THE CHIEF'S UNIFORM GUIDE

[davedove]

But the pink socks comment....was....directed at you

I say, that's a joke son.....that's a joke.   I'd say it was poking fun, but that would probably be to politically incorrect to the flamers wearing pink socks.

Since I am from CAWG...I just did a sock check  ....whew...not pink but black 

I thought you guys didn't wear socks unless it was formal.

[RiverAux]

The guide seems useful to me.  I would recommend putting all the uniform care and maintenance details into a revised 39-1.  That is the sort of stuff that is passed down word-of-mouth in the military but CAP is so spread out over the country and has such a diverse membership that this method won't work for us.  Putting the right way to care for nametags, etc. in the manual will guarantee that everyone at least has the proper info available to them.  Having it in a separate guide like this guarantees that most won't see it since it will be easy to overlook.  However, the manual is much more widespread, even if ignored sometimes. 

[Guardrail]

On the bagging... it was a general reference to those who are quick to jump on the Chief everytime he makes a post.

I think those people fall in the category of "those who think they can write the uniform guide better but really can't and don't want to admit it."

I admit I couldn't have done a better job than Chief Chiafos, even if I tried.  Great job, Chief!

[Major_Chuck]

But the pink socks comment....was....directed at you

I say, that's a joke son.....that's a joke.   I'd say it was poking fun, but that would probably be to politically incorrect to the flamers wearing pink socks.

Since I am from CAWG...I just did a sock check  ....whew...not pink but black 

I thought you guys didn't wear socks unless it was formal.

Remember, no fashion faux paux (sp) here in CAP Land.  Never wear your pink socks with your Birkenstocks!

[Hawk200]

As I said in the Guide - the AFI is not the first, last, or only word on uniforms.

I agree 100% - in fact, the AFI doesn't even apply!

Our uniform manual is CAPM 39-1.

The single biggest place where new members get themselves into trouble, especially those who are current or ex-military, is injecting their opinion about how things "should be" into conversations and guidance which imply a regulatory authority.  

We'd be so much better off if we just worked the program, OUR program, instead of being constantly peppered with comments, anecdotes, and comparisons to the RealMilitary®.

Maybe some of the "should be" stuff should be ditched. But while this organization wears a military uniform there will inevitable comparisons to the military, including the uniforms. Our program makes uses those comments, anecdotes and similarities to the military, they have value.

You don't like the uniforms? Go join one of those SAR units that only wears an orange T-shirt. I doubt you'll have any uniformity issues there. Nobody will care what color your socks are, and they won't bother you if you wear your "Jack Daniels" hat.

There are times when you would have to actually reference AFI 36-2903. 39-1 says Air Force Ocupational badges are authorized on CAP uniforms (the Air Force variants anyway). How are going to know which badges are legitimate? Gonna go on the word of your cousins brothers ex-wife who was in the Air Force that said the "Space Needle Tour" badge is authorized?

OK, maybe it's only one instance, no biggie right? I mean cadets don't have worry about anything either. We got our own Drill and Ceremonies manual down pat. Oh wait, no we don't, we use an Air Force manual. AFMAN 26-2203, to be accurate.

Not looking like all Air Force guidance is worthless to us, is it? Ignoring the Air Force is just imprudent at it's best. I'll let you figure out the worst cases.

[Eclipse]

As I said in the Guide - the AFI is not the first, last, or only word on uniforms.

I agree 100% - in fact, the AFI doesn't even apply!

Our uniform manual is CAPM 39-1.

The single biggest place where new members get themselves into trouble, especially those who are current or ex-military, is injecting their opinion about how things "should be" into conversations and guidance which imply a regulatory authority.  

We'd be so much better off if we just worked the program, OUR program, instead of being constantly peppered with comments, anecdotes, and comparisons to the RealMilitary®.

Maybe some of the "should be" stuff should be ditched. But while this organization wears a military uniform there will inevitable comparisons to the military, including the uniforms. Our program makes uses those comments, anecdotes and similarities to the military, they have value.

You don't like the uniforms? Go join one of those SAR units that only wears an orange T-shirt. I doubt you'll have any uniformity issues there. Nobody will care what color your socks are, and they won't bother you if you wear your "Jack Daniels" hat.

There are times when you would have to actually reference AFI 36-2903. 39-1 says Air Force Ocupational badges are authorized on CAP uniforms (the Air Force variants anyway). How are going to know which badges are legitimate? Gonna go on the word of your cousins brothers ex-wife who was in the Air Force that said the "Space Needle Tour" badge is authorized?

OK, maybe it's only one instance, no biggie right? I mean cadets don't have worry about anything either. We got our own Drill and Ceremonies manual down pat. Oh wait, no we don't, we use an Air Force manual. AFMAN 26-2203, to be accurate.

Not looking like all Air Force guidance is worthless to us, is it? Ignoring the Air Force is just imprudent at it's best. I'll let you figure out the worst cases.

Nobody said anything about ignoring the AFI's, but they are not regulatory when there is a conflict (or even when there isn't).  I advise members all the time to look to these types of documents when necessary.

its the "well, [darn] the regs, do it this way, because I said so, its a custom, etc.".

Whatever uniform you wear, should be work correctly, but we have enough issues with retention without making things harder again than
they already are.

[Hawk200]

Noboday said anything about ignoring the AFI's, but they are not regulatory when there is a conflict (or even when there isn't). 

OK, I need a little clarification on what you mean by "not regulatory".

[A.Member]

Chief, excellent job!   We should all show such initiative!   When a final (updated) version is available, please let us know, I think most of us would like a copy. 

And as for updating 39-1, if you're willing to do so as part of your duties and you get the OK, then  I say have at it.   If someone wants to get their panties in a bundle over it, well, who cares?!  If they're so ignorant as to not recognize that serious updates are needed, then they certainly can't have any valid complaints against someone else doing the updates.  Be open to feedback and you'll be golden!

Well done!

[Hawk200]

Chief, excellent job!   We should all show such initiative!   When a final (updated) version is available, please let us know, I think most of us would like a copy. 

And as for updating 39-1, if you're willing to do so as part of your duties and you get the OK, then  I say have at it.   If someone wants to get their panties in a bundle over it, well, who cares?!  If they're so ignorant as to not recognize that serious updates are needed, then they certainly can't have any valid complaints against someone else doing the updates.  Be open to feedback and you'll be golden!

Well done!

I don't think 39-1 needs updating. I think it needs to be rewritten, from the bottom up. Too much is cut and pasted in there, it's a fiasco. Although I will acknowledge that the Chief seems to be the type of personality that is needed, or would be highly useful if he doesn't lead the project himself.

[Eclipse]

Noboday said anything about ignoring the AFI's, but they are not regulatory when there is a conflict (or even when there isn't). 

OK, I need a little clarification on what you mean by "not regulatory".

Meaning it may be a good guide, but we are not bound by it, for better or worse.

[A.Member]

I don't think 39-1 needs updating. I think it needs to be rewritten, from the bottom up.

Good point.  My fault.

[Hawk200]

Meaning it may be a good guide, but we are not bound by it, for better or worse.

OK, I'll accept that we are not bound by most AFI's. But completely discounting any guidance that those publications have can be considered foolish. Some posts seem to come across as "It's not our reg, so there's no need to even acknowledge it's existance."

I think that's a dangerous beginning. If you advocate that AFI's are invalid, when do you start advocating that CAP pubs are? I think one leads to another.

There is AF Policy Directive 10-27 that establishes policy concerning Civil Air Patrol. Then there are AFI's 10-2701, and 10-2702. They specify how Civil Air Patrol can be utilized, and what comprises the Board of Governors. They essentially establish a cornerstone for us.

By your reasoning, they are invalid (or at least that's the impression I get, others may not agree), because they have "Air Force" at the beginning of the title, and not "Civil Air Patrol".

A lot of people kind of have a childs viewpoint of "That's not my yard!" when it comes to Civil Air Patrol and the Air Force. Like it or not, we're a sandbox in the Air Forces' backyard. Which is really good reason to play nice, and show deference to Air Force policies.

[lordmonar]

Hawk....do you know what the AF in AFI and AFPD stand for.

Now I know you don't like to hear this...we are not the Air Force and there fore those instructions and Policy Directives are guidance TO THE AIR FORCE.  Not to CAP.  Now....some of this guidance does affect us directly in our relationship nut we are not legally bound by them.

No specifically the USAF Uniform AFI 36-2903 does not apply to us at all!  Never has and never will....and that is because the USAF wants it that way!

Otherwise we would have been wearing Gortex years ago and we would all be getting ready to buy the new ABU's next year.

Now if you so love USAF regulations....I would like you to look at 21-116 and make sure that your squadron's computer meet USAF guidelines for security accreditation and access controls.

Do all your personnel have the CAC and have completed their computer security course work?  Can you show me 100% completion?

No of course not...because your squadron's computers are not part of the USAF because you are not in the USAF.

You can't have a devotion to any USAF AFI (except the few that affect or mention CAP directly) unless you have a devotion to all of them.

[RiverAux]

By your reasoning, they are invalid (or at least that's the impression I get, others may not agree), because they have "Air Force" at the beginning of the title, and not "Civil Air Patrol".

These regulate how the AF deals with us and don't regulate CAP directly.

[mikeylikey]

Hawk....do you know what the AF in AFI and AFPD stand for.

Now I know you don't like to hear this...we are not the Air Force and there fore those instructions and Policy Directives are guidance TO THE AIR FORCE.  Not to CAP.  Now....some of this guidance does affect us directly in our relationship nut we are not legally bound by them.

No specifically the USAF Uniform AFI 36-2903 does not apply to us at all!  Never has and never will....and that is because the USAF wants it that way!

Otherwise we would have been wearing Gortex years ago and we would all be getting ready to buy the new ABU's next year.

Now if you so love USAF regulations....I would like you to look at 21-116 and make sure that your squadron's computer meet USAF guidelines for security accreditation and access controls.

Do all your personnel have the CAC and have completed their computer security course work?  Can you show me 100% completion?

No of course not...because your squadron's computers are not part of the USAF because you are not in the USAF.

You can't have a devotion to any USAF AFI (except the few that affect or mention CAP directly) unless you have a devotion to all of them.

I disagree.  CAP can choose which AFI's it will use.  In fact, I am all for having the AF come in and specificly devote an air force instruction series to CAP.  Let them write all of the regs like they should have been doing.  CAP-USAF has the authority to do this last time I looked. 

[Eclipse]

I disagree.  CAP can choose which AFI's it will use.  In fact, I am all for having the AF come in and specificly devote an air force instruction series to CAP.  Let them write all of the regs like they should have been doing.  CAP-USAF has the authority to do this last time I looked. 

Yep, can, should, would...

...hasn't

[Dragoon]

Of course, based on the SOW, they could only write AFI's that apply to us when we are conducting USAF missions.  The rest of the time, in the words of the immortal M.C. Hammer "Ya can't touch dis."   

[Hawk200]

By your reasoning, they are invalid (or at least that's the impression I get, others may not agree), because they have "Air Force" at the beginning of the title, and not "Civil Air Patrol".

These regulate how the AF deals with us and don't regulate CAP directly.

This page: http://level2.cap.gov/visitors/member_services/publications/other_publications.cfm

You need to actually read those. Without those Air Force pubs, CAP wouldn't exist. They lay out our function, requirements for CAP members, and establish the Board of Governors. AFI 10-2702 especially is important.

This idea that Air Force guidance is irrelevant is uninformed. And it's part of CAP's problems in general. They are still our parent service. We don't exist without them.

I do however feel that the Air Force seems to want oversight, but they seem to have a few issues with taking responsibilities for us. If they did take some responsibility, our integration might run smoother.

[Hawk200]

Hawk....do you know what the AF in AFI and AFPD stand for.

Now I know you don't like to hear this...we are not the Air Force and there fore those instructions and Policy Directives are guidance TO THE AIR FORCE.  Not to CAP.  Now....some of this guidance does affect us directly in our relationship nut we are not legally bound by them.

No specifically the USAF Uniform AFI 36-2903 does not apply to us at all!  Never has and never will....and that is because the USAF wants it that way!

Otherwise we would have been wearing Gortex years ago and we would all be getting ready to buy the new ABU's next year.

Now if you so love USAF regulations....I would like you to look at 21-116 and make sure that your squadron's computer meet USAF guidelines for security accreditation and access controls.

Do all your personnel have the CAC and have completed their computer security course work?  Can you show me 100% completion?

No of course not...because your squadron's computers are not part of the USAF because you are not in the USAF.

You can't have a devotion to any USAF AFI (except the few that affect or mention CAP directly) unless you have a devotion to all of them.

I disagree.  CAP can choose which AFI's it will use.  In fact, I am all for having the AF come in and specificly devote an air force instruction series to CAP.  Let them write all of the regs like they should have been doing.  CAP-USAF has the authority to do this last time I looked. 

I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks this. I think they need to buck up and start taking some more direct involvement. How many squadrons have you been to that had a Reserve officer assigned? The only ones I've been to were on Air Force installations. The ones that aren't don't have them.

I know there's probably someone thinking "If you want to be like the Air Force, then join them!". I'm not advocating that, and it's a childish jab. The only way CAP would ever be like the Air Force is if we went to basic training, got stationed at bases, and got paid for it. That's not going to happen, and I wouldn't be able to do that if it did. Besides, even though CAP is a job, it wouldn't be nearly as fulfilling if that occurred.

This anti-Air Force sentiment really needs to cease. It's not just the regs, it's the general attitiude that they don't have any control of us. It's wrong, and creating more rifts than it is improving us.

[Eclipse]

This anti-Air Force sentiment really needs to cease. It's not just the regs, it's the general attitiude that they don't have any control of us. It's wrong, and creating more rifts than it is improving us.

First, this is not anti-Air Force sentiment. Please.

We are a PRIVATE CORPORATION with specific rules of governance.

CAP-USAF has no direct authority over us.  They have oversight and advisory roles regarding how some of our money is spent, and some limited authority during AFAM's.  That's it. Congress made sure of that a few years back.

What's the 2-minute way to tell?

Because I guarantee you that if they actually HAD any real authority over CAP, much of what we discuss here would be moot.

I would welcome it, but its not there.  That's not an anti-anything sentiment, that's a fact.