Just saw a Senior Member interacting with the public in ABUs, wearing a regulation-blue nametape on the back of his hat, Army-style.
Sigh...
I have a cadet temporarily in my squadron from Kansas wing who has that same thing. He said it was local custom over there. I've also seen HMRS pictures showing CAP members that have the same blue nametag sewn on above their right back pocket, USMC style.
I cry inside a little every time.
Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
Did you pull them aside, take out your pocket knife, and have them cut them off on the spot?! That's what needs to happen. :)
I used to place a shortened name tag on my BDU pants, but I'd put it where the belt would hide it. More to make sure I kept track of my pants when doing lots of laundry....
As for the cover... I have no idea why that'd be a thing. I put the first letter of last name and last 4 of social on the brim closest to the head. Always worked fine.
Quote from: DocJekyll on July 29, 2017, 04:07:52 PM
As for the cover... I have no idea why that'd be a thing. I put the first letter of last name and last 4 of social on the brim closest to the head. Always worked fine.
That is how I was instructed to mark my kit in AF BMT.
Quote from: CyBorgII on July 29, 2017, 07:56:16 PM
Quote from: DocJekyll on July 29, 2017, 04:07:52 PM
As for the cover... I have no idea why that'd be a thing. I put the first letter of last name and last 4 of social on the brim closest to the head. Always worked fine.
That is how I was instructed to mark my kit in AF BMT.
That's where I got it from. ;) 322TRS
Quote from: DocJekyll on July 29, 2017, 09:24:30 PM
Quote from: CyBorgII on July 29, 2017, 07:56:16 PM
Quote from: DocJekyll on July 29, 2017, 04:07:52 PM
As for the cover... I have no idea why that'd be a thing. I put the first letter of last name and last 4 of social on the brim closest to the head. Always worked fine.
That is how I was instructed to mark my kit in AF BMT.
That's where I got it from. ;) 322TRS
Back when I went through BMT in 1974 they made us rubber stamps with the first letter of your last name and the last 4 of your SSN to mark our laundry with.
And we got to pay for them too!
Quote from: PHall on July 30, 2017, 12:54:32 AM
Back when I went through BMT in 1974 they made us rubber stamps with the first letter of your last name and the last 4 of your SSN to mark our laundry with.
And we got to pay for them too!
I feel jipped. I had a sharpie and a paint marker....
We got the stamps so it would be readable. At least that's what they told us while they were taking our money. ::)
Grandfather still has the stencil cards for marking his stuff with paint from the Navy circa 1946.
I went to Basic at Lackland in '91 and got the stencil issued to put my laundry mark on everything with a paint pen or marker. I still have it somewhere.
In 2007 I used a sharpie with a playing card that had a slot cut in it so we'd keep it in the same sized area and consistent. Still, guys in my flight seemed to mess it up. *looking at trainee Kohls* >:(
stamps must have been great. I had a Stencil and we used shoe polish with the stencil. It really worked well.
We had Sharpie markers for our BDU's and pens with White-Out-type stuff in them for the inside of our boots. They never worked properly and seemed to be there just to incite the wrath of the MTI's on new Airmen (this was before they were called "trainees") who could not make them work right without making blobs all over the place. Full disclosure: I was one of those. :o
This weekend I came across my Navy stencil card from 1989 complete with Company number.
At a cadet encampment, I bought the stamps, and then stamped all my stuff appropriately.
As for nametapes in unauthorized places, I'm sure the impulse is to look more military — though the impulse is misguided at best.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on August 01, 2017, 03:59:18 AM
At a cadet encampment, I bought the stamps, and then stamped all my stuff appropriately.
As for nametapes in unauthorized places, I'm sure the impulse is to look more military — though the impulse is misguided at best.
It would not be so bad if the "impulse to look more military" was an "impulse to look more Air Force."
Quote from: DocJekyll on July 29, 2017, 04:07:52 PM
I used to place a shortened name tag on my BDU pants, but I'd put it where the belt would hide it. More to make sure I kept track of my pants when doing lots of laundry....
That's a great idea especially for larger activities like encampment if people need to make use of the laundry facilities.
Quote from: kwe1009 on August 01, 2017, 12:47:34 PM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on August 01, 2017, 03:59:18 AM
At a cadet encampment, I bought the stamps, and then stamped all my stuff appropriately.
As for nametapes in unauthorized places, I'm sure the impulse is to look more military — though the impulse is misguided at best.
It would not be so bad if the "impulse to look more military" was an "impulse to look more Air Force."
Here's how jacked-up it was: the back-of-the-hat thing was Army style, but the grade on the collar was diagonal, Navy style.
Quote from: Angus on August 01, 2017, 12:53:14 PM
Quote from: DocJekyll on July 29, 2017, 04:07:52 PM
I used to place a shortened name tag on my BDU pants, but I'd put it where the belt would hide it. More to make sure I kept track of my pants when doing lots of laundry....
That's a great idea especially for larger activities like encampment if people need to make use of the laundry facilities.
Laundry marker pen on the inside of the waistline on the trousers has always worked for me at CAWG Encampments.
All of my cadets got their clothes back after laundry day (which just happens to be right after they do the confidence course!).
Quote from: ProdigalJim on August 01, 2017, 10:34:17 PM
Here's how jacked-up it was: the back-of-the-hat thing was Army style, but the grade on the collar was diagonal, Navy style.
Diagonal rank is cringe-worthy indeed. Pretty certain I know exactly who you are describing too!
Is the nametape, however, expressly forbidden?
Quote from: CAPLTC on August 09, 2017, 12:28:52 AM
Is the nametape, however, expressly forbidden?
It is not expressly authorized, therefore it is expressly forbidden (CAPM 39-1 §1.1.2.1).
Plus it's specifically disallowed on baseball caps, so it stands to reason that even if it's not specifically disallowed on ABUs the intent is "don't put your name on the back of your daggone hat!"
But Matthew is correct WRT 39-1: if not expressly allowed, you can assume it is disallowed.
Or if you approach it from the other direction - Where is the nametape authorized to be worn? On three shirts (ABU, BDU, and FDU), two fleece jackets (Black and Sage) , and one coat (Woodland pattern M-65). Nothing about caps or pants.
That too
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
The "where does it say that I can't do ______" is a very tiring argument. The main purpose of a regulation is to tell you what you can do and maybe even how. Some regs do give specific examples of what is not allowed but it is not an inclusive list. If any reg had to spell out everything that is not allowed they would be millions of pages long.
Quote from: kwe1009 on August 11, 2017, 01:45:54 AM
The "where does it say that I can't do ______" is a very tiring argument. The main purpose of a regulation is to tell you what you can do and maybe even how. Some regs do give specific examples of what is not allowed but it is not an inclusive list. If any reg had to spell out everything that is not allowed they would be millions of pages long.
But the 39-1 does say, if it's not in this manual, you can't wear it. Paragraph 1.1.2.1.
Quote from: DocJekyll on July 29, 2017, 04:07:52 PM
As for the cover... I have no idea why that'd be a thing. I put the first letter of last name and last 4 of social on the brim closest to the head. Always worked fine.
Poor INFOSEC practice. How many things are tied to the last four of your social?
Quote from: PHall on August 11, 2017, 02:27:57 AM
Quote from: kwe1009 on August 11, 2017, 01:45:54 AM
The "where does it say that I can't do ______" is a very tiring argument. The main purpose of a regulation is to tell you what you can do and maybe even how. Some regs do give specific examples of what is not allowed but it is not an inclusive list. If any reg had to spell out everything that is not allowed they would be millions of pages long.
But the 39-1 does say, if it's not in this manual, you can't wear it. Paragraph 1.1.2.1.
True but very few people read the first chapter. They just go to the uniform section they have a question about and if they don't see it specifically denied then they assume it is OK. Same thing happens in the military so it is not just a CAP thing.
Quote from: kwe1009 on August 11, 2017, 11:54:35 AM
True but very few people read the first chapter.
The first chapter doesn't even read the first chapter.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 11, 2017, 12:27:13 PM
Quote from: kwe1009 on August 11, 2017, 11:54:35 AM
True but very few people read the first chapter.
The first chapter doesn't even read the first chapter.
Correct wearing of the uniform is important. It reflects on all of CAP when things are mismatched or... But taking a knife and cutting away the offending name tape "on the spot" as one poster proposed seems a rather extreme action bordering on abuse, and could be construed as assault with a deadly weapon. I'm sure it was just a rhetorical statement. Still it reflects poorly on CAP to suggest what amounts to a physical attack because someone has an offending name tape on their hat... Get real.
However, the recent award in Federal Court (see the Aviation & Flying Activities forum - $11.9 Million wrongful death judgement) dwarfs the location of name tags to insignificance. The Judge's decision is both [darn]ing and enlightening. I encourage those of us who are fixated on stuff that is unlikely to kill us or others (like where to wear a name tape) to read the full text of the judgement, and then review both the accident report and Docket items on the National Transportation Safety Board website. Perspective is important when we express outrage.
Quote from: Live2Learn on August 11, 2017, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 11, 2017, 12:27:13 PM
Quote from: kwe1009 on August 11, 2017, 11:54:35 AM
True but very few people read the first chapter.
The first chapter doesn't even read the first chapter.
Correct wearing of the uniform is important. It reflects on all of CAP when things are mismatched or... But taking a knife and cutting away the offending name tape "on the spot" as one poster proposed seems a rather extreme action bordering on abuse, and could be construed as assault with a deadly weapon. I'm sure it was just a rhetorical statement. Still it reflects poorly on CAP to suggest what amounts to a physical attack because someone has an offending name tape on their hat... Get real.
I think you have greatly misunderstood the previous poster. Taking out a knife,
handing it to the offender, and telling them to fix their uniform violation is not only common and acceptable, it is what more people need to do. I and many other leaders have done exactly that many times over the years without anyone ever once crying abuse or assault with a deadly weapon. When we can all follow the little rules like this, maybe then we can be trusted to follow the big ones that potentially resulted in the incident and judgement mentioned below.
QuoteHowever, the recent award in Federal Court (see the Aviation & Flying Activities forum - $11.9 Million wrongful death judgement) dwarfs the location of name tags to insignificance. The Judge's decision is both [darn]ing and enlightening. I encourage those of us who are fixated on stuff that is unlikely to kill us or others (like where to wear a name tape) to read the full text of the judgement, and then review both the accident report and Docket items on the National Transportation Safety Board website. Perspective is important when we express outrage.
I will leave my personal opinion of this judgement for the appropriate topic, but having read the NTSB report it would seem that the pilots of both aircraft ignored or did not know some basic rules of operation.
Quote from: Live2Learn on August 11, 2017, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 11, 2017, 12:27:13 PM
Quote from: kwe1009 on August 11, 2017, 11:54:35 AM
True but very few people read the first chapter.
The first chapter doesn't even read the first chapter.
Correct wearing of the uniform is important. It reflects on all of CAP when things are mismatched or... But taking a knife and cutting away the offending name tape "on the spot" as one poster proposed seems a rather extreme action bordering on abuse, and could be construed as assault with a deadly weapon. I'm sure it was just a rhetorical statement. Still it reflects poorly on CAP to suggest what amounts to a physical attack because someone has an offending name tape on their hat... Get real.
One of the more preposterous things I've ever seen on this forum
Quote from: vorteks on August 11, 2017, 05:18:07 PM
Quote from: Live2Learn on August 11, 2017, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 11, 2017, 12:27:13 PM
Quote from: kwe1009 on August 11, 2017, 11:54:35 AM
True but very few people read the first chapter.
The first chapter doesn't even read the first chapter.
Correct wearing of the uniform is important. It reflects on all of CAP when things are mismatched or... But taking a knife and cutting away the offending name tape "on the spot" as one poster proposed seems a rather extreme action bordering on abuse, and could be construed as assault with a deadly weapon. I'm sure it was just a rhetorical statement. Still it reflects poorly on CAP to suggest what amounts to a physical attack because someone has an offending name tape on their hat... Get real.
One of the more preposterous things I've ever seen on this forum
Indeed!
Are we done here?
Done awhile ago actually. Nobody bothered to turn the switch off. >:D
Quote from: PHall on August 12, 2017, 11:53:39 PM
Done awhile ago actually. Nobody bothered to turn the switch off. >:D
I've been traveling.
Click.