you can pick them up at Walmart. There is no practical reason to restrict a readily available and CAP wide authorized uniform item to just "staff". It doesn't serve any valid purpose.

Strong personal opinion noted. 

But let me suggest a couple of potentially valid purposes.

1.  It has certainly been my experience (30+ encampments as everything from basic cadet to encampment commander in a large wing) that most cadets have brown t-shirts for their BDUs.  Obviously local practices/preferences may differ in different wings, but if most cadets already have brown t-shirts, why would I want to make them buy black ones, even if they are readily available at Wallmart?  Isn't having uniformity at formations and during training a "valid purpose?" 

2.  Judging by the photograph posted above, at least some encampments in warmer wings may involve brief periods of time when the cadets have removed their BDU blouses for ORM/heat injury reduction reasons.  Differential color shirts may serve the purpose of readily identifying staff in such circumstances, even at a considerable distance.  Sure, other distinctions might be used, but it is at least a reasonable (and as you pointed out) inexpensive method.

3.  To the extent that some cadet officers and NCOs prefer a black t-shirt, such t-shirts would serve as a small recruiting incentive for cadet staff.  Maybe it shouldn't be so, but ultimately a commander may decide that it is helpful in that regard.

4.  Perhaps the wing already has a stock of non-black t-shirts left over from previous years.  (I've seen wing supply areas with dozens of left-over DDR-logo shirts used at encampments, waiting to be used the following year.)

I'm sure there are others, but the point is that commanders need to be supported in the reasonable exercise of their discretion, even if you might personally disagree.

If we hang around long enough, most of us wind up in CAP command postitions at some point in our careers.  That has a way of generating sympathy and understanding for all of your own past and future commanders.

If people have to have their distinctiveness at encampment, I can think of other ways.

Sure, and each generates their own thread full of criticism here on CT.  You probably remember the threads on shoulder cords with BDUs, multiple colored baseball hats, various staff badges and identifyers worn on the uniform, etc.

The whole point is that reasonable minds can differ on this stuff.  Our duty is to support our volunteer unit and activity commanders who give so much of their time and treasure to support our program.  They deserve our respect as well.

Ned Lee

[FlyTiger77]

Our duty is to support our volunteer unit and activity commanders who give so much of their time and treasure to support our program.  They deserve our respect as well.

Ned Lee

Well stated.

If it is not illegal, unethical or immoral, commanders deserve the support of subordinates. At some point, the big CAP wheel will turn and those subordinates may become commanders and will appreciate the followership of their units.

v/r

[Eclipse]

No one would argue that, but please let me know which ones should get our support and which ones have to live with the members who cause issues because "so and so said it was correct" (almost always erring on the side that supports their argument).

National consistency would end those conversations.

Forgive me if I don't have too much sympathy for unit or activity commanders who make up their own rules, don't make it clear that their
little "special" is for that unit or activity only, and then are called out for the shenanigans.

Encampments and national activities are supposed to define the member experience as close to the book as possible, if for no other reason than some of those members may never again (or before) be subject to outside scrutiny.

All this "special" does little but create arguments - whether its MyFace call-outs or unit arguments.

[Hawk200]

If that was in reference to my post, I didn't write of commanders putting forth a directive. My problem is when people decide to make a standardized uniform item distinctive by attempting to tell others they can't wear it. That's wrong.

But I suspect we would agree that - since the "black shirts for staff" thing is not in the 39-1, and therefore can only be implemented by a commander - commanders can and routinely do set UOD standards.  Why do you think commanders are not entitled to specify t-shirt colors from amongst the available choices in the 39-1?

You're going off on a tangent here, and attempting to include something not relevant. No commander has put forth the directive that black T-shirts are only for staff. That's the simple fact. Whether or not a commander can do it is not relevant to the discussion. The point is that they haven't done it.

Every single person that I have challenged on the "black tshirts are only for staff" can't back it up. I've asked the wing commander about it, he doesn't know what they're talking about. Neither do the group COs. No one in the chain validates it. It's not in the uniform manual, it's not in any supplements, even the encampment documentation doesn't have it. The supposed rule can't be shown in regulations by those claiming it exists. I've actually looked for it, it's not there.

If you claim something is in regulations when it is not, it's lying. If "somebody told you", then it shouldn't really be a problem for them to show you. As the expression goes: "Trust, but verify."

Again, what is wrong with an encampment commander specifying "black t-shirts for staff" if  she decides is that it would be helpful in meeting her encampment objectives?

Back to the original point, the encampment commander hasn't done so. Second, no one has been able to provide me with reasonable explanation as to how it would meet any encampment objectives anyway. Encampment objectives are spelled out in 52-16, and there is nothing in there about restricting black t-shirts to staff.

As far as black T-shirts go, you can pick them up at Walmart. There is no practical reason to restrict a readily available and CAP wide authorized uniform item to just "staff". It doesn't serve any valid purpose.

Strong personal opinion noted.

Legitimate facts noted. Labeling them as opinion doesn't alter them.

But let me suggest a couple of potentially valid purposes.

1.  It has certainly been my experience (30+ encampments as everything from basic cadet to encampment commander in a large wing) that most cadets have brown t-shirts for their BDUs.  Obviously local practices/preferences may differ in different wings, but if most cadets already have brown t-shirts, why would I want to make them buy black ones, even if they are readily available at Wallmart?  Isn't having uniformity at formations and during training a "valid purpose?"

A tangent, but I will address it. I'm not talking about requiring all cadets to have them. What I'm advocating is that they wear whatever they have that is within publication. 39-1 says brown or black. Telling someone that they can't wear a black one because you want to be unique is dishonest, especially when claiming that it's regulation.

Uniformity is established by the manual. Having the same UOD is one thing, but it can be nitpicked to the point of utter idiocy. There is no reason why one person can't wear a different color shirt that's allowed by publication. Your argument could be easy utilized to disallow the wear of badges by some persons. After all, a few people wearing badges out of a couple dozen wouldn't be "uniform."

2.  Judging by the photograph posted above, at least some encampments in warmer wings may involve brief periods of time when the cadets have removed their BDU blouses for ORM/heat injury reduction reasons.  Differential color shirts may serve the purpose of readily identifying staff in such circumstances, even at a considerable distance.  Sure, other distinctions might be used, but it is at least a reasonable (and as you pointed out) inexpensive method.

The inexpensive method I pointed out was that black t-shirts are readily available and authorized for all CAP personnel. Requiring someone to obtain something other than what they have is not inexpensive.

3.  To the extent that some cadet officers and NCOs prefer a black t-shirt, such t-shirts would serve as a small recruiting incentive for cadet staff.  Maybe it shouldn't be so, but ultimately a commander may decide that it is helpful in that regard.

As a recruting incentive? Telling someone they can wear something that is already permitted for them is not a recruiting incentive. It's unethical.

4.  Perhaps the wing already has a stock of non-black t-shirts left over from previous years.  (I've seen wing supply areas with dozens of left-over DDR-logo shirts used at encampments, waiting to be used the following year.)

So what happens when cadets attend encampment in a wing where that's not the case? If someone told you, "You can't wear that shirt, but we don't have any to give you, so you're going to have to go buy it", what would you do?

I'm sure there are others, but the point is that commanders need to be supported in the reasonable exercise of their discretion, even if you might personally disagree.

I don't disagree with a commander excercising the command ability granted to them by publication. I would disagree with a commander attempting to modify publication for personal reasons.

If we hang around long enough, most of us wind up in CAP command postitions at some point in our careers.  That has a way of generating sympathy and understanding for all of your own past and future commanders.

I've been in command position before. I followed our published directives. I didn't make things up so some people could be "kewl."

If people have to have their distinctiveness at encampment, I can think of other ways.

Sure, and each generates their own thread full of criticism here on CT.  You probably remember the threads on shoulder cords with BDUs, multiple colored baseball hats, various staff badges and identifyers worn on the uniform, etc.

Not all suggestions were criticized. Some were good.

The whole point is that reasonable minds can differ on this stuff.  Our duty is to support our volunteer unit and activity commanders who give so much of their time and treasure to support our program.  They deserve our respect as well.

Yes, they do, when they conduct the program properly. A large majority do so, so it's not usually a problem. When they don't, they should be removed. The members of a unit should not have to suffer moral or ethical quandaries caused by a commander doing things for personal benefit.

Overall, a commader has to direct uniform changes. Walking around saying "it's in the regulations" when it is not is a lie.

Now, will you show me how disobeying an order that doesn't exist constitutes not supporting a commander?