VSAF Uniform

[ddelaney103]

I'm glad to hear from at least a few people who aren't total whiners about this.

In this thread I've heard:

• Whining about not being able to look like officers.


• Whining about the nature of the duty.


• Theorizing about our leadership being in thrall to Vanguard and willing to jack over the membership so they can earn more profits.

Maybe the reason we're not taken seriously is not the cartoon patches, but that we wouldn't know professionalism if it came up and bit us in the seat of our oak leaf encrusted pajamas.

When I deploy, I doubt I'll sleep better because "CAP's got my back."

[mikeylikey]

When I deploy, I doubt I'll sleep better because "CAP's got my back."

No, you will sleep better because before you deploy you will;

1) get your financial affairs in order (call your creditors and loan agents, banks and see if they have a "deployment clause" so you don't have to pay them while you are overseas).
2) get your family affairs in order (make sure dependents have ID cards that won't expire while you are gone, make sure you sign them up for tricare, get wills/power of attorney written)
3) if you are single, make sure your home/apartment is cared for along with your personal property.

If you do those three things, you won't need CAP at the AF base helping your family, or other relatives deal with military benefit matters, etc.

[ddelaney103]

When I deploy, I doubt I'll sleep better because "CAP's got my back."

No, you will sleep better because before you deploy you will;

1) get your financial affairs in order (call your creditors and loan agents, banks and see if they have a "deployment clause" so you don't have to pay them while you are overseas).
2) get your family affairs in order (make sure dependents have ID cards that won't expire while you are gone, make sure you sign them up for tricare, get wills/power of attorney written)
3) if you are single, make sure your home/apartment is cared for along with your personal property.

If you do those three things, you won't need CAP at the AF base helping your family, or other relatives deal with military benefit matters, etc.

I knew CAP had patron members - it seems they have patronizing members as well...

[JohnKachenmeister]

Delaney:

I don't know why you call this "Whining."

The new uniform is ugly.  Vanguard will make sure it is expensive.

I think it is superfluous.

We have a golf shirt combo that does not indicate rank, but does indicate our organization.  The reasons NHQ gave for the new uniform are also answered by the golf shirt.

We are left to ponder the reasons for a brand new uniform for this mission and this mission only.

Since NHQ gets a cut (License fee) from every CAP purchase made from Vanguard, many of us suspect that this money gleaned from members MAY be behind this decision.  I cannot say that they are wrong in that assumption.  Can you?

[JayT]

I'm glad to hear from at least a few people who aren't total whiners about this.

In this thread I've heard:

• Whining about not being able to look like officers.


• Whining about the nature of the duty.


• Theorizing about our leadership being in thrall to Vanguard and willing to jack over the membership so they can earn more profits.

Maybe the reason we're not taken seriously is not the cartoon patches, but that we wouldn't know professionalism if it came up and bit us in the seat of our oak leaf encrusted pajamas.

When I deploy, I doubt I'll sleep better because "CAP's got my back."

Hear Hear!

That post made the most sense of any I've read in a while!

[JayT]

Delaney:

I don't know why you call this "Whining."

The new uniform is ugly.  Vanguard will make sure it is expensive.

I think it is superfluous.

We have a golf shirt combo that does not indicate rank, but does indicate our organization.  The reasons NHQ gave for the new uniform are also answered by the golf shirt.

We are left to ponder the reasons for a brand new uniform for this mission and this mission only.

Since NHQ gets a cut (License fee) from every CAP purchase made from Vanguard, many of us suspect that this money gleaned from members MAY be behind this decision.  I cannot say that they are wrong in that assumption.  Can you?

It's whining because.......It's whining.

[Eclipse]

What...is...the...duty?

No one seems to actually know >that<.

[SJFedor]

"TBD"

[ddelaney103]

Since NHQ gets a cut (License fee) from every CAP purchase made from Vanguard, many of us suspect that this money gleaned from members MAY be behind this decision.  I cannot say that they are wrong in that assumption.  Can you?

Here's a thought:

If, after a directive I didn't like came down from from Headquarters Air Force, I decided to go to the NCO Club and declaim to all and sundry that the reason the Air Staff decided this was because "they were in the hip pocket of Lockheed," and, when challenged, demanded they prove to me it's not the case, would my actions add or subtract from my perceived professionalism?  Further, would I be upholding the Core Value of "Respect" or using it as a boot cleaner instead?

[ddelaney103]

I must admit I am puzzled as to why they did not use the golf shirt as an option - it does seem to be made for it.

A difficulty with NHQ's command style is they are very bad with providing the why that goes with the decisions they make.  There may be a good reason for using the "VSAF shirt" for this mission.

However, since there's a knowledge vacuum, rumor rushes in to fill the gap.

[SJFedor]

Maybe the VSAF shirt has "VOLUNTEER" printed on the back, front, and on each sleeve, plus a hook for the AF to secure a leash to us, to make sure we don't run too far away. 

The new command has been better in keeping us in the field informed, hopefully we'll get more info on this soon.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I must admit I am puzzled as to why they did not use the golf shirt as an option - it does seem to be made for it.

A difficulty with NHQ's command style is they are very bad with providing the why that goes with the decisions they make.  There may be a good reason for using the "VSAF shirt" for this mission.

However, since there's a knowledge vacuum, rumor rushes in to fill the gap.

They did provide a reason, but the reason does not make sense as to why the new uniform was needed and the golf shirt would not be appropriate.  That leads to speculation such as I have engaged in.  it is not merely idle speculation or speculation in a vacuum.  It is linking two facts... the "License fee" collected by NHQ on every uniform item; and the fact that the uniform, based on NHQ's own justification, is superfluous.

Maybe the core value of "Respect" took a bruise, but not until the core value of "Integrity" was evidently compromised. 

[ddelaney103]

I must admit I am puzzled as to why they did not use the golf shirt as an option - it does seem to be made for it.

A difficulty with NHQ's command style is they are very bad with providing the why that goes with the decisions they make.  There may be a good reason for using the "VSAF shirt" for this mission.

However, since there's a knowledge vacuum, rumor rushes in to fill the gap.

They did provide a reason, but the reason does not make sense as to why the new uniform was needed and the golf shirt would not be appropriate.  That leads to speculation such as I have engaged in.  it is not merely idle speculation or speculation in a vacuum.  It is linking two facts... the "License fee" collected by NHQ on every uniform item; and the fact that the uniform, based on NHQ's own justification, is superfluous.

Maybe the core value of "Respect" took a bruise, but not until the core value of "Integrity" was evidently compromised. 

Again with the negative waves, Moriarity.

It might be better to ask why they didn't use the golf shirt instead of moving into "guilty until proven innocent" mode.

[Dragoon]

I really don't think it's "make money for Vanguard."  Personally, I see too many folks assuming evil when the reality is just someone screwed up.

The existing golf shirt makes perfect sense.  It meets all the requirements spelled out in the info from National we've got so far.

It doesn't have grade.  It identifies us as CAP.  It's pretty easy to wear correctly.  It will work anywhere from light duty utility situations to office work.  Seems about perfect.

I can't believe the issue is that some have wings on it.  I also cannot imagine that having two different models is an issue - if it was, they could just specify which one to wear.

Frankly, I'm puzzled at the decison.  I totally support not wearing a military style uniform - but why the heck invent a new one?

Could it be that some USAF guy suggested this without knowing CAP already has a golf shirt?

[SamFranklin]

Since NHQ gets a cut (License fee) from every CAP purchase made from Vanguard, many of us suspect that this money gleaned from members MAY be behind this decision.  I cannot say that they are wrong in that assumption.  Can you?

You're suggesting someone at NHQ has impure motives. What would they personally gain from this? Nothing. For you to suggest funny business without any evidence is inappropriate.

And think about what you're saying.  "NHQ gets a cut from every purchase."  NHQ is CAP, that's us.  We, the members, get a cut from every purchase. That money funds our programs. What is so nefarious about this?

News flash:  Non-profit company enters marketing agreement.

I do not post here often, but I suggest that too many on this board have lost all perspective.

[RiverAux]

The simplest explanation is that they thought the polo shirt didn't look professional enough and wanted something a slight step upward. 

Personally, I think that they wanted the pilot wings removed to make us look as unmilitary as possible. 

[SAR-EMT1]

I could be wrong, but from what Ive read the VSAF program is either currently up and running at Wright-Pat or it will be soon.

So... is anyone from OHWG on this forum?

[afgeo4]

Since NHQ gets a cut (License fee) from every CAP purchase made from Vanguard, many of us suspect that this money gleaned from members MAY be behind this decision.  I cannot say that they are wrong in that assumption.  Can you?

You're suggesting someone at NHQ has impure motives. What would they personally gain from this? Nothing. For you to suggest funny business without any evidence is inappropriate.

And think about what you're saying.  "NHQ gets a cut from every purchase."  NHQ is CAP, that's us.  We, the members, get a cut from every purchase. That money funds our programs. What is so nefarious about this?

News flash:  Non-profit company enters marketing agreement.

I do not post here often, but I suggest that too many on this board have lost all perspective.

What do they (some people at NHQ) have to gain from this?

Ok... how's this: Money is donated by Vanguard to CAP to fund training facilities across the nation. The money donated is based on the amount of sales they do through the CAP website. The more they sell, the more money is donated. "They" then decide which region/wing/special activity gets their wishlist granted. Then, the person in charge of that region/wing/special activity owes them one.

It's politics without checks and balances. Worse, it's politics without elections, without oversight, and without punishments for wrongdoing aside from loss of position or membership. In my opinion, it opens up a lot of doors for REAL corruption.

Tag spacing - MIKE

[Ned]

Ok... how's this: Money is donated by Vanguard to CAP to fund training facilities across the nation. The money donated is based on the amount of sales they do through the CAP website. The more they sell, the more money is donated. "They" then decide which region/wing/special activity gets their wishlist granted. Then, the person in charge of that region/wing/special activity owes them one.

George, this is a pretty good example of what we're talking about.

Yes, our volunteer leaders get to make decisions about the budget.  IOW, the NB gets to decide how much money goes to any activity or training facility.

But the NB has ALWAYS been able to do that -- long before the Vanguard contract was a twinkle in anyone's mind.  In fact, they have to.  It's their solemn responsiblity to allocate scarce CAP resources among the various needs and missions.

And the NB is accountable for their decisions in several ways -- the budget is approved in public meetings, and the minutes and attachments for each meeting are published on the net.  If you want to sit through the NB business meetings, you are welcome to do so.  The BoG has oversight of the budget and the budgeting process.  Parts of the budget are published in the annual Report to Congress. 

Leaping to wild conclusions about corruption and politics based merely on uniformed speculation about what "they" might or might not do  is the stuff of tinfoil hats and black helicopters.

Let's aim a little higher, shall we?

[afgeo4]

Ned, the issue here isn't what's happening. It's perception.

If NHQ needed more money to build or upgrade training centers and they wanted this money to come from membership, they could have done the upfront and honest thing to do and write about it to the membership and then increase member dues. Simple to execute and simple to account for. They instead decided to put a middle man into it. They decided to put this through a contractor. A contract we as membership pay for, but we as membership do not get accounted to for. Military contracts do have a degree of transparency to the people who fund it... the citizens through their representatives in congress. CAP contracts have no such provisions. Moreover, the membership has no access to Vanguard's sales numbers, so the membership has no access to how much money is being raised and donated to CAP. I'm sure the leadership does, but it's the 51,000 other members that are mostly making this happen, not the leadership. We need to see exactly how much money is raised through this and what the money is being allocated to. Then we need to compare it to what our leadership said it would go to and maybe then we'll know exactly who's in the wrong or right.

There is, in my opinion a case for possible misappropriations and possible wrongdoing when it comes to the way this money is acquired and spent. If nothing else, it isn't the most ethically correct way of doing it. If nothing else, it's poor treatment of members. At worst, it can be illegal.

I'm not accusing our leaders of any wrongdoing. I'm simply stating that the way things are being done creates the image of such and poor image is NOT what CAP needs when we've just had to fire our national commander. It makes it look like there's big disorder in the organization, to the members and the public.