CAP Talk

General Discussion => Uniforms & Awards => Topic started by: LtCol White on November 14, 2007, 06:15:02 PM

Title: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 14, 2007, 06:15:02 PM
I have been tasked to lead the NHQ Uniform Committee to resolve our uniform issues and also revise CAPM39-1 so that it accurately addresses all uniforms, presents clear information, and doesn't confuse or contradict.

I have been asked to do this paying special attention to the "cost to the member" concerns. I have culled many of the issues from the uniform threads here. As we proceed, I will post information on here for feedback and any proposed new items will undergo a wear test.

If you have credible ideas and suggestions, please post them here. Please avoid thread drifts and sillyness on this thread. This IS your chance to contribute feedback on the uniforms as so many have complained about NHQ not seeking info from the membership.

All legitimate suggestions will be given serious review and consideration with the understanding that it is NOT possible to please everyone and be all things to everyone.

I look forward to receiving your ideas.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RogueLeader on November 14, 2007, 06:27:02 PM
Go to darker tapes- like those for the utility uniform, that can be used on any and all uniforms that require tapes- BDU's, BBDU's and (eventually) ABU's, same for rank insignia.  Tapes would still say "CIVIL AIR PATROL" and the rank would still  be silver and gold, no subdued.

Grey nameplate for Seniors, Blue for Cadets- 3 line:
Civil Air Patrol
United States Air Force Auxiliary
Last Name

Eliminate grooming standards for TPU- while like to see TPU gone, too much $$$ invested by members.  Also go to grey slides.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on November 14, 2007, 06:28:51 PM
Lets not make changes to JUST MAKE CHANGES!

So Colonel.......what ideas do YOU have.  You have read MOST of our ideas here already!

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: alamrcn on November 14, 2007, 06:31:42 PM
Congradulations!  National must think very highly of you to have bestowed such a very important and difficult task - GOOD LUCK!

I'll only drop one comment as to lessoning the cost to members:
I think we have ALL agreed that the "exclusive" to Vanguard doesn't help in this particular matter. I know there were concerns about quality and consistancy, along with the money Nat'l now gets from Vanguard sales... but this might help the "top" priority.

Thanks for yout service, Colonel. It'll be fun to get a front row view as things progress... do you take bribes?!

-Ace


Ok, just one quick opinion....
EVERYTHING off the BDU shoulders, Wing patches to the left breast pocket, Unit/Activity patches to the right breast. All quals/ratings should be above the tape as SMALL badges only, no full patches. Basically get it down to how the USAF did it with the ODs originally. Thanks!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on November 14, 2007, 06:37:18 PM
May the good Lord have mercy on your soul, sir!

One thing to address would be the number of inconsistencies, ambiguities, and omissions.  I would suggest that once a new draft is in place, it be placed into a website for comment so that these issues can be vetted before publication.

As an example, the cadet cloth grade table - 6-11, seems to be an unfinished graphic:

(http://group22.net/files/other/cadet_off_insignia.jpg)

It does not contain the measurements, CAP cutout, or the outline of the blue cloth.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on November 14, 2007, 06:39:40 PM
I would also suggest adding photographs as a supplement to the diagrams, and it might be better to use mannequins instead of real people in the example photos.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JC004 on November 14, 2007, 06:47:49 PM
Wow...what did you do wrong?!  You must have really pissed off the General to get such an impossible task.   ;)

Anyway...thank you for soliciting feedback here.  I actually have a list somewhere of my uniform plan...I just don't know where it is at the moment.  I shall look.  Do you have any time lines for this?

Question:  are there going to be REPLACEMENT pictures?  PLEASE get replacement pictures.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: MIKE on November 14, 2007, 06:48:20 PM
For authorized AF style uniforms basically copy and paste the relevant details from AFI 36-2903 to get CAPM 39-1 current with minor modifications in terms of distinctive insignia as appropriate, but placement of similar insignia should not differ from the AFI.  Example: placement of the specialty badge or commanders badge in relation to the nametag for male or female personel.

Have to make sure everything is very clear and very specific.  Don't say one thing somewhere and then something a little different somewhere else for the same item.... Unless you are updating other supporting regulations i.e. CAPR 39-3 at the same time, don't differ from them.

Make insignia placement on the aviator shirts the same as the AF shirts/blouses.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 14, 2007, 06:54:06 PM
As I stated, this is being done with the "cost to the member" in the forefront. There will be no changes for the sake of change.

2 issues at the head are to get standarization of insignia for the Service Uniform with the Corporate Uniform, and the authorizaton and phase in of the ABU. Insigna for the Service uniform would also be the same to be worn on the new USAF service coat once authorized and adopted.

In addition to the revision of CAPM 39-1, we will also look at other outstanding uniform items that have not been enacted such as the cloth flightsuit name badges. We will also review the USAF uniform closet and evaluate items not presently authorized for wear by CAP but would be of value to our members such as the severe cold weather gear.

As we proceed and I am able to assemble samples of proposals, I will post them here for comment and review. Again, all serious feedback will be given consideration by the committee.

I have asked Capt Mike Kieloch and Capt Judy Lavalley to be part of this committe and they have graciously accepted. I report to Col Tom Todd who reports to Gen Courter on this.

It is our goal to address the concerns of the members over our uniforms, standaridze the closet, maintain a professional appearance, and minimize the cost where possible. Please keep in mind that all changes must be reviewed and approved by HQ CAP, HQ CAP/USAF and HQ USAF.


Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: MIKE on November 14, 2007, 06:55:04 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 14, 2007, 06:37:18 PMOne thing to address would be the number of inconsistencies, ambiguities, and omissions.  I would suggest that once a new draft is in place, it be placed into a website for comment so that these issues can be vetted before publication.

Take the current manual and Wiki it... Then I'll go in and fix whats broke.  Problems solved.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: MIKE on November 14, 2007, 07:04:39 PM
Another thing:  Bring back the phaseout date attachment that was in the back of the 1997 edition, and update it with changes as appropriate. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on November 14, 2007, 07:12:31 PM
Some changes to be considered for the TPU - ahem, corporate service dress uniform:

Modify grooming standards to allow neatly trimmed beards.

Dark blue sleeve braid instead of the gaudy silver.

Keep the hard rank on the jacket; gray epaulets on the shirt. Or, bring back the blue epaulets with CAP letters on them.

By allowing a dark blue bow tie, removing the nameplate and adding mini medals - you got yourself a corporate formal equivalent of the AF-style mess dress.

Service cap: I don't mind the silver chinstrap to distinguish CAP officers on the corporate service dress.

Allow military ribbons on the corporates.

Just my two cents' worth... before taxes take them away.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: alamrcn on November 14, 2007, 07:12:42 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 14, 2007, 06:54:06 PM
standarization of insignia for the Service Uniform with the Corporate Uniform. (cut) Insigna for the Service uniform would also be the same to be worn on the new USAF service coat once authorized and adopted.
Sounds good!

Quotethe authorizaton and phase in of the ABU.
For now, BDUs are cheaper... but as accessability quickly decreases it will be a problem. Why prolong the inevitable - getting it done now instead of later WILL save money... GREAT!

Quotesuch as the cloth flightsuit name badges.
I'm not a pilot and even I say, "YES!"

I'm glad that the USAF uniform closet (love the term) will continue to be a model for Civil Air Patrol uniforms. Looks like you and your team are off to a good start with a possitive focus!

-Ace
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: FlyingTerp on November 14, 2007, 07:15:26 PM
What a great opportunity! 

IMHO, I would like to see the changes kept to a minimum, but have CAP 39-1 updated and clarified with additional detail.  Complete diagrams for every uniform combination and a head to toe, full body photo of each uniform being properly worn. 

Here are a couple of ideas:

1.  Maintain the current command patch.  Even with the US, its better than forcing a change, again.  IMHO, it doesn't infer that the name of the organization is USCAP, but rather that CAP is a US entity.  Just as an example, the Pentagon Police have "US" on their patch, but not in their name.

2.  Minus the double breasted jacket and politics, the corporate service dress is a sharp looking uniform.  Given the money shelled out by members and its popularity (outside of this group - just look at the NSC photos) I can't see it going away. 

Finally, lets get 39-1 updated and stable.  We have so many uniform choices that we should be able to do without various policy letters, etc that make 39-1 inaccurate.

Best of luck to you sir!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: captrncap on November 14, 2007, 07:18:02 PM
I would like to see one AF Blue and one Corporate Uniform dress uniform (for those not meeting height/weight AND grooming standards).

I don't mind the TPU with the addition of the "CAP" to the blue slides.

A moratorium on uniform changes to corporate designs (not AF since they control that uniform) for at least 3 years from approval (Emergency changes only –would need to be defined). This would only include items such as pants, hats, nametags, etc. not specialty badges, etc.

These would carry over to flight suits and BDUs.

Recognition of Unit Commanders on BDUs (both) with a cloth Command Badge with the same placement as the dress uniform (cannot wear the ES patch concurrently).

Darker nametapes (as noted above) for current and anticipated BDU changes.

Black t-shirts only for BDU as many other "brown" colors exist.

Clearer definition of BDU footwear – i.e. what is a combat boot/jungle boot, wavier can be granted by unit commander for foot related issues.

Remove the plastic encased and replace with cloth for all Flight Suits.

Clarify "safety vest" – orange,  orange reflective or just reflective (green, etc)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jb512 on November 14, 2007, 07:21:39 PM
Yes, cost to the member is a a very important issue.  I finally ordered my USCAP nametag for my white shirt and when it arrived, the letters starting coming out the same day that we were ditching the "U.S.", so yes it is aggravating.

While cost should be #1, updating and standardizing should be #2.  As you said, add the cloth nametags to the flight suit, but please have them look at the smurf blue BDU tapes and insignia.  The AF cut them off years ago and we never did the same.  Sure, they want us to be distinguishable, but we can do that and not look so cheesy.

Other than that, just standardization between the 43 different uniform options would be nice.  Maybe get rid of the white/grays and keep the TPU instead.

Keep the TPU the way it is.  Don't add and CAP's or anything to it; plain and simple is best.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: sandman on November 14, 2007, 07:22:24 PM
I would suggest implementing metal rank insignia on the US Air Force style uniform. Modify the metal rank with a red "A" such as the US Coast Guard Auxiliary uses (no problem according to Vanguard reps). Modify sew-on rank as well.

Add a universal left sleeve (coats, shirts, sweaters, jackets, BDU, BBDU, ABU, etc) patch to further modify the AF style uniform (such as the "overseas" squadron patch). This is for a very visible difference. One patch only, cadets and officers, that way uniforms can be passed down throughout CAP and not just in one wing.

Keep grey slides on blue shirt, sweater (looks sharp). However, I would be highly in favor of returning the blue slides.

Next, return "CAP" cutouts to the lapel instead of "US".

Add (return) the three line grey nameplate to the coat instead of the AF silver nameplate.

Authorize immediate phase in of the ABU (or whatever new pattern comes online for the USAF) as an optional purchase for at least a ten year period afterwhich the ABU is mandated.

Finally, dark blue or just go with regular olive drab nametapes for BDU, BBDU, ABU. Consider white, grey, or red lettering on the nametapes. Consider just using same color as regular Air Force for nametapes including subdued unit patches and qualification badges. The rational is that it is relatively difficult to pass yourself off as a real military member these days anyway without getting caught quickly.

Implement these changes for the TPU (for fuzzies and "out of standards" individuals) and the AF uniform for, well, uniformity.

Good luck!

v/r
LT
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Trung Si Ma on November 14, 2007, 07:33:45 PM
Looking at the reduction of acquisition / maintenance costs to the members is certainly commendable.  Looking for uniformity is also good.

My suggestion is to eliminate the gray trousers / slacks. 

The corporate uniform with the white aviator shirt and AF Blue slacks in the 15 Mar 06 change letter is not only an adequate replacement for the aviator shirt uniform listed in CAPM 39-1, but it does provide the building block for the Corporate Service Uniform.

Replacing the multi-hued gray slacks with a specified product such as Khaki Levi Dockers, which are both color consistant and nationally available would be conducive to uniformity and would still provide a professional, business casual, appearance to both the Blazer Uniform and to the Golf Shirt combination.  Selecting khaki as the color for the Golf Shirt combination will more than likely limit its wear to more administrative functions.

I would also formally approve, by wing commander signed letter, the use of khaki shorts in specified hot weather activities such as glider flight activities.  Again, I would recommend that a specific maker of the shorts be specified, preferably something that is nationally distributed like the 5.11 academy series.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: capchiro on November 14, 2007, 07:39:34 PM
I guess I'm old fashioned, but if I could have my druthers, I would lose the shiny silver on the wings, CAP, rank, buckles, etc., and go back to the more subdued matt finish.  I would also lose the Corfams and go to shoes that require shining, but last 4 times as long.  Just my own personal ideas..   
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 14, 2007, 07:43:45 PM
We are also looking at developing CAP Specific NCO chevrons for the NCO corps.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: sandman on November 14, 2007, 07:49:00 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 14, 2007, 07:43:45 PM
We are also looking at developing CAP Specific NCO chevrons for the NCO corps.


Easy: Replace the star with the tri-prop! Follow suit using subdued chevons for the utility uniforms.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on November 14, 2007, 07:51:18 PM
Quote from: alamrcn on November 14, 2007, 06:31:42 PMI'll only drop one comment as to lessoning the cost to members:
I think we have ALL agreed that the "exclusive" to Vanguard doesn't help in this particular matter. I know there were concerns about quality and consistancy, along with the money Nat'l now gets from Vanguard sales... but this might help the "top" priority.

I'll second this one. There is no legitimate reason in the world that I should have to pay $3.20 for a nametape and $1.40 for a CAP tape when there was a time I could get them for 85 cents each in an equal quality to what Vanguard offers.

2. As for authorizing embroidered nameplates for flightsuits, send any company interested in producing them specifications for it, along with an approval for them to manufacture them. As long as the item meets spec, allow them to sell it. Having one company as an exclusive source is unethical at the least. The Hock shop has already shown that the C&D letters didn't have any effect.

3. For uniforms, standardize across the board. Any insignia that can be worn on one service uniform will go in the same place on any other service uniform. No more of "On this one it goes here, but on that one it goes there". Do the same thing with the BDU's (which I think it does already).

4. For service uniform nametags, go with a standard nameplate. Either put "Civil Air Patrol" on both or neither. I'd suggest putting the CAP under the name on them if it's kept, but thats a cosmetic thing that isn't really a priority. The only really different one should be the CSM nameplate. I know there are folks that have both AF and Corp service dress, there is no justifiable reason that they should have to have two separate nametags.

5. Start working on the ABU now, get it set up the way it should be and get AF approval before the membership gets to wear it so that when it gets adopted it doesn't change within six months of it's approval. I'd use dark blue nametapes, they don't seem to be going away, unlike the royal blue ones.

6. I'd recommend eliminating the old blue polo, the one with the white silkscreened emblem on the left. It looks cheap for a uniform. Makes a nice "advertising" shirt, but I don't think it's really an appropriate "uniform". The embroidered one looks alright with or without a name embroidered, go with it.

7. Ditch the jumpsuit. It doesn't serve any purpose that the blue BDU couldn't fulfill. It's an extraneous uniform. There's really no reason that people should be buying it just to look a little different than anyone else.

8. Flightsuits: Eliminate the "flight crews only" stipulation. If someone wants to spend 150 bucks or more on a uniform item, there's really no reason that they should invest that much money in a uniform item that they would probably only wear for a few hours monthly (if that). I don't advocate it as a sole uniform for everyone, but it shouldn't be limited to that extent. I've known of flying senior units where that was the only uniform that the majority of members in the unit even owned. There's no reason to be buying other stuff that doesn't fulfill their missions.

9. Since there is going to be an enlisted corps, work on the stripes for it now. The easiest thing to do is just make the background grey, just like the epaulets for officers. don't go crazy with adding props or circles or bells and whistles, AF personnel will know that they're different based on their color. For a manufacturer, it would a simple thread color change. Which would eliminate any "studies" to produce them that would cost extra money that CAP doesn't really have to be throwing away.

10. Allows ribbons worn four wide on shirts/blouses, and allow miniature ribbons. There are miniature medals already, mini ribbons would be easy. Our members get a lot of ribbons as it is. Give them an option to make them look neat.

11. Not really a cost reduction, but for the benefit of women: Any badge worn by a male on left pocket of shirts may be worn by a female on the right, over the nametag. The AF permitted female SP's/firefighters to wear their badge like this at one time, we should adopt that. A female should be able to wear as many badges as a male.

12. Don't know how much it would reduce any costs, if at all, but reduce the size of the ES patch. It doesn't really need to be four inches, and it's the only patch authorized in that position on BDU's. It could be smaller, and people will still know what it is.

13. Flightsuit insignia: Ditch the plastic, it's hard to get at a reasonable price. Collectors are buying it up because it's getting rare. And spending six to ten dollars on a pair of rank is ridiculous when cloth is available for a dolar or less.

Probably have a few more ideas, but that's the top ones for the moment.

I put a thread up a few months ago, and here's a link to a large number of things people would want to eliminate: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1472.msg24364#msg24364

I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but I put up what people would like to see. It would be something to start with.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 14, 2007, 07:55:01 PM
Quote from: sandman on November 14, 2007, 07:49:00 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 14, 2007, 07:43:45 PM
We are also looking at developing CAP Specific NCO chevrons for the NCO corps.


Easy: Replace the star with the tri-prop! Follow suit using subdued chevons for the utility uniforms.

Already done exactly that. I have a photo showing the design I will post later this evening.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on November 14, 2007, 07:57:40 PM
Quote from: sandman on November 14, 2007, 07:49:00 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 14, 2007, 07:43:45 PM
We are also looking at developing CAP Specific NCO chevrons for the NCO corps.


Easy: Replace the star with the tri-prop! Follow suit using subdued chevons for the utility uniforms.

Why? Do you know how much the manufacturer is going to charge for the production "study"?

Vanguard makes stripes already. Tell them we want X stripes with a different color background than midnight blue. It would simply be changing thread color, it's not even a new design. Anyone in the military that can't tell that stripes of a different color aren't active duty Air Force probably isn't someone you want in the military.

Why make it hard? Distinctive doesn't require bells and whistles. Keep it simple (and cheaper).
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Trung Si Ma on November 14, 2007, 08:03:13 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 14, 2007, 07:43:45 PM
We are also looking at developing CAP Specific NCO chevrons for the NCO corps.

As a CAP NCO, my recommendation would be to use epaulet sleeves for whatever grade insignia is selected.  The powerpoint slides that we saw here mentioned the possibility of NCO promotions and the slides would ensure uniformity of placement on dress uniforms.  Vanguard currently sells blank gray slides which would allow NCOs to pin insignia on for a CAP distinctive look.

For casual and field uniforms, I'd recommend collar insignia as worn by the Army, Marines, and Senior Navy / Coast Guard NCOs.  To those who feel that that would move us farther from our USAF alignment, I propose it as a cost effective method of identifying our NCOs. 

Personally, I have no objection to using the same insignia that the cadet NCOs wear since it is distinctive and available (read cheap).  I have seen very few CAP NCOs that would be confused with cadets.  If that does come to present a problem, restrict senior NCOs to the BBDU for a field uniform.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on November 14, 2007, 08:05:27 PM
here is a crazy idea.........Lets take ONE YEAR OFF from making any uniform changes.  Even better.......lets just follow the AF uniform manual (COPY it, like drill and Ceremonies), and add specifics to it as needed!

I will be real disappointed to loose anything the AF has allowed us to do!  Like one poster said get rid of the "US" cutouts.  Excuse me?  Whats up with that?

When will the first round of suggestions be made to the board?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Al Sayre on November 14, 2007, 08:06:05 PM
Congrats Sir!

My recommendation would be to ditch the non-nomex jumpsuits AND BBDU's for a Dickies type Dark Blue work shirt in SS and/or LS and Dickies type Dark Blue pants.  

Add a Black or Dark Blue BDU type belt ,

Use the current tapes and cloth badges on the shirt with metal USAF/Cadet Grade insignia on the collars.  

Wear black boots or low quarters as appropriate, blousing authorized for field operations, but not required.

For headgear:  A dark blue or unit ballcap; black or dark blue watchcap authorized for cold weather.  

For colder climates, add a dark blue commercial windbreaker or Dark Blue Parka as required.

A khaki version for warm weather wear would be nice, but not a necessity.

Authorize it as a working uniform for ALL members both Senior and Cadet, fat, skinny, fuzzy or clean shaven.  This would allow most members to drive to their local Wal-Mart or K-mart and be in uniform for about $50.00.  

IIRC The Coasties used this as a working uniform in the 80's, it looks good, wears very well and can be found in almost every city.

Good Luck!

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jb512 on November 14, 2007, 08:08:13 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 14, 2007, 07:43:45 PM
We are also looking at developing CAP Specific NCO chevrons for the NCO corps.


Use the cadet insignia and make patches out of them?  :D
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on November 14, 2007, 08:09:38 PM
Oh ya.....forgot to add.....NO MORE UNIT SPECIFIC ORGANIZATIONAL HATS, BALLCAPS, etc.  No more Orange, Blue, pink, red, green....etc.  The AF is stopping that practice right?  Why can't we??
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on November 14, 2007, 08:16:26 PM
Olive drab nametapes with white lettering for the camo BDU's.

Digi-pat tape with white lettering for ABU's.

Ditch discussion of any changes to NCO grade until after the comitte decides if there is a need. 

Unless a coherent NCO corp is reborn, the amount of effort that will be expended to redesign and manufacture grade insignia for less than 100 members is not justified.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 14, 2007, 08:16:43 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on November 14, 2007, 08:05:27 PM
here is a crazy idea.........Lets take ONE YEAR OFF from making any uniform changes.  Even better.......lets just follow the AF uniform manual (COPY it, like drill and Ceremonies), and add specifics to it as needed!

I will be real disappointed to loose anything the AF has allowed us to do!  Like one poster said get rid of the "US" cutouts.  Excuse me?  Whats up with that?

When will the first round of suggestions be made to the board?


We are planning to get the alignment of insignia for service/corporate uniform and the ABU phase in to the board as quickly as we can get it put together. The other sum total issues will be subsequent to that.

In doing a complete review of all uniform parts and pieces, this should negate changes down the road with the exception of a new item being generated based on changes by USAF to their uniforms.



Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on November 14, 2007, 08:19:42 PM
Ease off on the C&D letters for things which are not copywritten - nametapes, namatags, etc., especially when VG can't deliver.

Don't publish an insignia change until after VG has begun stocking the new insignia in quantity.

A subcommittee should re-evaluate our contractual relationship with VG, and find out why we are being treated a second class customers, consider their monopoly position.
We should not be paying more for shipping, etc., than other services, as has been insinuated by other who have access to the same products from both sides...
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on November 14, 2007, 08:22:21 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 14, 2007, 08:16:43 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on November 14, 2007, 08:05:27 PM
here is a crazy idea.........Lets take ONE YEAR OFF from making any uniform changes.  Even better.......lets just follow the AF uniform manual (COPY it, like drill and Ceremonies), and add specifics to it as needed!

I will be real disappointed to loose anything the AF has allowed us to do!  Like one poster said get rid of the "US" cutouts.  Excuse me?  Whats up with that?

When will the first round of suggestions be made to the board?


We are planning to get the alignment of insignia for service/corporate uniform and the ABU phase in to the board as quickly as we can get it put together. The other sum total issues will be subsequent to that.

In doing a complete review of all uniform parts and pieces, this should negate changes down the road with the exception of a new item being generated based on changes by USAF to their uniforms.


How do you personally feel about that above?  Are you looking to remove items from the AF Blue Style Service Dress to match the New Corporate, or the other way around?  A lot of people spent years (and years) getting the AF style Dress to match as closely as possible to the actual AF uniform.  It would disappoint very many people!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 14, 2007, 08:32:11 PM
When we speak of aligning the insignia, we arent talking of removing anything from the USAF uniform. We are talking about using the same epaulets on both coats and shirts, same name tag on both coats and shirts so that no matter which one you wear, its the same. We are looking at removing the silver sleeve braid from the corp coat and replacing it with the standard USAF blue. Removing the silver chin strap from the Corp hat and using the standard USAF black. Maintain the "US" lapel insignia on the USAF coat and "CAP" on the corporate coat.

The point is so that when there is a room full of both combinations, you can see they are the same organization. If a member has both, then there is a cost savings for insignia. The main difference between the 2 will be the person wearing it and the color of the shirt.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on November 14, 2007, 08:36:24 PM
Got it thank you!  However, I would hate to see the AF brushed metalic nameplate be replaced by that awful two-line one worn on the current CORP's. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Trung Si Ma on November 14, 2007, 08:45:11 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 14, 2007, 08:16:26 PM
Unless a coherent NCO corp is reborn, the amount of effort that will be expended to redesign and manufacture grade insignia for less than 100 members is not justified.

Concur.  This further supports using the existing cadet chevrons pinned to the existing grey epaulet sleeves for dress uniforms and pinning them to the collar of the BBDU.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 14, 2007, 08:51:04 PM
Quote from: Trung Si Ma on November 14, 2007, 08:45:11 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 14, 2007, 08:16:26 PM
Unless a coherent NCO corp is reborn, the amount of effort that will be expended to redesign and manufacture grade insignia for less than 100 members is not justified.

Concur.  This further supports using the existing cadet chevrons pinned to the existing grey epaulet sleeves for dress uniforms and pinning them to the collar of the BBDU.

Our intent is to design the insignia and get tacit approval pending the plan from NHQ for the NCO program. It would be submitted on the condition that the NCO program is to expand and grow. If the program is to be expanded and furthered, then the insignia would be submitted up for approval by HQ USAF.

We are trying to cover as much as possible with some forward thinking as to what is to come. There is no cost to design and get design approval. Cost is only related to production and this will be incremental since all work is computer generated and it would be a slight modification to an exisiting design in order to be produced.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: MIKE on November 14, 2007, 09:08:32 PM
Creating all new uniform junk isn't gonna save the membership any money.  Focus on fixing the problems, not creating new ones.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: arajca on November 14, 2007, 09:17:27 PM
One simple change to the Corporate Service coat is to change the location of the cut out from 1/4" above the lapel seam to the same positioning as the AF service coat uses. The present location looks funny.

I'll have more when I get down to seriously thinking about it.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jb512 on November 14, 2007, 09:27:18 PM
Quote from: Trung Si Ma on November 14, 2007, 08:45:11 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 14, 2007, 08:16:26 PM
Unless a coherent NCO corp is reborn, the amount of effort that will be expended to redesign and manufacture grade insignia for less than 100 members is not justified.

Concur.  This further supports using the existing cadet chevrons pinned to the existing grey epaulet sleeves for dress uniforms and pinning them to the collar of the BBDU.

Except that the cadet stripes on the collar of the regular BDU wouldn't be different from a cadet uniform.

I'd say use the gray slides with regular AF stripes pinned on it (or embroidered) for all NCO ranks on the blues.  On the BDU and/or BBDU just pin regular AF stripes on the collar in the same location that the cadet stripes would go.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Trung Si Ma on November 14, 2007, 09:36:51 PM
Quote from: jaybird512 on November 14, 2007, 09:27:18 PM
I'd say use the gray slides with regular AF stripes pinned on it (or embroidered) for all NCO ranks on the blues.  On the BDU and/or BBDU just pin regular AF stripes on the collar in the same location that the cadet stripes would go.

Works for me.  Cheap, easy, functional.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jb512 on November 14, 2007, 09:38:48 PM
Proposal to Uniform Committee:

Service Dress -

AF Blues with no change.
TPU as alternate for weight/grooming - no changes
Eliminate all other options
Phase out white/gray uniform option

Utility Uniform -

BDU - change color of ultramarine blue to more modern color
BBDU - allow use of the new dark blue insignia
Eliminate all other options

Flight Uniform -

Keep old style command patch
Allow embroidered name tags
Allow cloth rank in background color changed for the BDU
Keep options of green or blue for height/weight

Golf Shirt -        

One style only - embroidered old style command patch opposite of aeronautical or any other choice of badge above pocket.  Mandate tougher oxford style fabric for shirt.  Specify fabric and/or manufacturer for pants.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JayT on November 14, 2007, 09:52:09 PM
Service Uniforms.

Air Force Style.

Double grade insignia for Cadet Airmen and NCOs.
Allow mini Cadet Officer grade insignia on the lapels of the enlisted service coat, so Cadet Officers have the option of not spending $30 on shoulder boards.
Mandate mini grade insignia on the epaulette of the light weight jacket for Cadet Captains and Cadet Colonels.
Switch from gray nameplates to blue nameplates for everyone.
Go back to the old blue CAP shoulder marks.

Corporate Service Uniform

Figure out insignia for Flight Officers.
Same nameplate as Air Force style.
Keep growing standards.
Get ride of the sliver braid and hat strap.
Put CAP cutouts on the epaulettes with the hard metal rank insignia.

Gray/whites

No change, except make a decent standard jacket for them.

Blazer

No change.


Field Uniforms

BDUs
Make a standard shape for Squadron, Group, and Wing patches
Get ride of the American Flag
Don't change the color of the tapes.
Put the Wing, Group, and Squadron patches in the same locations as the Air Force BDUs.
Get rid of the Model Rocketry patch.
Go to metal insigna for Cadet Officers.

Blue Field Uniform.
Same as BDUs.

Blue Utility Uniform.

This uniform is perfect. Keep it.
Keep it identical to the flight suit.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: pixelwonk on November 14, 2007, 09:55:42 PM
"Look Mommy, all the ravenous uniform zealots are coming to feed!"

I did have some ideas, which now after having observed this Charlie-Fox of a thread for a while, I think I'll keep to myself.
However, if I was tasked to a uniform committee, I would have solicited requests to be received by PM and culled the common issues from them for a summary rather than cause a bling induced free-for-all.
I'd then post the summary for the membership to see, and use it for the main points of consideration in my committee.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jb512 on November 14, 2007, 10:02:17 PM
Quote from: tedda on November 14, 2007, 09:55:42 PM
"Look Mommy, all the ravenous uniform zealots are coming to feed!"

I did have some ideas, which now after having observed this Charlie-Fox of a thread for a while, I think I'll keep to myself.
However, if I was tasked to a uniform committee, I would have solicited requests to be received by PM and culled the common issues from them for a summary rather than cause a bling induced free-for-all.
I'd then post the summary for the membership to see, and use it for the main points of consideration in my committee.



Yes this will be a 96 page thread within two days.

I don't really see the need to curb it or restrict it to PM though.  It is a place for discussion and let everybody go wild.  As you said, take the common points after a while and put that on the list for the committee.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: pixelwonk on November 14, 2007, 10:07:35 PM
Go wild indeed.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jayleswo on November 14, 2007, 10:16:19 PM
Here's my $02.

Uniform Suggestions

General Suggestions:
1.   Phase out all "corporate uniforms" and petition USAF to allow members to wear USAF style uniforms without regard to weight standards. Pipe dream, I know.
2.   Barring that, more consistency in CAP and AF-style uniforms. We need to look like one organization – ONE CAP. So, same insignia, same badges, same name plates, same wear criteria, etc. across all uniforms, senior/cadets and AF-style and Corporate.
3.   CAP NCO Insignia. Concur with suggestion for gray vs. blue color border on enlisted/NCO insignia to differentiate from USAF instead of a triangle/prop device. Allows same pattern to be used which will reduce cost and retain morale benefits of former/current military NCO's to be involved in this program.
4.   Conform to USAF Policy for wear of Command insignia/badge on all uniforms.
5.   Eliminate as many alternative uniforms as possible to reduce the number of uniforms in "CAP Uniform Closet" Candidates to eliminate include:
•   Blue Polo / Golf Shirt and gray slacks
•   White Aviator Shirt and Gray slacks
•   Blazer combination
•   CAP Blue Jumpsuit (retain Blue BDU Uniform)

Battle Dress Uniform (BDU).
1.   Seniors: Require pin-on subdued (or alternatively bright finish) grade insignia vs. cloth. This will make it easier to change out grade when members are promoted. It also allows for the possibility of members removing grade insignia when such wear might confuse other agencies (example: CAP Lt Col as a GTM 3 on a ground team led by a CAP NCO or 1st Lt.)
2.   Require CAP Command Patch (e.g. MAJCOM Patch) on Right Pocket in lieu of any other organizational emblems. This will promote uniformity and enhance distinctness of this as a CAP uniform
3.   Remove American Flag patch to create room for other qualification and misc. patches
4.   Keep the remaining insignia the same for now, no need to be swapping out insignia and name tapes and patches when CAP may be authorized to wear the ABU in a few years.

Airman Battle Uniform (ABU)
1.   Insignia and wear consistent with USAF, except for "Civil Air Patrol" on branch tape.
2.   If additional distinctiveness is required, then specify gray branch and name tapes vs. ultramarine blue or ABU background pattern. This color would provide consistency with the gray coloration of our shoulder mark insignia and be a better match for the coloration of this uniform.
3.   Allow all other CAP specific insignia and badges to be on ABU background (or, alternatively, if not approved by USAF, then on gray background).

AF-Style Service Uniform:
1.   Specify gray name plates and shoulder mark insignia for Cadets. We preserved blue nameplates and blue epaulets for Cadets as a cost-saving measure when seniors went to Maroon then Gray shoulder mark insignia several years ago. There aren't any Cadets from that time who are still cadets. Let's make the insignia color the same as the Seniors for a more uniform appearance.
2.   Eliminate hard shoulderboards for Cadets and specify wear of gray shouldermakr/epaulets instead, same as Seniors, on service uniforms.
3.   Allow wear of brushed silver name plate on the Service Dress Uniform coat for Cadets for consistency with Seniors.
4.   Require wear of U.S. insignia on service dress uniform coat for cadets for consistency with Seniors.
5.   Allow wear of metal grade insignia by CAP Officers on AF service dress jacket with small "A" letter superimposed (eg. Coast Guard Auxiliary). Require commissioning braid to be gray and brushed silver name tag to say "Civil Air Patrol" above member last name to distinguish from AF Officer. Morale benefit to doing so at a time when CAP is losing members, and more uniformity in other insignia.

Corporate Service Uniform
1.   Specify style of Aviator shirt be same pattern as USAF blue shirt
2.   Allow wear of same badges, ribbons and insignia (including U.S.) on corporate service and shirt coat as on AF-style for morale and consistency. Require gray commissioning braid to distinguish from USAF (vs Silver). Keep Gray in our heritage. Allow continued wear of metal grade insignia as long as USAF approves that for AF-style uniform. If not, then require gray shouldermark insignia for consistency with AF-style uniforms.

John Aylesworth, Lt Col
Commander, PCR-CA-151
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: NAYBOR on November 14, 2007, 10:17:43 PM
In addition to AlphaSig's suggestions for the "mess dress" TPU, I am designing mess dress boards for the TPU using AFROTC hard boards (replacing the Hap arnold button at the top of them with a CAP bright button), since they are clutch back.  The boards will be very similar to the AF mess dress boards, except thay will be black to remain distinctive.  With a black tie, black studs, tux shirt, no nametag or "CAP" cutouts, and mess dress mini medals and mini insigina, I think it will go nicely.  I will post the pictures here as soon as I am finished--I am still waiting for one part to put them together fully, but with what I have already put together, I think all will be pleased (I hope).  This combo is proposed as an OPTIONAL way to wear the TPU, so that the present "semi formal" dress remains, and does not increase members' costs.

Should I also send this idea up the chain of command for approval, or is it OK to submit the pictures and rational here for direct consideration by the NHQ Uniform Comittee?

I also have ideas for an optional service cap device design--will also supply pictures.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 14, 2007, 10:18:28 PM
I don't want it to operate as a network of PM's. That defeats the purpose of making it an open forum for feedback. As we work though all the suggestions and stand up working models, they will be posted here for comment.

I would not be following my charge if I made it a private system of information not shared. If the thread gets out of control/off topic with sillyness, I will simply lock it and end the input. Bearing this in mind, please don't ruin a good thing and give me your legitimate ideas. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 14, 2007, 10:20:24 PM
Quote from: NAYBOR on November 14, 2007, 10:17:43 PM
In addition to AlphaSig's suggestions for the "mess dress" TPU, I am designing mess dress boards for the TPU using AFROTC hard boards (replacing the Hap arnold button at the top of them with a CAP bright button), since they are clutch back.  The boards will be very similar to the AF mess dress boards, except thay will be black to remain distinctive.  With a black tie, black studs, tux shirt, no nametag or "CAP" cutouts, and mess dress mini medals and mini insigina, I think it will go nicely.  I will post the pictures here as soon as I am finished--I am still waiting for one part to put them together fully, but with what I have already put together, I think all will be pleased (I hope).  This combo is proposed as an OPTIONAL way to wear the TPU, so that the present "semi formal" dress remains, and does not increase members' costs.

Should I also send this idea up the chain of command for approval, or is it OK to submit the pictures and rational here for direct consideration by the NHQ Uniform Comittee?

I also have ideas for an optional service cap device design--will also supply pictures.

Please, I am not asking for any photo submissions. I want the only posted photos to be those of the models put together based on the feedback so there is no confusion.

You can email me or PM me the photos but do not post them on this thread.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jb512 on November 14, 2007, 10:24:01 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 14, 2007, 10:18:28 PM
I don't want it to operate as a network of PM's. That defeats the purpose of making it an open forum for feedback. As we work though all the suggestions and stand up working models, they will be posted here for comment.

I would not be following my charge if I made it a private system of information not shared.

Thank you.  People with nothing to add (or nothing constructive to the discussion) can resist the temptation to hit the "post" button.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: MIKE on November 14, 2007, 10:38:25 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 14, 2007, 10:18:28 PMIf the thread gets out of control/off topic with sillyness, I will simply lock it and end the input. Bearing this in mind, please don't ruin a good thing and give me your legitimate ideas.

Who made you a mod? I don't think you'll be the one to do the locking.  ;D
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 14, 2007, 10:41:03 PM
Quote from: MIKE on November 14, 2007, 10:38:25 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 14, 2007, 10:18:28 PMIf the thread gets out of control/off topic with sillyness, I will simply lock it and end the input. Bearing this in mind, please don't ruin a good thing and give me your legitimate ideas.

Who made you a mod? I don't think you'll be the one to do the locking.  ;D

Yeah but since Mike is on the committee all I have to do is ask him to do it.  ;D
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JayT on November 14, 2007, 11:00:57 PM
Oh, and make it so cadets can only wear their highest achievement ribbon.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: MIKE on November 14, 2007, 11:38:34 PM
NB had a [mess] fit last time they (NCAC) tried that.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: CAP_truth on November 15, 2007, 12:06:56 AM
Col:

   With everyone putting in their 2 cents worth. Mine is to use

1 the same blush silver name plate that is used on the corporate Dress uniform (CDU)  be  used on the AF uniform.
2. Yes remove the silver braid from the CDU and have a blue braid .
3. Standardized the design and shape of badges for all specialties except for chaplain, legal, medical using silver with no colors. 
4. Placement of specialty badges to conform to AF guidelines.
5. Same cutouts, metal rank insignias on both AF & CDU.
6. All ribbons that are authorized on the AF uniform be allowed on the CDU
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 15, 2007, 12:15:44 AM
Sample of proposed CAP NCO Chevrons if NHQ decides to expand and build the NCO Program. These would be worn on Service and Corporate coat and an ABU version could also be produced.

(http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa65/LtColWhite/NCOChevrons.jpg)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on November 15, 2007, 12:23:25 AM
1.  Require that any Wing supplement to CAPR 39-1 be approved by NHQ and posted on the national web page (like with supplements to 60-1). 

2.  Insert clear language into the regulation indicating that the "golf shirt" is a uniform item that can only be worn as part of the Summer Uniform combination and cannot be worn as a separate item during regular civilian activities.

3.  Allow cadets to wear their uniforms to school when authorized by their squadron commander as part of a recruiting drive. 

4.  Require that some sort of hat be worn with CAP Corporate uniforms and come up with appropriate required hats. 

5.  Consider allowing wear of AF-style uniforms by those who don't meet the height/weight requirement if they do meet some variation of the body fat percentage scale that the AF uses as an alternate. 

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: MIKE on November 15, 2007, 12:47:54 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on November 15, 2007, 12:23:25 AM
1.  Require that any Wing supplement to CAPR 39-1 be approved by NHQ and posted on the national web page (like with supplements to 60-1).

Me like... actually, I think this should be the case with all such supplements. 

Quote from: RiverAux on November 15, 2007, 12:23:25 AM3.  Allow cadets to wear their uniforms to school when authorized by their squadron commander as part of a recruiting drive.

Some units already do this... but there are also schools out there that will not allow the uniform to be worn. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Carl C on November 15, 2007, 12:48:59 AM
Simplify and standardize.
I personally like the corporate uniforms and would just as soon do away with AF style all together.
Blue flight suits and BDUs as standard duty / work uniforms.   Medium grey pants are almost impossible to find other than dress pants.   Not very serviceable.   A darker grey "Docker" flat style would be nice.
Just specify something and make it available.

To echo others...  Good luck and bless your soul for taking this one on!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on November 15, 2007, 01:32:46 AM
Come to think of it, one more thing: Eliminate the "cutouts" on the field jacket epaulets. They're unnecessary. Just about anyone even somewhat familiar with Civil Air Patrol knows what "CAP" is. We don't need something on our uniform to tell them.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jb512 on November 15, 2007, 01:38:26 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on November 15, 2007, 01:32:46 AM
Come to think of it, one more thing: Eliminate the "cutouts" on the field jacket epaulets. They're unnecessary. Just about anyone even somewhat familiar with Civil Air Patrol knows what "CAP" is. We don't need something on our uniform to tell them.

Forgot about that.  It's not like we don't already have a big blaring "Civil Air Patrol" over the pocket in florescent blue.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: PHall on November 15, 2007, 01:43:58 AM
Eliminate CAPM 39-1 and reissue it as the CAP Supplement  to AFI 36-2903.
This would make it much smaller and easier to keep current.

That's my 2 cents.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on November 15, 2007, 01:46:58 AM
Quote from: CAP_truth on November 15, 2007, 12:06:56 AM
Col:
1 the same blush silver name plate that is used on the corporate Dress uniform (CDU)  be  used on the AF uniform.

I HOPE NOT!  Anyone here work on getting the AF nameplate for the AF style uniform?  Why would we want to give that up?  Not only can we get it from various suppliers, it is a "pat on the back" from the AF.  

I think we will see most if not all of our AF style uniform features disapear to appease those who can not wear that uniform.  That is a shame.    

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jb512 on November 15, 2007, 02:00:52 AM
In keeping with your no pictures request, I put a copy of the ABU picture you had me do in the playpen:

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=3549.msg67365#msg67365

It has your OD/white and the OD/blue (my choice).
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: sandman on November 15, 2007, 02:39:46 AM
Quote from: jaybird512 on November 15, 2007, 02:00:52 AM
In keeping with your no pictures request, I put a copy of the ABU picture you had me do in the playpen:

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=3549.msg67365#msg67365

It has your OD/white and the OD/blue (my choice).


Nice work! Second row right would be my choice. Substitute the "overseas" unit patch for the Texas Wing patch and I think it would be a winner.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on November 15, 2007, 03:28:03 AM
Quote from: jaybird512 on November 15, 2007, 02:00:52 AM
In keeping with your no pictures request, I put a copy of the ABU picture you had me do in the playpen:

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=3549.msg67365#msg67365

It has your OD/white and the OD/blue (my choice).

I don't see OD tapes making the cut. It's an old style nametape in old style colors. I don't think the AF would have any problem with Navy (or even midnite) blue, but I don't think old school is gonna get approved.

Looking at the AF aspect, I doubt grey would be adopted either. At present, there are navy blue rank insignia available, and navy blue nametapes are readily available too. I doubt the AF is going to want new insignia produced when there are insignia currently available that are perfectly reasonable and suitable for the new uniform.

All in all, it's rather impractical to dream about new wowee-zowee stuff when there is perfectly practical stuff that we can use tomorrow if we wanted too.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Phillip on November 15, 2007, 04:19:02 AM
Respectfully submitted, here are my ideas:

Flightsuit Nametags
Ditch the Rank and CAP on the second line.  Just the currently approved badge(s) and name.

Black Leather A-2
Ask approval for wear with AF flight and service uniforms.  Also, specify if the Black A-2 may be worn with civilian clothing.  I am aware that the AF did not approve the wear of the Brown A-2.

AF Service Coat Nametag
Ask permission to wear it with AF Blue Pull Over Sweater as the Air Force does.

Corporate Service Uniform
Add optional pull over sweater, probably should be black to go with the black windbreaker, but otherwise identical to the AF blue pull over.

Specify that the white shirt be identical in appearance to the AF shirt, with the only difference being the color.  These shirts are already commercially available.

Remove all metal rank insignia and the blue epaulettes from the uniform, specify the same rank insignia as approved for the AF uniform.


"Virtual" Wear Test
Since a real wear test program isn't really a viable option for us, I propose that whenever a change to the uniform (any of the combos) is proposed, a person (or mannequin) is chosen to model the uniform item(s) in question for photos to be published on the national website.  Comments would then be taken for a specified time period (i.e. Yay, nay, optional vs. mandatory) before final approval is obtained.

----------------

Quote from: LtCol White on November 15, 2007, 12:15:44 AM
Sample of proposed CAP NCO Chevrons if NHQ decides to expand and build the NCO Program. These would be worn on Service and Corporate coat and an ABU version could also be produced.

(http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa65/LtColWhite/NCOChevrons.jpg)
Very classy!  ;D
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on November 15, 2007, 04:36:47 AM
Quote"Virtual" Wear Test
Since a real wear test program isn't really a viable option for us, I propose that whenever a change to the uniform (any of the combos) is proposed, a person (or mannequin) is chosen to model the uniform item(s) in question for photos to be published on the national website.  Comments would then be taken for a specified time period (i.e. Yay, nay, optional vs. mandatory) before final approval is obtained.
It wasn't a "test", but they did do this for the TPU...
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: O-Rex on November 15, 2007, 04:43:33 AM
When CAP switches to ABU's, delay the phase-out of black boots until the late 2010's, if feasible:  there should be plenty to go around for years to come, and asking a parent to shell out over $200 bucks for their cadets to wear a fatigue-type uniform is a bit much (at $120, new green boots constitute over half of the uniform.)  It will also make the CAP ABU more distinctive, which will make USAF very happy.

Keep current CAP-U.S. Air Force Auxiliary command patch for green flightsuits, and the Corporate version for blue bags and utility uniform.

Like everyone else posted, try to find commonality for Corporate and AF-style dress uniforms, particularly with nameplates and insignia.

Finish off the Corp uniform with an Army-Black trenchcoat (there is currently no provision for an overcoat with this uniform.) That should pretty much do it for corp uniforms, with no more changes for years to come.

Eliminate the command service ribbon, to be replaced by former group/squadron CC's wearing the command insignia BELOW the nameplate, like USAF & USN does.   

Nametapes: navy or royal blue? all the same to me, but have Vanguard offer modern fabric nametapes that won't fade.

An optional CAP PT uniform (jacket & pants) styled similar to USAF's.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: CAPLAW on November 15, 2007, 05:06:14 AM
Possibly look into hard grey colored shoulder boards like the mess dress boards for the AF service coat. Keep U.S cutouts.

Replace the grey slacks with grey bdu pants

phase in tan boots for bdus

place the command patch on the bdus and abus

keep tpu with no change

create an affordable blue windbreaker that cadets can wear or authorize green flight jacket with blues.

make bdu /abu the duty uniform like the AF
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: capmaj on November 15, 2007, 05:43:30 AM
First off, Sir......Kudos for taking this on.

I would like to suggest the following;

1. Eliminate the 'golf shirt' that has long been a sore subject. Replace it with a button front, button collared shirt in SS for summer and LS for winter. This shirt would be similar to the current non-duty shirt offered by Vanguard. It would be lettered on the left side with 'Civil Air Patrol' in a rainbow arc in white with the wearers last name only under the arc. Whether or not to add grade to the name could be discussed.

2. As the so-called 'TPU' closely resembles the USAF style, I would change the reg to allow it to be worn in compliance with the USAF height/weight standards, but would relax the current grooming standard restrictions to allow its wear by members who have a well-groomed beard or slightly longer mustache.

3. Change the current requirement of a black bow tie with corporate formal wear to the USAF blue bow tie. Black is really for the Army dress, not USAF's. Females are already wearing the blue floppy tie.

4. Review the 39-1 attachment to better reflect current grooming styles. Most men have not worn a mustache trimmed to the current standards in decades, preferring it a little bit longer. Short, trimmed beards are also somewhat in fashion these days.

Across the board I would like to see a trend toward the elimination of as many uniform items as possible. 

Thank you and 'GOOD LUCK'!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: lordmonar on November 15, 2007, 06:32:02 AM
Quote from: mikeylikey on November 14, 2007, 08:05:27 PM
here is a crazy idea.........Lets take ONE YEAR OFF from making any uniform changes.  Even better.......lets just follow the AF uniform manual (COPY it, like drill and Ceremonies), and add specifics to it as needed!

I will be real disappointed to loose anything the AF has allowed us to do!  Like one poster said get rid of the "US" cutouts.  Excuse me?  Whats up with that?

When will the first round of suggestions be made to the board?


Hear! Hear!

For USAF style Uniforms I would follow 100% of USAF guidance with the addition of a distinctive CAP patch on the left shoulder. (something like the overseas wing patch).

How's that for savings?  NO MORE PATCHES on field uniforms.

We don't need distinctive grades (officer or NCO) if we have a distinctive patch on all uniform combinations.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on November 15, 2007, 09:10:06 AM
Not to forget:

A leather-backed CAP command patch for the black leather A-2 style jacket to match the A-2-style leather nameplate. Looks a LOT better than the small command patch.

If I remember correctly the RealAirForce® allows wear of the brown A-2 with civvies as long as any distinctive military patches are removed. (Yay velcro!)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BillB on November 15, 2007, 11:55:05 AM
Historically, CAP has always worn the same NCO stripes as USAAF and USAF except the 1942 NCO stripes which were Army style with a red background. These so resembled Marines stripes they were dropped and replaced by regular Army, later USAF style stripes. The CAP stripes have never been a problem for USAF so there is no need to redesign them. Since the number of NCOs in CAP will remain low, the added costs of a new design and the wide availability of USAF stripes negates any need to change.
The US on the USAF service coat was not the idea of CAP, rather ir came from USAF, so why the discussion? And any thoughts about the ABU are meaningless for CAP since there is little or no chance the uniform will be authorized for CAP in the immediate future, at least five years.
If you look at the majority of posts, the these seems to be reduce the number of corporate uniforms and also reduce the number of different style nametags. And it seems everyone thinks the silver braid on the TPU should be changed to grey.
Basically leave the USAF style uniuforms alone with minor changes, but rethink the corporate uniform styles and number.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: capchiro on November 15, 2007, 11:55:43 AM
I would second the above idea regarding the gray slacks, however, I would say, keep the gray slacks with the golf shirt as well as have a gray BDU/cargo pockets pants and golf shirt option for field work, such as when working mission staff, training, etc.  Very comfortable and more durable than gray dress slacks, but still consistent.. As usual, JMHO.  By the way, Suzanne noted that we shoudl use the same rank throughtout uniform changes so we don't have to use cloth, plastic, metal, etc..
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: O-Rex on November 15, 2007, 12:50:03 PM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on November 15, 2007, 09:10:06 AM
Not to forget:

A leather-backed CAP command patch for the black leather A-2 style jacket to match the A-2-style leather nameplate. Looks a LOT better than the small command patch.

If I remember correctly the RealAirForce® allows wear of the brown A-2 with civvies as long as any distinctive military patches are removed. (Yay velcro!)

The change to the brown on black leather nametag for the A-2 was approved last year.  Vanguard (and a few others) offers them.

Also, there are some nametag companies that will sew a MAJCOM patch to a leather backing, as they do for USAF (reg-hounds may debate if we can do this, but there is no mention in the policy letters.  I had it done: looks razor-sharp! Caveat: sew the appropriate-size velcro to accomodate the patches.

Back to uniforms: there have been some recent changes to the Air Force Regs, i.e., silver nameplate on the sweater, male flightcap optional for females, etc.  In the midst of sorting out our wide variety of uniforms, corporate or otherwise,  we also need to harmonize and keep up with the current USAF changes.

***NHQ should establish a PERMANENT uniform board that makes decisions under a system of checks & balances, i.e., the concurrence of the NB **and** the Bog (this includes *corporate* uniforms) any member, Nat'l CC or otherwise, should not have the authority to make arbitrary changes to the uniform, and cause the membership undue expenses (yes, I know Gen. Amy & Company are fixing, hence Lt Col White's current task, but history tends to repeat itself, mistakes nonwithstanding.)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DogCollar on November 15, 2007, 02:18:19 PM
I would humbly suggest a gradual phase in of the ABU.  If members have fully acceptable conditioned BDU's they shouldn't have to face the expense of replacement until condition of uniform requires.

I would also like to see a standard, weather resistent "mission" jacket that is modeled after LE "raid jackets."  It would have reflective lettering, and would be worn especially by members at incident scene.  Jackets could be modified to signify IC positions, et al...such as:
Incident Commander
Chaplain
CISM
GTM
etc...
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on November 15, 2007, 03:31:51 PM
I've got a couple of pennies, so here goes...

If possible, similar uniforms should use identical accessories.  We should request the AF to allow white on navy nametapes for the BDU and full color grade on navy for the sage flightsuit.  If authorized, we can then make the change for the blue utility suit, BBDU and blue aramid flightsuit.  we can then use the same colors for the ABU.

Ditch CAP stripes - that would be a lot of money for retooling for little visual difference, even if the prop was red instead of blue.

State that full color stripes are to be used on the BDU/ABU.

Request the AF authorize metal grade on gray epaulets for the Service Dress jacket.  Use whatever the AF authorizes for the Service Dress or Service uniform as the choice for the TPU and white and grays.  We should have one choice for shirt epaulets and not make it dependent on what else you're wearing.

There should also only be one nametag for the Service Dress/TPU/sweater and one nametag for the shirt - one nametag for all would be better.

Braid should be the same for the "service dress-y" jackets - either AF blue for all or CAP gray for all, not blue or silver bullion depending on style.  Gray would be preferable and should also be on the Mess dress boards and sleeves.

The goal should always be "one team, one fight, one suit."
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on November 15, 2007, 03:51:58 PM
Good luck getting people to rip off the AF blue braid from the Service jacket so they can sew gray on.  If Anyhting, RETOOL the new Corp. Uni.  to match AF standards.  Get a real good proposal pushed up to CAP-USAF. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jeders on November 15, 2007, 04:18:31 PM
I think we should definitely retool corporates to match AF uniforms more rather than retooling AF style to match corporate. Other than that, just keep it simple. Corporate and AF-style should have a 1 to 1 relationship, one corporate style for each AF-style. As far as changing the color of tapes, changing to the color of the BBDUs would look better, but short of that leave them how they are. And most importantly, end Vanguards monopoly on CAP uniforms. It hurts our wallets and our uniformity since they never have what we need.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on November 15, 2007, 04:56:19 PM
We need to start looking ahead, not around.

By that I mean that the folowing uniforms are going away:

1.  The current AF service dress blue... to be replaced by the Hap Arnold Heritage uniform.

2.  The BDU... to be replaced by the ABU.

So making small but costly changes to CURRENT uniforms is sort of like putting a fresh coat of paint on the Titanic.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ColonelJack on November 15, 2007, 05:01:20 PM
I don't know if my opinions will even count, since I'm not currently a member.  But I am retired, and I will be rejoining soon.

So here's my two kopecks:

1.  Ask the Air Force to let all members wear their uniform.  (Yeah, I know, so not going to happen.)

2.  Leave the AF style uniform alone for now, and work with them to construct the CAP version of the new service coat as soon as it comes out.

3.  For corporate service uniforms, replace the silver sleeve braid with blue; leave the rest of it alone.  Ditch the aviator grays.  Agree on one design of golf/polo shirt and one shade of slacks -- I liked the idea of khaki rather than gray.

4.  As far as bling goes, it wouldn't hurt to cut down on the number of badges out there.  Former squadron and group CCs should be allowed to wear the command badge below the nameplate; this makes the command service ribbon superfluous.  

5.  Utility uniforms -- no wing patches on sleeves.  Other than that, leave 'em alone.  Work with AF for transition to the ABU when it becomes available.

And that's the end.

Jack
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: davedove on November 15, 2007, 05:05:15 PM
I have a couple of thoughts.

1)  Remove the grooming restrictions for the corporate uniform.  If you are going to have a corporate uniform, it should be open to all.

2)  Standardize the insignia between the US Style and the Corporate uniforms.  The field uniforms do this, as do the flight uniforms.  This WAS true for the service uniforms until the introduction of the corporate service uniform.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ricecakecm on November 15, 2007, 05:32:10 PM
Allow cloth embroidered nametags on flight suits as an option.

As far as color schemes for them, either go with a USAF "standard" of blue background, yellow border, white wings/text or allow each wing to designate a color scheme.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on November 15, 2007, 05:57:12 PM
Quote from: ricecakecm on November 15, 2007, 05:32:10 PM
Allow cloth embroidered nametags on flight suits as an option.

As far as color schemes for them, either go with a USAF "standard" of blue background, yellow border, white wings/text or allow each wing to designate a color scheme.

I'd go with a gray background and the "circle, triangle and prop" in the corner.  Having a different one for each wing would be a mess of a dozen here and a dozen there, all harshing on our uniformity.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: 0 on November 15, 2007, 06:02:49 PM
One thing I would like to see happen.  Not sure if this would have to happen through a Uniform Change or from another direction.  Cadets who transition to Senior are authorized to wear some of the Cadet Awards they recieved.  Also JROTC cadets are authorized to wear upto 3 ribbons with their CAP uniform, but once they've left the JROTC program they can't wear them any more.  I'd like to see it change that people who completed JROTC (like myself) can wear 3 of our old JROTC ribbons. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JayT on November 15, 2007, 06:10:19 PM
Quote from: NERMA002 Safety on November 15, 2007, 06:02:49 PM
One thing I would like to see happen.  Not sure if this would have to happen through a Uniform Change or from another direction.  Cadets who transition to Senior are authorized to wear some of the Cadet Awards they recieved.  Also JROTC cadets are authorized to wear upto 3 ribbons with their CAP uniform, but once they've left the JROTC program they can't wear them any more.  I'd like to see it change that people who completed JROTC (like myself) can wear 3 of our old JROTC ribbons. 

Why?

I put mine in my shadow box with the rest of my JROTC junk.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: 0 on November 15, 2007, 06:17:43 PM
There are a few I'd like to wear again.  These are the one I worked hard to get. They weren't handed out like candy in the unit I was a part of.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JayT on November 15, 2007, 06:28:49 PM
Quote from: NERMA002 Safety on November 15, 2007, 06:17:43 PM
There are a few I'd like to wear again.  These are the one I worked hard to get. They weren't handed out like candy in the unit I was a part of.

Nore did mine.

But do we really need forty year old SMs wearing JROTC ribbons? 'Cause thats whats gonna end up happening.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: 0 on November 15, 2007, 06:32:58 PM
Quote from: JThemann on November 15, 2007, 06:28:49 PM
Quote from: NERMA002 Safety on November 15, 2007, 06:17:43 PM
There are a few I'd like to wear again.  These are the one I worked hard to get. They weren't handed out like candy in the unit I was a part of.

Nore did mine.

But do we really need forty year old SMs wearing JROTC ribbons? 'Cause thats whats gonna end up happening.

But the same could be said of them wearing Cadet Ribbons from CAP. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: link on November 15, 2007, 06:37:21 PM
how about a compromise?  how about maybe telling former Cadets that they can't wear any of their cadet awards and that all the work they put in as Cadets while worthwhile can't be represented any more by their ribbons?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on November 15, 2007, 07:14:41 PM
Three issues related to cost

1.  Establish in 39-1 a default Phase In/Phase Out period for uniform items. I'd recommend 3 years or so.  That way, the NB can worry about changes, but WE don't have to worry about having to buy new stuff every 6 months!

2. Tackle the fact that most cadets are breaking the rules and wearing civilian outerwear.    Get USAF to agree that cadets can wear civilian outer garments with uniforms.  This seems to be acceptable in JROTC land. 

3.  Establish a low cost navy blue  or black windbreaker that is wearable with all corporate uniforms.  It should be long enough to cover the BDU shirt.  It would go a long way towards low-cost uniformity.  If it was cheap enough, it could allow us to greatly reduce civilian outerwear for seniors.  Taken with #2 above, it could increase uniformity for ALL our members.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: star1151 on November 15, 2007, 07:20:23 PM
Since I've avoided buying any other uniform precisely because of everything that's being said in this thread, my only suggestions are a women's golf shirt design and standard gray pants (men's and women's, or allowed to be altered to fit those of us who can't buy anything off the rack).
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on November 15, 2007, 07:31:14 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on November 15, 2007, 07:14:41 PM
2. Tackle the fact that most cadets are breaking the rules and wearing civilian outerwear.    Get USAF to agree that cadets can wear civilian outer garments with uniforms.  This seems to be acceptable in JROTC land. 

Alternately, authorize Cadets to wear the field jacket with service uniforms (but not Service Dress or Semi-formal).  It's a little British looking, but at least we'd be more likely to get uniformity than if we demand expensive outerwear.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: 0 on November 15, 2007, 07:41:43 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on November 15, 2007, 07:14:41 PM
Three issues related to cost

1.  Establish in 39-1 a default Phase In/Phase Out period for uniform items. I'd recommend 3 years or so.  That way, the NB can worry about changes, but WE don't have to worry about having to buy new stuff every 6 months!

2. Tackle the fact that most cadets are breaking the rules and wearing civilian outerwear.    Get USAF to agree that cadets can wear civilian outer garments with uniforms.  This seems to be acceptable in JROTC land. 

3.  Establish a low cost navy blue  or black windbreaker that is wearable with all corporate uniforms.  It should be long enough to cover the BDU shirt.  It would go a long way towards low-cost uniformity.  If it was cheap enough, it could allow us to greatly reduce civilian outerwear for seniors.  Taken with #2 above, it could increase uniformity for ALL our members.

The civilian outerwear isn't supposed to be acceptable in JROTC land either but it happens.  I know when I was in JROTC land the only compromise we had was that we could wear sneakers instead of boots with BDUs. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: riffraff on November 15, 2007, 07:50:37 PM
Here's my perspective as a not-yet-30-day member.

There are simply far too many uniform combinations available. Combine with the fact that there are two distinct groups of SMs -- those who meet height/weight/grooming to wear the USAF uniforms and those who do not.

There are really only two paths to go down:
1. Exclude everyone/anyone not meeting the USAF height/weight/grooming requirements. This is extremely unlikely.
2. Develop uniforms that are USAF inspired but not subject to USAF height/weight/grooming standards.

Eliminate everything except for 3 basic uniforms
1. Dress uniform
2. Field uniform
3. Flying uniform

Dress uniform
- white aviator shirt with blue CAP shoulderboards
- blue service trousers
- black shoes
- flight cap or round cap

Field uniform
- BBDU trousers and jacket
- BBDU cap (center any nadging vertically. It looks silly perched on the visor)
- Black boots

Flying uniform
- blue nomex or cotton flight suit (and not that POS blue cotton thing VG sells)
- flight cap
- black boots
- blue CWU-style jacket or A-2 jacket

Options for the dress uniform could include a windbreaker style jacket. Personally I would like to see an Ike-style jacket. The waist-length design is functional and practical. The style pretty much mimics the upper part of a service dress jacket so those with the need to hang their 'bling' would have a place to put everything.

Streamline the whole array of rank badging. Pick one style to be worn on everything. I think blue rank slides with embroidered grade and embroidered CAP on them would work for the dress uniform and also on whatever dress jacket is ultimately used.

Field/flight uniforms should go with embroidered on navy blue and use the same for the name and CAP tapes.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 15, 2007, 08:26:17 PM
You have to remember that USAF will NOT authorize anything for wear with the Service uniform that isn't a USAF item or that conflicts with USAF regulation. Its not even remotely a topic for discussion. They've made this clear many times.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RocketPropelled on November 15, 2007, 09:00:30 PM
Since everyone else is chiming in, here's my take:

I'm not even going to address the Air Force-style uniforms. That's between CAP and the USAF, they're gonna do what they're gonna do.  I'm just glad I was a cadet during the maroon-epaulet days, and leave it at that.

But the Corporate Uniform combinations are positively mind-boggling in potential complexity, and I'll speak to what I see the most of at meetings and field events.  When you have a batch of new members, I'd rather recommend something like THIS than what we have now:

FIELD UNIFORM
The BBDU is a winner, and it wouldn't kill CAP Officer-types to standardize on it all around.
No, we're not stabbing the Air Force in the back by NOT wearing woodland.  Wear instructions, insignia placement, etc., can remain the same as the woodland version (once CAP decided whether military badges will go or stay on the blue uniform).  But it surely would deal with any "green vs. blue" sentiments at play.  One field force, one uniform.  Phase it in over two years or so, and move on.
If NHQ wanted to standardize with navy nametapes/insignia instead of the ultramarine, that'd be an attractive option, but obviously we can live with what we have until the next shift in ABU comes around.  Look, no height/weight restrictions!

FLYING/UTILITY UNIFORM
Blue Not-Quite-Flight-Suit
Keep it, it works.  This is the only combo where full-color-on-navy grade insignia is authorized, as I recall, and it looks decent (better than the plastic-encased, anyway).  The NotQuiteFlightSuit is relatively inexpensive (the price of an embroidered Vanguard polo!), and putting the patches on is pretty straightforward.  You can tuck it into a small bag, and get suited up quicker than Clark Kent in a phone booth.  And, no height/weight restrictions.

EVERYTHING ELSE (NOT DRESSY)
Golf Shirt Combination
The shirt can use some tweaking.  
And when I say "tweaking," with so many other good options in quality, construction, and durability, the current polyester shirt is simply ridiculous.  
The thin material of the shirt looks cheap, and the cut of the shirt leaves much to be desired.  (1982 called, they want their fancy leisure shirt back.)  When I wear the "short sleeve polo," the sleeve goes down well past my elbows, and has a horrific shape to it.  Good-looking people don't even look good in this thing.  If I'm gonna get dinged $30 bucks for a polo shirt, I want something like a 5.11 brand polo that I can wash forever, beat the living heck out of, and it'll still hold up.  Vanguard's probably not listening, because the wholesale price on the blue shirt they have now is probably about $5, with the rest going to profit margin.
(If NHQ were serious about serving the membership, and not just keeping Vanguard happy, they'd issue a spec for a standard shirt color (navy blue) and set a standard seal sewing pattern and size, and let members get shirts built elsewhere.  I know for the $40 I dropped on my last Vanguard polo, I could have a great-looking, functional, and professional shirt made at almost any mall embroidery kiosk.)  
I'm just sayin', I think if we had a decent shirt to start with, a lot of the negative image of the polo would go away.  Plus, I'd authorize a long-sleeve polo for all seasons.  

....and the pants:
Since there's not a standard for the "gray dress pants," despite the specs put forth in 39-1, I'd recommend some sort of change. (As I recall, there was no greater logic to the decision to use gray pants, other than "everyone already has a pair in their closet."  The only exception is that most of our "aviator gray" uniform is derived from the standard basic IACE uniform for all countries, and even that isn't very standard.)  In the 21st century, I'd hazard a guess that more folks have khaki pants in their closet than gray slacks.

For meetings, flying, mission base, glad-handing at airshows, et cetera, a perfectly fine uniform would be a decent polo shirt and a clean pair of khakis (including, say, even "tactical khakis" -- a lot of law enforcement types go this way, and it looks good.).

Did I mention yet that there are no height/weight restrictions on these combinations?  You can look as good as you want in these.  It's often not the uniform that looks bad, honestly, it's the person wearing it.  If a uniform is sized properly, constructed of quality material, and worn according to instructions, generally speaking, it'll look good.  If something is badly tailored, if it's dirty, if it's the wrong size for the body type, or made of substandard materials, no matter who wears it, it'll generally look bad.

DRESS WEAR
For a Corporate uniform, I'm okay with the white aviator shirt combo with grey epaulets and the AF blue pants (since I just orphaned the "gray slacks" thing above).  ONE set of epaulets for everything from windbreakers to short sleeve to long sleeve to service dress (if we want to go with pin-on epaulets instead of embroidered, that's cool too, but make ONE standard set!).

[SOAPBOX]
(Folks, I've lost about 100 pounds since rejoining CAP a few years ago.  I've gone from wearing a XXL BBDU to teetering between a Medium and Large.  And I can tell you, it's not the weight that makes a uniform look bad, as much as it is the cut, the style, and the bearing of the wearer.)
[/SOAPBOX]

I have all the currently authorized combinations in my closet, except for the newest Corporate Dress Uniform (the coat version and the blue-epaulet version).  Perhaps we can save the Air Force versions for big public events (banquets, awards ceremonies, events with the actual Air Force), and concentrate more on making things actually UNIFORM most of the time.

Some of this is local commanders' prerogative -- my standard senior squadron is a quality outfit, but there's no standard "uniform of the day." At any given meeting, we'll see members in golf shirts, white/gray aviator uniforms, short sleeve CDU, full Air Force style service, dress, green flightsuits, and woodland BDUs.

We still get the job done, though. ;)  We just don't look like we shopped at the same place.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: MIKE on November 15, 2007, 09:05:31 PM
I dunno about these uniform threads...  ::)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JayT on November 15, 2007, 09:23:11 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on November 15, 2007, 07:14:41 PM
Three issues related to cost

1.  Establish in 39-1 a default Phase In/Phase Out period for uniform items. I'd recommend 3 years or so.  That way, the NB can worry about changes, but WE don't have to worry about having to buy new stuff every 6 months!

2. Tackle the fact that most cadets are breaking the rules and wearing civilian outerwear.    Get USAF to agree that cadets can wear civilian outer garments with uniforms.  This seems to be acceptable in JROTC land. 

3.  Establish a low cost navy blue  or black windbreaker that is wearable with all corporate uniforms.  It should be long enough to cover the BDU shirt.  It would go a long way towards low-cost uniformity.  If it was cheap enough, it could allow us to greatly reduce civilian outerwear for seniors.  Taken with #2 above, it could increase uniformity for ALL our members.

Excuse me, but I've never seen a JROTC cadet in a civilian jacket, but I bet the majority of CAP Cadets are in civilian jackets.

I'd like to see the M65 or the MA1 authorized for all uniforms.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jeders on November 15, 2007, 09:44:12 PM
Quote from: JThemann on November 15, 2007, 09:23:11 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on November 15, 2007, 07:14:41 PM
Three issues related to cost

1.  Establish in 39-1 a default Phase In/Phase Out period for uniform items. I'd recommend 3 years or so.  That way, the NB can worry about changes, but WE don't have to worry about having to buy new stuff every 6 months!

2. Tackle the fact that most cadets are breaking the rules and wearing civilian outerwear.    Get USAF to agree that cadets can wear civilian outer garments with uniforms.  This seems to be acceptable in JROTC land. 

3.  Establish a low cost navy blue  or black windbreaker that is wearable with all corporate uniforms.  It should be long enough to cover the BDU shirt.  It would go a long way towards low-cost uniformity.  If it was cheap enough, it could allow us to greatly reduce civilian outerwear for seniors.  Taken with #2 above, it could increase uniformity for ALL our members.

Excuse me, but I've never seen a JROTC cadet in a civilian jacket, but I bet the majority of CAP Cadets are in civilian jackets.

I'd like to see the M65 or the MA1 authorized for all uniforms.

My fiancee used to wear her high school letter jacket with her AFJROTC uniform.

I mostly have one request, don't get rid of the AF-style uniforms. They let us wear it, even if it is only some of us, so lets be proud of that.

I think dropping gray slacks altogether and going with just the blue AF-style slacks would be great. This is mostly because I have yet to see two people wearing the same shade/style of gray slacks. With the blue slacks we cut down on number of uniform combos if we keep the TPU CDU and they are easier to get in the same style/shade.

Keep the golf shirt but standardize it more. Also, I'd like to see everyones name embroidered on the golf shirt. Staring into a sea of people I don't know wearing golf shirts where only half, or less, have their name embroidered and I'm trying to find one person is very frustrating. If we required the name, leaving wings/badges optional, I think that would help not only uniformity but also me trying to find someone.

And as so many others have said, make a mandatory minimum phase in date and limit the number of changes that can be made on the fly, except for things like fix the typo on page xx.

Also, I like the idea of a permanent uniform board and virtual wear tests, this way us little members can comment on the things we have to spend money on and wear.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jb512 on November 15, 2007, 09:52:56 PM
Quote from: MIKE on November 15, 2007, 09:05:31 PM
I dunno about these uniform threads...  ::)

Well the good thing is that it seems like the basic stuff that people keep repeating over and over will be considered, while the off-the-wall things that one or two people come up with will be left way out there where they originated.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ZigZag911 on November 16, 2007, 06:31:15 AM
Several posters have suggested eliminating gray & whites.

There are some members -- I'm one! -- who don't have any
other uniforms.

If the principle here is not to cause members additional expense, eliminating this combination would cause a severe expense to some seniors.

Thank you, Colonel, for accepting this thankless task!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DrJbdm on November 16, 2007, 06:44:39 AM
Ok, this may be a little long but I'll weigh in with my suggestions and observations.

TPU & BLUE RANK SLIDES: I really love how the regular AF blue slides look with the AF cut white aviator shirt on the TPU. AF blue slides are cheaper and are more easily obtainable then the grey slides and besides they are cut with a taper so they fit the shirts nicer.

  However, I know some people have been asking to have those disapproved and removed and have only the standard grey CAP slides used so that everyone looks the same. While I think it's nice to look alike for the most part, I think it's nicer yet to have a uniform that looks really sharp and professional and is awfully close to a normal USAF uniform, and a white shirt is more then distinctive enough in every case. (I don't think we need to place CAP on the slides, the shirt is distinctive enough) Lets please keep the blue slides with the TPU.

METAL RANK INSIGNIA: I don't know why some people really want to eliminate the metal rank insignia from the TPU coat other then to match the AF service coat, I think the metal rank insignia looks so much more professional. I'm sure everyone agrees that grey slides on a blue jacket looks horrible. Besides, grey isn't really our heritage, blue is. There are other ways to meet the minimum distintive requirment for uniforms.

  I think we should be trying to earn the privilege of once again wearing metal rank and blue slides on the AF uniform. Eventually if we keep trying we will succeed. Let's not give up. Oh yes, please replace the silver braid on the TPU jacket with the current AF blue commissioning braid.

  Let's eliminate the grey/whites combo uniform, if we can't fit everyone into the TPU with some modifications for neatly trimmed facial hair then those members could wear the polo shirt.

  AF FLIGHT SUITS:  I love the idea of embroidered name tapes and cloth rank insignia on the AF flight suits; I think it looks a lot better. I wouldn't have any problem with using a USAF "standard" color scheme for the name tape or with allowing each wing to have their own color scheme.

  ABU:  With the ABU coming online sooner if not later, then we could look at eliminating the BBDU and putting all those who can't meet USAF weight/grooming standards into the current BDU's...they would be distinctive yet still appear military.

   Of course we might also have some success at convincing USAF to allow more variance in the regulations to allow more people to wear the ABU's. It might not work for the blues, but a field uniform is a different animal. It's worth considering. Please in any case get rid of the ultramarine blue! It's hideous! It makes our uniforms look like clown outfits, it does not present a professional appearance.

  HEIGHT/WEIGHT STANDARDS:  I don't know how possible it would be to ask AF to change our current height/weight charts with a more modern BMI (body mass index) chart, isn't that what they use for active duty troops? OR do all AD/reserve/ANG troops have to meet the "basic training" weight/height standard? Shouldn't we all play from the same rule book when it comes to issues of height/weight standards?

  Let's adopt Air Force Instruction 36-2903 --DRESS AND PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF AIR FORCE PERSONNEL as our uniform manual with CAP amendments where appropriate. It would be a lot easier to keep up with uniform changes and would provide better instructions then our current CAP uniform manual.

  MESS DRESS: I do have one more small request or idea for the mess dress uniform. I wouldn't mind adding in a little grey or silver to the braid and the shoulder boards. Currently the all blue color mixes in so well with the surrounding fabric color that you can't see the shoulder boards very well. It would make it look a little nicer and a little more like a dress uniform in my opinion. Of course my first choice would be to wear regular AF silver braid and shoulder boards with the mess dress uniform with the current CAP mess dress seal worn for the distinctive requirement. Let's keep it simple when it comes to meeting the distinctive requirement, sometimes less is more.

  Just my opinion on things. I think it's important to look sharp and professional when it comes to our color choices. (blue looks WAY sharper and professional then grey does)

  When it comes to uniform changes, we all seem to have an idea of what we want in the way of uniforms that fits whatever our image of what we think CAP should be. The important thing we should remember is that whatever we choose or approve will be judged by both military and civilians alike. Let's not do something that they would both consider to be cheesy. It just makes us looks bad.  Image IS everthing! Perception IS reality!





Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on November 16, 2007, 09:05:35 AM
Please clarify placement of wings and badges on the BDU/BBDU.

Table 6-6 says: "When placing multiple insignia in the same area, measure from the insignia to insignia not blue to blue."

However it doesn't say whether the first badge is blue-to-blue or white to white.

Please clarify placement of the CAP cutout on the M65 for seniors as well.  I could not find a measurement or spec (i.e. "center").
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on November 16, 2007, 12:08:04 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 16, 2007, 09:05:35 AM
Please clarify placement of the CAP cutout on the M65 for seniors as well.  I could not find a measurement or spec (i.e. "center").

Get rid of that cutout requirement!  The jacket already has a "Civil Air Patrol" branchtape. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on November 16, 2007, 02:17:21 PM
OK, maybe one of the medicos can help me out on this one.  And, I think this is important.

Ithink it is important to get everybody into ONE uniform.  Our meetings look like NATO conferences.

We cannot put everybody into AF uniforms because of the weight requirement in the uniform regulation.  But, in my usta-bee medical opinion, the weight standard is incomplete and wrong.

In the Army, we had the "Screening weight," above which the soldier had to be checked for body fat.  If the soldier was within the body fat standard, he was good to go.

The CAP standard attempts to address this by raising the screening weight by 10 percent over the AF standard, but eliminating a body fat consideration.

Taking my own records from the Army into account, my screening weight was 192.  Ten percent over that would be 211.  But in the Army, the lowest I ever got was 220, and I was always within the body fat standard.  Looking at my OER's, I was once as high as 231 and still within the body fat requirement and still passed the PT test.

Muscle weighs more than fat.  To meet the CAP weight standard, a muscular person must reduce both fat and muscle, which means he/she must actually AVOID exercise to try to meet the weight standard.

Since the regulation is being re-written, we have to address the weight issue as well.  Body fat is easy to measure and compute.  It can be done with non-medical personnel.

The Army standard for body fat is higher than the AF standard, but the measurement procedure is slightly different... In the Army the abdominal measurement is taken at the umbilicus, but the AF measures abdominal girth at the iliac crest.

We can go with either one, but the wheel is already invented.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on November 16, 2007, 02:33:28 PM
If anything comes from this uniform thing, I am in total agreement with Major K.  I would love to see body fat % as apposed to a weight table.  I barely am allowed into a CAP uniform, but yet I would be WAY under the upper limits if I were in the AF.  I am guessing that there are others like me?  I lost over 150 pounds to join the military, and I am on a strict lifting and cardio routine that has seen me through ROTC, OBC, C3, multiple deployments etc.  I guess you could say I "am huge".  All done without roids.

I must also say, I look better in the AF style uniform than those who "just make the weight table" because they carry around 50-100 pounds of extra FAT.  I am all for getting rid of the extra 10 percent on the weight, and anybody busting weight on the AF chart, would need to be taped for BF%. 

This is something that should have changed YEARS AGO!

Everyone should get out there and try to lose the weight anyway.  You will feel much better about yourself in the end.  AND you may actually live longer!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on November 16, 2007, 08:07:38 PM
While this is topic drift

The idea of body fat or BMI is tougher than you think. It requires local guys to do the calculations.  (anybody know where your "iliac crest" is?).  Given the training level of our local squadrons.....

Also, depending on the calculation method, it's not hard to cheat a bit (girdles, sucking in your gut, etc).  A true professional would not allow these things to happen - but CAP has the "nice guy" syndrome.   No one wants to be a hard a$$.  Plus, this would require folks to line up to be taped (unless you go with the honor system).

Sadly, I'm convinced that using anything other than a number on a scale will just end up being a loop hole to put lots of gut-sucking tubby guys (now there's a turn of phrase) in uniform.

Second issue - the USAF charts only go up to age 55+.  That's a major problem for us - one of the main reasons for our weight issues is our members' advanced age.  Coming up with age appropriate charts is no small feat.

I'd suggest first seeing if USAF will back off on the existing weight standard and put everyone in USAF suits (or at the very least, in USAF utility and flight suits).  If that fails, go for the corporate.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 16, 2007, 08:12:28 PM
Guys, lets please get back on topic now. We understand the issue over the weight standards for wear of the uniforms and will address this as well.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on November 16, 2007, 08:31:05 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on November 16, 2007, 02:17:21 PM
I think it is important to get everybody into ONE uniform.  Our meetings look like NATO conferences.


Boy do I agree with that.

But I wonder if CAP as a whole does.

It would be nice for any uniform committee to agree on the goals for the CAP uniform.

For example, imagine rank ordering the following things


1.  Presenting a single, uniform appearance to the public

2.  Resembling the USAF

3.  Keeping cost low.

4.  Giving members the ability to display their achievements and qualifications.

5.  Giving members alternative uniforms  to allow for individual fashion tastes.

6.  Resembling other ES organizations we might work with.

7.  Instill in the membership a sense of military culture (attention to detail, obeying authority, etc.)


Depending on how you rank order these things, the uniform decisions you make would be very different.  I'd wager a case of beer that the folks on this thread would not agree on what the correct order of priority should be.


I'd love to see some top level direction along these lines - tell the committee what you expect uniforms to DO, and then let them work the details of how to get there.


Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on November 16, 2007, 08:58:48 PM
Lets not forget any uniform committee will not be a cross cut of our organization.  Are Cadets going to be included?  Do you have any females?  What about size and type?  Do you have members that can't fit in a AF style uniform......we know how their votes most likely will go! 

I applaud the creation and work that will be done of this group.  I just think we may see unnecessary changes (costly as well), and some of our accomplishments regarding uniforms ("US" Cutouts" etc.) go away.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DrJbdm on November 16, 2007, 09:04:15 PM
I don't think we need to resemble other ES organizations...we really don't work with any except for State police and local Law Enforcement agencies. What we need to do is try and resemble USAF as close as we possibly can.. We will find ourselves much better off in the end.

 Yes, we have FAR too many uniform combos, everyone agrees on that. What we don't agree on is how to eliminate those combos. Here's what you do in my opinion:

1) Eliminate with a very short phase out period the whites/greys, they really serve no purpose anymore now that we have the TPU.

2) Eliminate the blazer uniforms. Members who can not / will not wear a military uniform can wear appropriate civilian dress to formal/semi formal receptions.

3) spell out MILSPEC standards for the white aviator shirt (for the TPU)

4) Restrict the wear of a standardized Polo shirt for those members who will not or can not fit into a military image. (You have those who simply WILL NOT want to wear a military looking uniform)

  Yes, I would love to phase out everything except for USAF uniforms but sadly that can't happen nor can we really lose the USAF uniforms. I would love to get rid of the BBDU and the blue flight suit/jumpsuit but once again we really can't.

5) Spell out MILSPEC standards for the BBDU and the blue NOMEX flight suit.

6) Once the ABU comes online for us to wear we should establish as short of a phase out period as we can for the BDU's otherwise we end up still looking like a NATO conference.

   I don't think there is much we can do to eliminate the NATO looking conferences unless we start restricting what uniforms can be worn and where they can be worn.  

 Let's keep the TPU as is except for some minor changes to the jacket ie: replace the ugly silver braid with the standard blue braid.

We can't change the USAF uniform, so leave it alone and start begging USAF for whatever changes we would like to see.

 Our major problems are the several different corporate uniforms that we have, not the rank insignia. We have four different corporate uniforms not counting the BBDU or the blue flight suit. We don't need to have both the TPU and the white/greys, and a blazer uniform, and a polo shirt uniform. Eliminate the white/greys and the blazer uniform.  Those steps would eliminate a large portion of the problems we face. Of course you will not please everyone.


Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: SeattleSarge on November 16, 2007, 09:19:21 PM
Since we seem to be so concerned about taking the star off NCO chevrons, I think we should also advocate placing a prop over each of the officer rank insignias.  Similar to the "A" on Coastie Aux insignia.  I mean fair is fair, right.

Seriously, lets make changes that don't cost the members any more money.  Eliminate or reduce speciality (expensive) insignia and reduce the authorized uniform combinations.

This shouldn't be hard.

-SeattleSarge
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on November 16, 2007, 09:22:51 PM
^  Right on!   Lets also get rid of some patches while we are at it.  Make the Wing Patches MANDATORY AGAIN!  If not, then eliminate them altogether.....don't give Wing Kings the varied amount of "options" they have regarding uniforms.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: 0 on November 16, 2007, 09:55:54 PM
Quote from: DrJbdm on November 16, 2007, 09:04:15 PM

 Our major problems are the several different corporate uniforms that we have, not the rank insignia. We have four different corporate uniforms not counting the BBDU or the blue flight suit. We don't need to have both the TPU and the white/greys, and a blazer uniform, and a polo shirt uniform. Eliminate the white/greys and the blazer uniform.  Those steps would eliminate a large portion of the problems we face. Of course you will not please everyone.


I agree with the grey and whites because there isn't a standard shade of grey.  But eliminating the polo, that's all some senior squadrons wear.  And remember this is to help save money so those that have them will have to spend more money.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: CS on November 16, 2007, 09:56:53 PM
Message to the committee short and sweet, stop making changes and issue an immediate moratorium on any changes for the next three years!

That's my suggestion from a member with over 30 years in CAP that has spent more money on CAP uniforms then I did the entire time I was at sea!

That is the only way you can stop the senseless spending of  CAP volunteer money.

(BTW, eliminate the sole contract with Vanguard, it has lines someone's pocket but not the members)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on November 16, 2007, 11:18:54 PM
I sent this to LtCol White as a PM, but I will share it with everyone for discussion.

It should be a goal to get everybody into one uniform.  One service dress, one BDU (or ABU, as the case may be), one flight suit.

Having the golf shirt as a casual uniform or uniform for the bearded guys is OK, and I don't think we can lose the blazer because its required for IACE.  The USAF has a golf shirt combo, as well.

So, I think there has to be two plans:

Plan "A" would be to get the USAF to back off substantially on the weight restrictions, and we can all wear the AF blue, ABU, and AF flight suits.  That's how it was for many years, with no problems. 

If that fails, go to Plan "B:"

Plan B would be to adopt the BBDU and Blue flight suit CAP-wide, over an extended phase-in period. Plan B would be to also design a new corporate uniform that follows the style of the AF Hap Arnold Heritage uniform, but is sufficiently different to be considered "Our" corporate thread.  As the AF put their Hap A. uniform into the field, we can also phase in OUR Hap Arnold uniform.

The result would be that we would all be dressed alike... one team, one uniform... and we would look like a part of the AF, although different enough to be identifiable as our own gang.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ZigZag911 on November 17, 2007, 12:01:26 AM
Quote from: DrJbdm on November 16, 2007, 09:04:15 PM

1) Eliminate with a very short phase out period the whites/greys, they really serve no purpose anymore now that we have the TPU.

2) Eliminate the blazer uniforms. Members who can not / will not wear a military uniform can wear appropriate civilian dress to formal/semi formal receptions.


Responses:

1) not everyone can fit into TPU; further, not everyone can afford it

2) why?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DrJbdm on November 17, 2007, 03:46:17 AM
I'm sure there are some members who are simply too big too fit into the TPU, those members should consider the golf shirt combo or better yet just losing weight. If you are too big to fit into the upper sizes of the TPU you have more problems then we can solve. my goal isn't to find something that even the morbidly obese can fit into, it's to find something that MOST of us can wear. Most members of CAP are within 25 pounds or so of being able to wear the AF uniform.

  If you are morbidly obese then CAP probably isn't for you.

  As for the blazer combo, as John K. pointed out I guess we have to keep that one because it's required for IACE, BUT it could be restricted to only that activity. we need to trim down the uniforms. But you will never convice some to drop the white/greys and you will never convince others to drop the AF uniform. personally I think it's an almost impossible task to trim down the uniforms with out pissing off half the membership.

   Although I have yet to hear a persuasive argument as to why we couldn't drop the white/greys? you  can't use weight or fuzzy for the argument because the polo shirt covers that section of the membership.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: O-Rex on November 17, 2007, 04:36:06 AM
Quote from: DrJbdm on November 17, 2007, 03:46:17 AM
I'm sure there are some members who are simply too big too fit into the TPU, those members should consider the golf shirt combo or better yet just losing weight. If you are too big to fit into the upper sizes of the TPU you have more problems then we can solve. my goal isn't to find something that even the morbidly obese can fit into, it's to find something that MOST of us can wear. Most members of CAP are within 25 pounds or so of being able to wear the AF uniform.

  If you are morbidly obese then CAP probably isn't for you.

  As for the blazer combo, as John K. pointed out I guess we have to keep that one because it's required for IACE, BUT it could be restricted to only that activity. we need to trim down the uniforms. But you will never convice some to drop the white/greys and you will never convince others to drop the AF uniform. personally I think it's an almost impossible task to trim down the uniforms with out pissing off half the membership.

   Although I have yet to hear a persuasive argument as to why we couldn't drop the white/greys? you  can't use weight or fuzzy for the argument because the polo shirt covers that section of the membership.


The blazer has it's place:  I wore it only once when I gave a presentation on CAP to a VFW post-given the target audience and fraternal atmosohere, I thought something a bit 'understated' was more appropriate (also gave me the Op to wear my own VFW garrison cap.)

You rarely see them anyway.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JayT on November 17, 2007, 04:37:24 AM
Quote from: DrJbdm on November 17, 2007, 03:46:17 AM
I'm sure there are some members who are simply too big too fit into the TPU, those members should consider the golf shirt combo or better yet just losing weight. If you are too big to fit into the upper sizes of the TPU you have more problems then we can solve. my goal isn't to find something that even the morbidly obese can fit into, it's to find something that MOST of us can wear. Most members of CAP are within 25 pounds or so of being able to wear the AF uniform.

  If you are morbidly obese then CAP probably isn't for you.

  As for the blazer combo, as John K. pointed out I guess we have to keep that one because it's required for IACE, BUT it could be restricted to only that activity. we need to trim down the uniforms. But you will never convice some to drop the white/greys and you will never convince others to drop the AF uniform. personally I think it's an almost impossible task to trim down the uniforms with out pissing off half the membership.

   Although I have yet to hear a persuasive argument as to why we couldn't drop the white/greys? you  can't use weight or fuzzy for the argument because the polo shirt covers that section of the membership.


Can't wear ribbons on a golf shirt.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: baronet68 on November 17, 2007, 05:31:08 AM
My opinion won't be popular but here goes:



Generally speaking:
USAF uniform = Cadet
Corporate uniform = Senior Member
Golf shirt = Everyone
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on November 17, 2007, 02:06:59 PM
Quote from: baronet68 on November 17, 2007, 05:31:08 AM
My opinion won't be popular but here goes:

  • Eliminate USAF service dress uniforms for ALL Senior Members (sunset date tied to USAF sunset for adoption of Heritage uniform)
  • Maintain USAF service dress uniforms for Cadets only
  • Authorize CSU/TPU for Senior Members only
  • Authorize golf shirt w/Khaki pants for ALL members
  • Eliminate Woodland BDU for Senior Members (sunset date same as USAF)
  • Authorize ABU for Cadets only
  • Authorize BBDU for Senior Members only
  • Eliminate USAF flight suits and replace with blue flight suit (sunset ~5 years)
  • Leave Blazer and Mess Dress as is


Generally speaking:
USAF uniform = Cadet
Corporate uniform = Senior Member
Golf shirt = Everyone

I think your plan would be more popular than you think, Mike.  Just a few changes in the TPU would make it acceptable.  Losing the silly silver braid, for example, and permitting military badges and ribbons.

The biggest problem with your plan would be the phase-in of the blue flight suit.  That gets real costly. The BBDU could be phased in as the BDU's wear out, but the blue flight suit costs like $275 or more.

Personally, my plan would be pretty much the same as yours, but I would also phase in a "CAP Corporate" version of the Hap Arnold uniform.  I still think the TPU looks like a yacht club commodore's uniform, or an admiral from some third-world patrol-boat navy.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on November 17, 2007, 02:57:48 PM
I think some folks are getting more than a little carried away here.  I didn't hear a request to totally re-vamp CAP's uniform system. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on November 17, 2007, 03:07:21 PM
That was my point earlier.  The Air Force is completely re-vamping theirs.  The BDU is going away in favor of the ABU, and the current 3-button McPeak service dress blue is going away, being replaced by the Hap Arnold Heritage uniform.

That's why we should be looking ahead for a uniform for CAP through the mid-21st Century. 

There is no reason our organization should look like an anachronism just because our airplanes still have propellers.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on November 17, 2007, 03:14:43 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on November 17, 2007, 02:57:48 PM
I think some folks are getting more than a little carried away here.  I didn't hear a request to totally re-vamp CAP's uniform system. 

Agreed!  Keep what we have......don't make people BUY MORE CRAP.  If you want to work on the TPU.....that is fine with me.  But unless you are removing the Grey rank slides for metal rank, or putting blue slides in place of the grey ones on the AF style Service Dress......DON'T TOUCH that uniform.  There is nothing that needs "reworked" other than what I just commented on.  If you (uniform decider's) make me buy a new nameplate to match the TPU nameplate, and take the "US" cutouts off so we can put "CAP" cutouts on to match the TPU.....or whatever else you decide the AF style needs to match the fatties in the TPU, I will be so disappointed.  

Perhaps instead of creating a uniform committee....a Health and wellness committee should be created and we can start working on the REAL problem here.  The FAT people, who can't fit into the AF style.  

Here is a suggestion, sweat pants and t-shirts as a new uniform for those that have found they can't wear AF style, and have trouble finding a TPU jacket big enough!

Stop eating the donuts, start walking around.......invest sometime to improve yourselves.  You body will thank you later.  

I think the TPU is fine as it is.  We already saw AF come down and take away items off of it, I seriously doubt we will get those back anytime soon.  So what luck is there to retooling that uniform?  NONE!  Instead those that can't wear the AF style, will most likely punish those that can.  That is my prediction.  The first changes we see will be to the AF style, not the TPU.  

What a sad day.  

(BTW.....if anyone needs help on starting a walking routine or weight loss program, the American Heart Association website is a good place to start)

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JayT on November 17, 2007, 03:19:42 PM
Was it really the Air Force that pulled the US devices off of the TPU?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: arajca on November 17, 2007, 03:20:53 PM
Under items the wing commander can authorize, remove the white helmet liner for ES.

Kill the Honor Guard uniform.

Create a new section, "Special Purpose Uniform Items", to allow for safety vests, hard hats, color guard equipment, shoulder cords, and other limited use items, instead of having them scattered throughout the manual. Provide specifications for each item, ie under "hard hat" include "OSHA compliant."

Move the shoulder cord back to the top of the epaulet. Prohibit the shoulder cord on non-service uniforms (bdu's, flight suits, etc).

Sepcifically include or exclude the first sergeant diamond. That would solve a long running argument about whether it is authorized (IAW CAPR 52-16) or not (IAW CAPM 39-1).

Keep the USAF flightsuits. Some wings and regions mandate wearing nomex flightsuits for flying and this keeps an affordable supply available. Loose the plastic grade insignia, though.

Change the bdu and bbdu tapes and insignia to a navy or midnight blue background with a 6 year phase in to allow for consumption of current stocks. Include a requirement that all insignia and tapes must have the same color background on the uniform, ie no ultramarine GTM badge with navy CAP tape. Either all ultramarine or all navy/midnight blue.

For all insignia, create standard specifications using industry standard nomenclature, ie Shade #### blue instead of navy blue, specific measurements for nametag sizes and fonts, etc. NO BRAND NAMES OR BRAND SPECIFIC NAMES!

With the golf shirt, authorize a bdu-style pant that is the same, or nearly the same, color as the regular pant as a working uniform.

As mentioned earlier, authorize a semiformal version of the CSU - AF blue bow tie, mini-medals instead of ribbons, no name tag. A few folks have advocated changing the mess dress should boards to silver or grey braid instead of blue, however the AF uses silver braid on its mess dress boards, so that probably wouldn't be approved.

More to follow...
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on November 17, 2007, 03:26:48 PM
Kach, its not as if uniforms will not continue to be discussed and changed at every national board, NEC, or BoG meeting.  We should be taking this opportunity to fix actual problems with the manual concerning what we have now.  ABU won't be an issue for several more years so we can worry about it then. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on November 17, 2007, 03:29:50 PM
Quote from: JThemann on November 17, 2007, 03:19:42 PM
Was it really the Air Force that pulled the US devices off of the TPU?

Yes.....and the rank off the flight cap.  They were also behind the silver braid.  And the addition of the CAP Cutout to the Army black windbreaker.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: MIKE on November 17, 2007, 03:55:07 PM
To those that would discontinue the Air Force style uniforms for those of us who may not be the typical senior member and can actually fit into the uniform without strain, in favor of TPUs and Field Uniforms cause it makes you feel better about yourselves... I say Boooooo and begin heckling.

You should be glad I don't have any rotten vegetables handy... As your TPUs would need a through dry cleaning.

It had to be said.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JCW0312 on November 17, 2007, 04:13:11 PM
I guess I got a little confused along this topic. Is LtCol White updating 39-1 or the uniforms all together? Or both?  ???
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JCW0312 on November 17, 2007, 04:14:53 PM
OK. Nevermind. I just re-re-read his original post "to resolve our uniform issues and also revise CAPM39-1".

I love it when I answer my own questions. I just dont know whether to feel smart or really dumb.  :)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: riffraff on November 17, 2007, 05:09:41 PM
Quote from: arajca on November 17, 2007, 03:20:53 PM
Some wings and regions mandate wearing nomex flightsuits for flying and this keeps an affordable supply available.

Nomex affords near-zero protection for the types of fires that occur in G-A aircraft. They were designed to provide a few seconds protection from high-temp, flash-fires -- i.e. just enough time to eject/abandon military jet aircraft.

A blue cotton flight suit made to the same pattern/specs as the CWU-27 would be just as effective/ineffective. Flight Suits makes them for about $100 and they are lightyears better than the POS Vanguard is selling.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DrJbdm on November 17, 2007, 05:26:50 PM
getting rid of AF flight suits for the blue flight suit makes no sense unless CAP starts issuing them. right now a good condition nomex AF flight suit can be had for around $30 used, that is many times less expensive then the the $240 price of a blue flight suit that you would have an extremely hard time buying used in order to save money.

  I don't know if a nomex flight suit offers me any protection or not but I think if I was in a fire I would rather be wearing a nomex flight suit that may offer some protection then in a cotten flight suit that will offer no protection.


Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: arajca on November 17, 2007, 05:50:26 PM
Quote from: riffraff on November 17, 2007, 05:09:41 PM
Quote from: arajca on November 17, 2007, 03:20:53 PM
Some wings and regions mandate wearing nomex flightsuits for flying and this keeps an affordable supply available.

Nomex affords near-zero protection for the types of fires that occur in G-A aircraft. They were designed to provide a few seconds protection from high-temp, flash-fires -- i.e. just enough time to eject/abandon military jet aircraft.

A blue cotton flight suit made to the same pattern/specs as the CWU-27 would be just as effective/ineffective. Flight Suits makes them for about $100 and they are lightyears better than the POS Vanguard is selling.
I'm not commenting on the protection value of the flight suits, merely stating that some wings/regions require them and if the AF flight suit is not authorized, many aircrew will drop out instead of paying $200+ for a CAP blue flightsuit.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ZigZag911 on November 17, 2007, 06:30:07 PM
Actually, two of my closest friends retired from the military -- one served over 30 years as an officer in AF reserve, the other over 35 years as a Army reserve NCO.

Both did active duty tours before changing to reserves, somewhere around 6  to 8 years.

Both strongly believe that CAP senior members should get out of USAF uniforms, for several reasons -- most of all, we are not AF officers, we are only AF auxiliary part of the time, and since the reality is that even those blessed few who fit in the uniforms frequently wear them improperly, as a matter of respect for our parent service (part time though it is!) we should refrain from wearing their uniforms.

They also think that neither seniors nor cadets should wear BDUs (or ABUs, when those become available to CAP); they view these uniforms as the working garb of combat soldiers.

I am inclined to agree with them and I think, therefore, with Kach & Baronet. I can live with the TPU if need be....I'll get the darn thing tailored! I'm certainly not going to be run off at this late date over a uniform! Or the expense associated with it.

I agree with Kach, phase in for the blue flight suit needs to be stretched way out....in fact, might be best to leave this one completely alone....is it that big a deal if some air crew wear the blue and some the green? Especially if we manage to standardize everything else?

However -- how many of the would-be Rambos (or Steve Canyons) will we lose if they can't dress up like the Big Air Force?!?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on November 17, 2007, 07:08:24 PM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on November 17, 2007, 06:30:07 PM
However -- how many of the would-be Rambos (or Steve Canyons) will we lose if they can't dress up like the Big Air Force?!?

As a person who wears a uniform 6 out of 7 days a week, and as an Officer, and a combat veteran with multiple deployments since 2001, I don't think I agree with you or your friends.  CAP has worn a military uniform before the AF existed, and will continue to (most likely after the AF is disbanded).  The military allows CAP to wear a uniform, CAP does not force the military to allow it.  BDU's are no more a combat uniform than t-shirts and shorts.  Seriously, multiple groups in this country wear a variant of the BDU, because of it's practicality, not because they want to be Rambo. 

You are right, that if people like you had their way and got rid of the AF style, we WOULD lose members.  Cadets would disappear first, then many SM's would follow suit.   

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on November 17, 2007, 07:37:27 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on November 17, 2007, 07:08:24 PM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on November 17, 2007, 06:30:07 PM
However -- how many of the would-be Rambos (or Steve Canyons) will we lose if they can't dress up like the Big Air Force?!?

As a person who wears a uniform 6 out of 7 days a week, and as an Officer, and a combat veteran with multiple deployments since 2001, I don't think I agree with you or your friends.  CAP has worn a military uniform before the AF existed, and will continue to (most likely after the AF is disbanded).  The military allows CAP to wear a uniform, CAP does not force the military to allow it.  BDU's are no more a combat uniform than t-shirts and shorts.  Seriously, multiple groups in this country wear a variant of the BDU, because of it's practicality, not because they want to be Rambo. 

You are right, that if people like you had their way and got rid of the AF style, we WOULD lose members.  Cadets would disappear first, then many SM's would follow suit.   



I'm not a would-be Rambo or Steve Canyon, more like a "Usta-be." 

I do think we need to respect the tradition of CAP wearing the AF uniform with special insignia to differentiate us from the USAF.  That honor was earned in combat, and has been a tradition for many years. 

I stated that our goal should be to get ALL of the CAP into one uniform, however.

Recognizing that everything Mikey said about weight and fitness is absolutely correct, we are still second-line troops.  Always have been, and always will be.  That has to be taken into account.

Back in the 1960's, weight of officers in CAP was not an issue, we all wore the AF uniform.  If the AF is unwilling to relent on the weight issue, then I think the goal of getting everybody into one uniform should trump other considerations.

The TPU is a supposed to be a sorta-air force uniform, and is a good starting point.

I disagree with River in that if we are re-writing 39-1, we SHOULD write it so it will not have to be changed, tinkered with, and modified every year.  That means looking ahead to what our parent service is doing, and structuring our uniforms based on theirs.

Look ahead, not around.  Minimal changes to existing uniforms, and plan for introduction of new uniforms in the very near future.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on November 17, 2007, 08:09:48 PM
QuoteI disagree with River in that if we are re-writing 39-1, we SHOULD write it so it will not have to be changed, tinkered with, and modified every year.  That means looking ahead to what our parent service is doing, and structuring our uniforms based on theirs.
What SHOULD be and what WILL be are two entirely different things.  We just have to accept the fact that CAP will constantly be making uniform changes.  Just a quick look at this thread alone shows that just about every CAP member has some pet peeves or wish-list for what they would like the uniform to be and we're probably no different, and possibly worse, in that regard than the people running CAP.  When we were offerred a chance to make suggestions, we all took the opportunity to advise changing something.  It will always be such.

Only a few lone voices said "No changes at all for X years".
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 17, 2007, 08:47:22 PM
Our goal is to make the changes, adjustments and tweeks to the uniforms and update 39-1 so that there isn't a need for revisions for a few years. We are also addressing the new USAF service coat now so that in a few years when it comes to us, its already done and ready for wear without further revisions. Same is being done with the ABU. Gen Courter understands the frustration with the myriad of changes and this is why we are doing this now to address issues and give the uniforms a rest so that that organization can stabilize.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: baronet68 on November 17, 2007, 09:11:33 PM
Quote from: MIKE on November 17, 2007, 03:55:07 PM
To those that would discontinue the Air Force style uniforms for those of us who may not be the typical senior member and can actually fit into the uniform without strain, in favor of TPUs and Field Uniforms cause it makes you feel better about yourselves... I say Boooooo and begin heckling...

I am one of those atypical members who easily fits into the USAF uniform but I think it's time we become a unified organization among our adult members... instead, we have a battle of fat & fuzzy vs. fit & smooth - as evidenced by this comment:

Quote from: mikeylikey on November 17, 2007, 03:14:43 PM
...those that can't wear the AF style, will most likely punish those that can.


Anyone who feels "punished" by changing/eliminating USAF uniforms needs to rethink why they joined CAP. 

</sidetrack>
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on November 17, 2007, 09:23:36 PM
As might those who would discard almost 70 years of tradition to our parent service and its predecessor. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 17, 2007, 09:34:22 PM
To dispell any doubt or confusion, the USAF uniforms are NOT and will NOT be proposed to be discarded. Neither will the Corporate Service uniform. The goal is to closer align the 2 in insignia and have one for one of USAF and Corporate uniforms. Clarify the guidelines for each, eliminate confusion and create clarity, and clean up the appearance of the uniform closet.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jayleswo on November 17, 2007, 09:42:06 PM
Lt Col White. I am very glad to hear that the Committee will not consider proposals to discard wear of the AF-style uniforms.

I know that one of the objectives of the current committee is to adopt cost conscious measures. One thing that some of the comments I have read concerning adoption of corporate (CAP distinctive) uniforms only for Seniors is that they fail to consider the wide availability of surplus/used Air Force uniforms from a considerable number of sources (DRMO, eBay, surplus stores, thrift shops, retired/separating AF service members, etc.). This really keeps the cost down for CAP Cadets and Senior Members. For example, I obtained a Service Dress Uniform jacket and pants for $15 off eBay. $40 for jacket, pants and cummerbund for Mess Dress. Quite a deal. I would imagine there are not enough CAP members to make the same availability of used uniforms for low cost.

As to the comments that a NOMEX flight suit is not of value - I happen to know that it is and I will take any protection I can get as an aircrew member.

I do agree that unifying the insignia and wear criteria for both the AF-style and CAP Distinctive uniforms is an excellent goal.

John Aylesworth, Lt Col
Commander PCR-CA-151
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ironputts on November 17, 2007, 09:54:02 PM
Sir,

I would like to suggest a nametag for the pullover sweater. I have asked for this change through channels and received only negative responses. I wear the pullover sweater about 3 months of the year and hate walking into a room not knowing peoples names, unlike all our other uniforms, due to no nametags. Per the CAP regs, we don't wear nametags on the sweaters. The cost would be minimal buying another name tag and would follow the Air Force regulations which I will post our current CAP reg and the current Air Force reg on the sweater. I have pics of the Air Force uniform with the name tags if you want them. I am former Army and was always used to the nametag on the sweater. No one believes the Air Force wears it on their sweaters. It just makes sense to me!

CAPM 39-1 23 MARCH 2005                      35
NOTES:
1. Grade Insignia: Senior member officers NCOs and Airman wear embroidered grade insignia on gray
epaulet sleeve. Cadet officers wear metal grade insignia on blue shoulder mark insignia. Cadet
NCOs and Airmen wear metal chevrons on right side of shirt collar.
2. CAP Lapel/Collar Insignia: Senior and cadet members without grade wear highly polished metal
CAP cutouts on both sides of shirt collar. Cadet NCOs and airmen wear cutout on left side of collar.
3. Wing/Region/National Shoulder Patch: Worn 1/2 inch below the shoulder seam of the left sleeve
centered on epaulet.
4. Tie/tab is optional when short-sleeve shirt/blouse is worn.
Figure 2-20. Men's and Women's Pullover Sweater


AFI36-2903 2 AUGUST 2006                                          29
Figure 2.9. Pullover Sweater.
NOTES:
1. Place metallic nametag on wearer's right side with the bottom of the nametag level centered
between the middle of the sleeve seam and the seam of the neckline; position at an appropriate
level down from shoulder seam (applicable to both male and female).
2. May be worn indoors or outdoors.
3. Tie/Tab is optional.
4. Collar of shirt may be worn inside or outside of sweater.
5. Sleeves may not be worn pushed up.
6. Officers and Senior NCOs wear shoulder mark rank insignia. All other enlisted members wear
metal rank insignia 5/8 inch from edge and centered. Center horizontally on the epaulet, with bottom
of insignia 1-inch from shoulder seam.
7. Sweater may be tucked under as illustrated above.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 17, 2007, 10:16:50 PM
To everyone posting on here, please rest assured that I do read every post thoroughly and make notes of suggestions and commonalities. I try not to post replies unless there is an issue that needs clarification as I have done already.

I value everyone's feedback and input and no post goes undread whether I agree with it or not. I ask that everyone be respectful of eachother's opinions and ideas.

As I stated in the original announcement of this committee, we recognize that we will not be able to please everyone and be everything to everyone. Every recommendation being made by the committee is being done with "cost to the member" as a forefront as well as the appearance and image of the organization. No frivilous changes will be recommened. We are attempting to put an end to the "identity crisis" that seems to have developed with our uniforms. 

Next week, I will be able to being posting photos of what the committee feels is in the best interest of CAP for everyone's comment and review. I think most will be quite pleased with what is to be proposed up the chain.


Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: riffraff on November 17, 2007, 10:26:43 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 17, 2007, 09:34:22 PM
To dispel any doubt or confusion, the USAF uniforms are NOT and will NOT be proposed to be discarded. Neither will the Corporate Service uniform. The goal is to closer align the 2 in insignia and have one for one of USAF and Corporate uniforms. Clarify the guidelines for each, eliminate confusion and create clarity, and clean up the appearance of the uniform closet.

I mean this respectfully but what you're describing is really just another round of minor uniform revisions. Your statement implies that CAP acknowledges the existence of at least two distinct subgroups within its senior membership that will continue to wear distinctly separate uniforms -- one for fat & fuzzies and another for smooth & fit. I'm completely at a loss as to why CAP isn't moving towards one line of uniforms? Granted that one line would have to be non-USAF.

So the fundamental problem will remain: not all members can wear USAF uniforms.
- USAF will not (and IMO, should not) compromise their standards any more than they already have.
- CAP will not let go of the USAF uniforms despite X percentage of the membership not being able to wear them.

Which leaves us right where we are today -- a complete lack of uniformity.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 17, 2007, 10:59:34 PM
Quote from: riffraff on November 17, 2007, 10:26:43 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 17, 2007, 09:34:22 PM
To dispel any doubt or confusion, the USAF uniforms are NOT and will NOT be proposed to be discarded. Neither will the Corporate Service uniform. The goal is to closer align the 2 in insignia and have one for one of USAF and Corporate uniforms. Clarify the guidelines for each, eliminate confusion and create clarity, and clean up the appearance of the uniform closet.

I mean this respectfully but what you're describing is really just another round of minor uniform revisions. Your statement implies that CAP acknowledges the existence of at least two distinct subgroups within its senior membership that will continue to wear distinctly separate uniforms -- one for fat & fuzzies and another for smooth & fit. I'm completely at a loss as to why CAP isn't moving towards one line of uniforms? Granted that one line would have to be non-USAF.

So the fundamental problem will remain: not all members can wear USAF uniforms.
- USAF will not (and IMO, should not) compromise their standards any more than they already have.
- CAP will not let go of the USAF uniforms despite X percentage of the membership not being able to wear them.

Which leaves us right where we are today -- a complete lack of uniformity.

CAP is an Air Force organization. As such, the Air Force uniforms are at the core of the organization. Plain and simple. The organization doesn't change to conform to members, members change to conform to the organization. There are rules and regulations that have to be followed. CAP will never propose dropping the USAF uniforms.

What we ARE doing is aligning the USAF/Corporate service uniforms so that it is clearer that they belong to the same organization and will create a greater sense of unity. ALL changes are minor changes and always will be until there is a major uniform change such as BDU to ABU. We are trying to address all the issues out there still remaining so that there doesn't have to be anymore changes for a few years.

Air Force isn't going to completely change its standards for CAP's wear of its uniform because we want them to just as CAP isn't going to drop the wear of the Air Force uniform because some members want them to.

We work within the realm of what is required and what is possible. You don't propose things that you know in advance will be turned down or considered ridiculous because you lose your credibility in doing this. When you act like a petulant child, you will be treated as one. In many cases, this has been part of our problem. Children don't demand action of the parents and to USAF, we are the child.

This being said, there will be a greater sense of unity once the changes are approved and implemented.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jeders on November 17, 2007, 11:37:36 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 17, 2007, 10:59:34 PM
Quote from: riffraff on November 17, 2007, 10:26:43 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 17, 2007, 09:34:22 PM
To dispel any doubt or confusion, the USAF uniforms are NOT and will NOT be proposed to be discarded. Neither will the Corporate Service uniform. The goal is to closer align the 2 in insignia and have one for one of USAF and Corporate uniforms. Clarify the guidelines for each, eliminate confusion and create clarity, and clean up the appearance of the uniform closet.

I mean this respectfully but what you're describing is really just another round of minor uniform revisions. Your statement implies that CAP acknowledges the existence of at least two distinct subgroups within its senior membership that will continue to wear distinctly separate uniforms -- one for fat & fuzzies and another for smooth & fit. I'm completely at a loss as to why CAP isn't moving towards one line of uniforms? Granted that one line would have to be non-USAF.

So the fundamental problem will remain: not all members can wear USAF uniforms.
- USAF will not (and IMO, should not) compromise their standards any more than they already have.
- CAP will not let go of the USAF uniforms despite X percentage of the membership not being able to wear them.

Which leaves us right where we are today -- a complete lack of uniformity.

CAP is an Air Force organization. As such, the Air Force uniforms are at the core of the organization. Plain and simple. The organization doesn't change to conform to members, members change to conform to the organization. There are rules and regulations that have to be followed. CAP will never propose dropping the USAF uniforms.

What we ARE doing is aligning the USAF/Corporate service uniforms so that it is clearer that they belong to the same organization and will create a greater sense of unity. ALL changes are minor changes and always will be until there is a major uniform change such as BDU to ABU. We are trying to address all the issues out there still remaining so that there doesn't have to be anymore changes for a few years.

Air Force isn't going to completely change its standards for CAP's wear of its uniform because we want them to just as CAP isn't going to drop the wear of the Air Force uniform because some members want them to.

We work within the realm of what is required and what is possible. You don't propose things that you know in advance will be turned down or considered ridiculous because you lose your credibility in doing this. When you act like a petulant child, you will be treated as one. In many cases, this has been part of our problem. Children don't demand action of the parents and to USAF, we are the child.

This being said, there will be a greater sense of unity once the changes are approved and implemented.


I realize this adds little to the discussion at hand, but thank you and amen.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 17, 2007, 11:38:40 PM
Actually it does because its directly related to what is possible and what is not.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: riffraff on November 17, 2007, 11:56:15 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 17, 2007, 10:59:34 PMCAP is an Air Force organization. As such, the Air Force uniforms are at the core of the organization. Plain and simple. The organization doesn't change to conform to members, members change to conform to the organization. There are rules and regulations that have to be followed. CAP will never propose dropping the USAF uniforms.

I'm not disagreeing with your logic. However your statement contradicts current CAP practices. We have changed the organization to conform to the members. If we hadn't, the only uniforms would be USAF uniforms. Why else would these corporate uniforms exist? Standards were lowered/dropped to accommodate a larger pool of potential members. This is what created the uniform mess that exists today.

For whatever reason, CAP cannot or will not make the decision that clearly needs to be made.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 18, 2007, 12:14:10 AM
Quote from: riffraff on November 17, 2007, 11:56:15 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 17, 2007, 10:59:34 PMCAP is an Air Force organization. As such, the Air Force uniforms are at the core of the organization. Plain and simple. The organization doesn't change to conform to members, members change to conform to the organization. There are rules and regulations that have to be followed. CAP will never propose dropping the USAF uniforms.

I'm not disagreeing with your logic. However your statement contradicts current CAP practices. We have changed the organization to conform to the members. If we hadn't, the only uniforms would be USAF uniforms. Why else would these corporate uniforms exist? Standards were lowered/dropped to accommodate a larger pool of potential members. This is what created the uniform mess that exists today.

For whatever reason, CAP cannot or will not make the decision that clearly needs to be made.

That is because CAP doesn't have to be as rigid as USAF. There was a move to accomodate members who could not meet USAF standards in order to be inclusive. There has always been an option for those members. Only in recent times have the numerous options been added and that is what is causing the problems outlined by all the members here. There is and has to be a limit to that accomodation. You don't make a complete change from your core entity for the sake of being inclusive.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: riffraff on November 18, 2007, 12:38:23 AM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 18, 2007, 12:14:10 AMThat is because CAP doesn't have to be as rigid as USAF. There was a move to accomodate members who could not meet USAF standards in order to be inclusive. There has always been an option for those members. Only in recent times have the numerous options been added and that is what is causing the problems outlined by all the members here. There is and has to be a limit to that accomodation. You don't make a complete change from your core entity for the sake of being inclusive.

Again, I agree with your statements. USAF has accomodated CAP by the allowances given for height/weight. It should have ended there.

I guess my question is how does CAP move back to its core? IMO, continuing down the path of two separate uniforms (USAF and Corporate) is a really bad idea. I'm all for being inclusive but where does CAP draw the line? More importantly, does CAP have the will to draw the line? To the latter, I'd say the answer is no.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: SarDragon on November 18, 2007, 01:48:46 AM
Quote from: DrJbdm on November 16, 2007, 09:04:15 PM
I don't think we need to resemble other ES organizations...we really don't work with any except for State police and local Law Enforcement agencies. What we need to do is try and resemble USAF as close as we possibly can.. We will find ourselves much better off in the end.

 Yes, we have FAR too many uniform combos, everyone agrees on that. What we don't agree on is how to eliminate those combos. Here's what you do in my opinion:

1) Eliminate with a very short phase out period the whites/greys, they really serve no purpose anymore now that we have the TPU.

Sure they do. That's what the fuzzies wear.

Quote2) Eliminate the blazer uniforms. Members who can not / will not wear a military uniform can wear appropriate civilian dress to formal/semi formal receptions.

I don't see that going away. That was our first "corporate" uniform, and conveys membership and rank without being too civilian.

Quote3) spell out MILSPEC standards for the white aviator shirt (for the TPU)

When the uniform was first introduced, the specific Van Heusen style was noted at least in the Bookstore catalog, and perhaps in the introduction letter. I was inactive when that uniform was introduced.

[39-1 text: (3) Shirt. White, dress type, or white turtleneck
sweater (regular or mock). The aviator shirt (white dress
shirt with epaulets) is also authorized. This shirt is a
special manufactured item available through the CAP
Bookstore.]

Quote4) Restrict the wear of a standardized Polo shirt for those members who will not or can not fit into a military image. (You have those who simply WILL NOT want to wear a military looking uniform)

Yup. the fuzzies need something to wear.

QuoteYes, I would love to phase out everything except for USAF uniforms but sadly that can't happen nor can we really lose the USAF uniforms. I would love to get rid of the BBDU and the blue flight suit/jumpsuit but once again we really can't.

5) Spell out MILSPEC standards for the BBDU and the blue NOMEX flight suit.

You betcha we can't. As for MILSPECS, I don't see it happening. The military doesn't issue either item on a wide scale basis, and the olde issue items already have military alphabet soup assigned. Getting that info into the reg would be easy, but actually enforcing it would be difficult at best.

Quote6) Once the ABU comes online for us to wear we should establish as short of a phase out period as we can for the BDU's otherwise we end up still looking like a NATO conference.

Availability and member wallets should have a bearing on that.

QuoteI don't think there is much we can do to eliminate the NATO looking conferences unless we start restricting what uniforms can be worn and where they can be worn.  

 Let's keep the TPU as is except for some minor changes to the jacket ie: replace the ugly silver braid with the standard blue braid.

Keep it only if all members needing/choosing to wear corporate uniforms are allowed to wear it.

QuoteWe can't change the USAF uniform, so leave it alone and start begging USAF for whatever changes we would like to see.

 Our major problems are the several different corporate uniforms that we have, not the rank insignia. We have four different corporate uniforms not counting the BBDU or the blue flight suit. We don't need to have both the TPU and the white/greys, and a blazer uniform, and a polo shirt uniform. Eliminate the white/greys and the blazer uniform.  Those steps would eliminate a large portion of the problems we face. Of course you will not please everyone.

Those steps would eliminate a uniform choice for some of our members. You have not addressed that anywhere above.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: MajorChuck on November 18, 2007, 02:17:53 AM
My entire tenure in Cap there has aways been 2 uniform styles.
Then National introduced a third, the TPU,CPU or whatever its called.
Thats when the "Great Debate" on uniforms cane to a Head.

   Then the next logical step is eminiate ( with a generious phase out date ), the white shirt/grey pants/blue blazer. For a polo combo, use the Blue pants and adjust polo shirt color to match.

Im a size 58 and I wear the blue pants, so getting sized should'nt be a problem.

BTW  Ive seen different shades of dark blue  worn as New Uni. current Regs say
" Blue Air force style" that might need to be addressed.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JCW0312 on November 18, 2007, 02:36:33 AM
The only suggestion I have is to replace the models with mannequins in the photos of 39-1. Some of the photos in the current edition are kind of hard to look at.  ;D
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: star1151 on November 18, 2007, 02:58:11 AM
Quote from: MajorChuck on November 18, 2007, 02:17:53 AM
For a polo combo, use the Blue pants and adjust polo shirt color to match.

Did I miss something?  Why is everyone suggesting matching shirt and pants for the golf shirt uniform?  Is it to dissuade people from wearing it?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: SAR-EMT1 on November 18, 2007, 05:08:37 AM
My two cents:

Tapes on the BDU/ ACU: darker in color then present.
Ideal: Subdued USAF standard

At present the 39-1 states that the EMT badge may be worn by Basics, Intermediates and Paramedics.
There are however 3 badges: basic, Senior, Master (not mentioned in 39-1)
The badges are worn as one might expect: basic: basics, Seniors: Intermediates, Master: Paramedics

If you wish to standardize the items on the AF Blues and TPU, might I recommend  the Blue rank slides that had 'CAP' in silver lettering on the top? Hard rank was attached to some, others had embroidered.
Also use the grey 3-liner on the TPU shirt.

Thank you for your efforts in this great task.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DrJbdm on November 18, 2007, 05:38:09 AM
Lets just eliminate the grey 3 liner and just all go to the blue 3 liner. We all used to wear it for many many years. it may not match the ugly grey slides on the AF style uniform but thats ok, it gets us ALL in the same name tag.

We should also follow suit with what the AF is doing and put the AF metalic nametag on the sweater. (requires AF approval) (I'm pretty sure that change is coming down the road soon enough)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RogueLeader on November 18, 2007, 07:24:20 AM
Quote from: star1151 on November 18, 2007, 02:58:11 AM
Quote from: MajorChuck on November 18, 2007, 02:17:53 AM
For a polo combo, use the Blue pants and adjust polo shirt color to match.

Did I miss something?  Why is everyone suggesting matching shirt and pants for the golf shirt uniform?  Is it to dissuade people from wearing it?

No. It's to help reduce the NATO looking conferences of the Polo club.  With three versions of the Polo and God knows how many shades of "medium" grey slacks there are*; It can look worse than any of the other uniform combo's available.  For example there are three Polos to choose from and say 15 shades of grey- there are now 45 different uniforms authorized by 39-1.  Now, if we cut to two Polos, and specify a shade of grey- or go to Dickies as suggested by MSgt. Ross, now there are only 2.  Thats a cut of over 22 times the number of authorized Polo uniforms. 


* the number 15 was pulled up, and I was also ignoring the exponential factors of people wearing the Polo Uniform out of uniform- ie: jeans, etc.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on November 18, 2007, 02:46:42 PM
Quote from: RogueLeader on November 18, 2007, 07:24:20 AM
Quote from: star1151 on November 18, 2007, 02:58:11 AM
Quote from: MajorChuck on November 18, 2007, 02:17:53 AM
For a polo combo, use the Blue pants and adjust polo shirt color to match.

Did I miss something?  Why is everyone suggesting matching shirt and pants for the golf shirt uniform?  Is it to dissuade people from wearing it?

No. It's to help reduce the NATO looking conferences of the Polo club.  With three versions of the Polo and God knows how many shades of "medium" grey slacks there are*; It can look worse than any of the other uniform combo's available.  For example there are three Polos to choose from and say 15 shades of grey- there are now 45 different uniforms authorized by 39-1.  Now, if we cut to two Polos, and specify a shade of grey- or go to Dickies as suggested by MSgt. Ross, now there are only 2.  Thats a cut of over 22 times the number of authorized Polo uniforms. 


* the number 15 was pulled up, and I was also ignoring the exponential factors of people wearing the Polo Uniform out of uniform- ie: jeans, etc.

Khaki pants would look better than AF blue, but one of the females on the net said that women's khaki pants are hard to find.  I wouldn't know.  I make one trip to a "Mall" every year to do my Christmas shopping.  Otherwise I avoid those places.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: star1151 on November 18, 2007, 03:15:06 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on November 18, 2007, 02:46:42 PM
Quote from: RogueLeader on November 18, 2007, 07:24:20 AM
No. It's to help reduce the NATO looking conferences of the Polo club.  With three versions of the Polo and God knows how many shades of "medium" grey slacks there are*; It can look worse than any of the other uniform combo's available.  For example there are three Polos to choose from and say 15 shades of grey- there are now 45 different uniforms authorized by 39-1.  Now, if we cut to two Polos, and specify a shade of grey- or go to Dickies as suggested by MSgt. Ross, now there are only 2.  Thats a cut of over 22 times the number of authorized Polo uniforms. 
Khaki pants would look better than AF blue, but one of the females on the net said that women's khaki pants are hard to find.  I wouldn't know.  I make one trip to a "Mall" every year to do my Christmas shopping.  Otherwise I avoid those places.

That was me, and it's true, at least during 10 of 12 months of the year.  If I could buy them at Vanguard, though, I'd be fine with that, 10 week lead time and all.  Regarding the Dickies, I'll buy men's pants and have them altered to fit me, but the idea doesn't make me happy...the lead time is just too long, and having clothes altered is expensive.

I do agree with one version of the polo shirt, though.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 18, 2007, 07:44:01 PM
Back on topic please
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ZigZag911 on November 18, 2007, 07:52:49 PM
Quote from: jayleswo on November 17, 2007, 09:42:06 PM
One thing that some of the comments I have read concerning adoption of corporate (CAP distinctive) uniforms only for Seniors is that they fail to consider the wide availability of surplus/used Air Force uniforms from a considerable number of sources (DRMO, eBay, surplus stores, thrift shops, retired/separating AF service members, etc.). This really keeps the cost down for CAP Cadets and Senior Members.

This is the most reasonable argument I've heard for keeping USAF uniform for seniors.

I do understand & respect our historical heritage....in fact, I am one of those odd people that wants CAP as full time USAF Auxiliary again!

I, too, am pleased to see Lt Col White's committee is working toward some sort of equitable harmonization of what we already have...perhaps, like Coast Guard Aux still does, we can once again look a lot like our parent service, while retaining sufficient distinctive elements to tell Active from auxiliary at a glance.

I still need someone to explain to me why camouflage-style BDUs or ABUs make sense for an organization whose specialty is air/ground coordinated SAR.

As for my Rambo comment of yesterday, that certainly was not directed at any of those who are serving or have served in the military.

As for those who want to get rid of the middle aged/elderly/medically limited/overweight -- I suggest you start counting heads -- CAP has made accommodations because it is a volunteer organization and needs us far less than perfect people to get the mission accomplished!

Finally, I would make this observation, applied to myself as much as anyone else: we need to compare the amount of time, attention and energy we spend on uniform issues, as opposed to discussing & promoting CAP's Core Values. Perhaps there is a lesson for us all to learn about priorities.

What does bother me
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Lancer on November 18, 2007, 07:58:42 PM
So I'm looking through the PDF version of the Nov-Dec 07 this afternoon and happen across a full page ad for Airborne Leathers (see attachment) selling the A-2 Black leather jacket for a very good price. I've come across the website for this company before but hesitated on ordering in hopes I'd hear from someone else who might have ordered from them.

Has anyone bought this jacket from them?

I guess I'm just surprised that here's a uniform item not being sold by Vanguard and obviously being endorsed by corporate. My question is; Is this the start of our being able to buy uniform items from other sources?

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 18, 2007, 08:03:04 PM
Quote from: Lancer on November 18, 2007, 07:58:42 PM
So I'm looking through the PDF version of the Nov-Dec 07 this afternoon and happen across a full page ad for Airborne Leathers (see attachment) selling the A-2 Black leather jacket for a very good price. I've come across the website for this company before but hesitated on ordering in hopes I'd hear from someone else who might have ordered from them.

Has anyone bought this jacket from them?

I guess I'm just surprised that here's a uniform item not being sold by Vanguard and obviously being endorsed by corporate. My question is; Is this the start of our being able to buy uniform items from other sources?



This does not belong on this thread. PLEASE stay on track here. there are other threads to discuss this.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Lancer on November 18, 2007, 08:08:12 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 18, 2007, 08:03:04 PM
Quote from: Lancer on November 18, 2007, 07:58:42 PM
So I'm looking through the PDF version of the Nov-Dec 07 this afternoon and happen across a full page ad for Airborne Leathers (see attachment) selling the A-2 Black leather jacket for a very good price. I've come across the website for this company before but hesitated on ordering in hopes I'd hear from someone else who might have ordered from them.

Has anyone bought this jacket from them?

I guess I'm just surprised that here's a uniform item not being sold by Vanguard and obviously being endorsed by corporate. My question is; Is this the start of our being able to buy uniform items from other sources?



This does not belong on this thread. PLEASE stay on track here. there are other threads to discuss this.

Really? It's a question for the 'uniform committee' regarding the future purchases of uniform items, seems pretty appropriate to me, no?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: arajca on November 18, 2007, 08:44:11 PM
Quote from: Lancer on November 18, 2007, 08:08:12 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 18, 2007, 08:03:04 PM
Quote from: Lancer on November 18, 2007, 07:58:42 PM
So I'm looking through the PDF version of the Nov-Dec 07 this afternoon and happen across a full page ad for Airborne Leathers (see attachment) selling the A-2 Black leather jacket for a very good price. I've come across the website for this company before but hesitated on ordering in hopes I'd hear from someone else who might have ordered from them.

Has anyone bought this jacket from them?

I guess I'm just surprised that here's a uniform item not being sold by Vanguard and obviously being endorsed by corporate. My question is; Is this the start of our being able to buy uniform items from other sources?



This does not belong on this thread. PLEASE stay on track here. there are other threads to discuss this.

Really? It's a question for the 'uniform committee' regarding the future purchases of uniform items, seems pretty appropriate to me, no?
Actually, it's a question for the business office, not the uniform committee. The uniform committee make recommendation on the uniforms - types, colors, blingage, etc. It does not make recommendations on the sourcing of the uniforms.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 18, 2007, 08:51:40 PM
Quote from: Lancer on November 18, 2007, 08:08:12 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 18, 2007, 08:03:04 PM
Quote from: Lancer on November 18, 2007, 07:58:42 PM
So I'm looking through the PDF version of the Nov-Dec 07 this afternoon and happen across a full page ad for Airborne Leathers (see attachment) selling the A-2 Black leather jacket for a very good price. I've come across the website for this company before but hesitated on ordering in hopes I'd hear from someone else who might have ordered from them.

Has anyone bought this jacket from them?

I guess I'm just surprised that here's a uniform item not being sold by Vanguard and obviously being endorsed by corporate. My question is; Is this the start of our being able to buy uniform items from other sources?



This does not belong on this thread. PLEASE stay on track here. there are other threads to discuss this.

Really? It's a question for the 'uniform committee' regarding the future purchases of uniform items, seems pretty appropriate to me, no?

Reread the purpose of this thread when I posted it please.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jb512 on November 19, 2007, 12:37:31 AM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on November 18, 2007, 07:52:49 PM
Quote from: jayleswo on November 17, 2007, 09:42:06 PM
One thing that some of the comments I have read concerning adoption of corporate (CAP distinctive) uniforms only for Seniors is that they fail to consider the wide availability of surplus/used Air Force uniforms from a considerable number of sources (DRMO, eBay, surplus stores, thrift shops, retired/separating AF service members, etc.). This really keeps the cost down for CAP Cadets and Senior Members.

I still need someone to explain to me why camouflage-style BDUs or ABUs make sense for an organization whose specialty is air/ground coordinated SAR.

Topic for another thread, so I'll keep it short...

1.  As you said, we are the auxiliary of the AF.  We wear their uniforms whether they be dress, utility, flight, or otherwise.

2.  They are readily available in surplus from numerous sources and as so, not too expensive to aquire.

3.  We spend a relatively small amount of time engaged in air/ground coordinated SAR compared to other duties requiring a utility uniform.

4.  The military has coordinated air/ground missions in the BDU/ABU/ACU for years and so have we.

Sorry, Col White for the off topic response as well.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on November 19, 2007, 05:38:41 AM
A few suggestions......maybe this will make it to page 10 tonight!

1) Return the Rank Insignia to the flight cap.  we can keep the distinctive CAP thing there too if you like.  (like how it was done for the initial TPU push). 

2) Return to all blue rank slides for all uniforms.  Lets go back pre-1990 and borrow this one.  They are very distinctive enough to tell between a person in CAP and an actual AF Officer.  For one, it is a slide on the jacket, instead of just metal rank, 2 it has CAP embroidered on it.

3) Set a phase out date for the old style service dress uniform that Cadets are currently wearing.  At some point they will become too "dated".  5 years should be enough time to find cheaper new jackets for the cadets.

4) eliminate the Grey pants, and replace it with AF shade trousers/skirts.  THEN invent a new color polo shirt so we will not have blue on blue! 

5) get rid of everything Gray.  Grey sleeve braid, grey visor strap, grey nameplates, grey rank slides etc.

6) eliminate the wearing of Wing Patches on the BDU.  When the ABU rolls our way, follow AF guidance on their end and don't allow patches at all. 

7) Set one standard type of headgear to be won by all members throughout the country.  Other than at certain schools the required headear should be BDU cover (formerly patrol cap).  When ABU comes, AF says "no organizational hats except for Redhorse".  CAP should say "No organizational colored hats except for special activities".

8) Since we are already using the Army windbreaker for the new Corp Uniform, lets get the black all weather long coat approved for wear also.  Whatever we do, don't add the rank slides to the outside of these jackets.  It looks terrible.  Rank plus a CAP CUTOUT suffices!!!

9) Eliminate the clutter on the current BDU's.  Make the member choose which specail activity patch to wear and place it in the position that the Wing patch once took up.  Also, 2 badges at the most please!

10) on the mess dress, lets get the real AF shoulder boards.  We can still be identified as CAP by that large disk worn on the lower right side of the jacket right?

11) Make a simple statement in 39-1 that reads "after 31 October of every year BDU sleeves will need to be kept down.  You may resume rolling you sleeves after 1 April".

12) No clip on ties!

13) standardized PT uniform.  Lets see if AF will allow us to borrow theirs.  At least the shorts and t-shirt.  They are cool enough.  I would say then borrow the Army PT jogging pants (as they are all black) and a simple CAP sweatshirt for those cold nights outside.

14) Make the service cap mandatory for those officers Major and above.

15) change the boots out soon for the field uniforms.  Allow tan, or new ABU sage green.

16) allow field equipment in the ACU or ABU pattern to be used.

17) Allow camelbacks as long as they are commercial and are all black or brown.

18) discontinue the use of brown undershirt for the BDU's.  Move either into all BLACK shirts, or also allow sand color (if you allow sand color you will be preparing for the ABU arrival, got to think ahead)

19) No high tech boots (i.e. ripple soles, tiger soles, zipper down the side etc.)

20) set a phase out date for Jungle boots (2 years sounds good)

21) Mandate that those wearing BDU's MUST wear the same pattern pants, and blouse, both must either be winter weight or summer weight,  NO mixing and matching.

22) Get rid of the cadet officer shoulder boards.  let them pin their full size rank on the jackets. 

23)  Get rid of the current cadet officer rank insignia to be replaced by the smooth and shinny insignia the ROTC's use.  Looks like the current CAP cadet insignia but does not have any scores across the surface and are skinnier.  Vanguard produces them, not a problem there.

24) allow the army windbreaker to be worn with the flight suit, and the AF style short sleeve shirt and pants. 

25) Get rid of the CAP regimental tie.  Replace it with the AF necktie (full size, NOT clip-on!).

26) Mandate policy for the carrying of telecommunication devices with the uniform.  Such as , one pager, on cell phone.....that's it!

27) ADD to 39-1 that WOMEN and ONLY Women will be allowed to carry an umbrella.  Men using umbrellas in the military is a taboo.   

28) Add a bowtie to the Cadet semi Formal uniform in place of a necktie.

29) remove the "CAP" cutout on the BDU pattern field jacket.  The jacket already has a HUGE "CIVIL AIR PATROL" branch tape.  Why do we need another "CAP" on our shoulders??

30) Get rid of the plastic encased rank insignia on the flight suit.  lets get sewn on insignia instead.  current colors are just fine. 

31) On the AF style lightweight jacket, and all weather coat and raincoat and overcoat,  eliminate the grey rank slides for pin on metal rank and pin on CAP cutouts like what we have on the Army windbreaker.

32) ELIMINATE the Corporate Blazer!

Thats it for now....getting kinda late...... :)

Disabled smileys - MIKE
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Becks on November 19, 2007, 08:18:42 AM
Darker tapes please...I think they've had their run since the old pickle suits.
Oh...and yes, change all the grey to blue.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BillB on November 19, 2007, 11:32:58 AM
Mikey
What is your justification for all those changes?  Why so many "army" style uniform items?
On number 6, it will be a long period before CAP gets the ABU, so lets not worry about it
# 10, this will never get past the USAF
#11, you're forgetting in the southern teir of states in Oct and even November the temprature can be in the 90s and even in March. Let each Wing select a date.
#12 the clip on tie is worn in the real military, the corporate world, so what is the reason for no clip on ties?
#13. Lets not copy the USAF or Army, let CAP set a standard for color and style of a CAP PT uniform
#14 Big expense involved. No justification
#15 another big expense for cadets
#18 sand colorred T-shirts? What justification?  Stick to black as the only authorized t-shirt
#19 hi-tech boots, again no justification or need
#20, why? the cheapest boots for cadets is the jungle boots and since the BDUs will be around for a long time  this is not needed
#23 The CAP cadet rank insignia has been used since the 1940's why change to Army style
In other words, what is your justification and reasoning for the changes you suggest. Some add uniform costs to seniors and mainly cadets
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: davedove on November 19, 2007, 01:00:24 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on November 19, 2007, 05:38:41 AM
11) Make a simple statement in 39-1 that reads "after 31 October of every year BDU sleeves will need to be kept down.  You may resume rolling you sleeves after 1 April".

This statement sounds like something the military would put out.  I know, because I've been around the Army for over 21 years now.  "It is now November, therefore it is officially cold and you must wear your uniform in the cold weather configuration.  Yes, I know we are in Florida and it is 90 degrees out, but that's what the regulations say." ;D

That's the type of thing that has to be delegated to the local commander (as the military does).  The local commander should determine if it is a "sleeves up" day or not.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DogCollar on November 19, 2007, 01:13:02 PM
I, for one, have already spent all the money for uniforms that I intend to pay for the next several years!!!!  That being said, any and all changes to CAP uniforms should be based on:

1.  Lowering cost for members
2.  Enhancing CAP core missions
3.  Safety

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: floridacyclist on November 19, 2007, 01:39:34 PM
I noticed several things on there that are already covered under the regs. Do we double-write them?

Camelbaks are allowed but only in certain colors, BDUs are already required to be the same patter and type of cloth, and I don't believe the pattern on our field gear is limited either.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Pylon on November 19, 2007, 03:18:36 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on November 19, 2007, 05:38:41 AM
3) Set a phase out date for the old style service dress uniform that Cadets are currently wearing.  At some point they will become too "dated".  5 years should be enough time to find cheaper new jackets for the cadets.

I agree that it looks quite dated.  Hopefully more surplus of the current "McPeak/Blazer" service dress jacket will become available in large quantities when the heritage coat phases in.  Perhaps the phase out date for the old-old service dress could be concurrent with the phase-in of the heritage coat for the USAF.  This way the cadets are only one version behind at most, and can take advantage of surplus stuff.


Quote from: mikeylikey on November 19, 2007, 05:38:41 AM
11) Make a simple statement in 39-1 that reads "after 31 October of every year BDU sleeves will need to be kept down.  You may resume rolling you sleeves after 1 April".

This discounts members in tropical climates.  One of the problems we've faced in the past with uniform decrees has been that members in one climate or another get forgotten.  Members in harsh winter climates get forgotten with outergarments on uniforms at times, and those in very hot climates can too.  For example, in Puerto Rico Wing, it is on average 74 to 86 degrees in November.  Should they wear their sleeves down?

I think it works best as a commander's call.  Perhaps the wording could indicate that units will wear their sleeves uniformly - up or down - either as conditions dictate when there is no commander's guidance, or as the commander decides for a unit.  The commander already determines the UOD and can set guidance on things like wear of optional patches or certain uniform items - this seems like it would be a natural extension of that commander's discretion and leave it at that.

Quote from: mikeylikey on November 19, 2007, 05:38:41 AM
12) No clip on ties!

If you're an adult and wearing a clip-on, I think the fact that other adults will know you're wearing it ought to be enough deterrent.   :P

Quote from: mikeylikey on November 19, 2007, 05:38:41 AM
14) Make the service cap mandatory for those officers Major and above.

The Air Force does not, so why would we require something so arbitrary?  The field-grade officer's service cap is expensive, to add to that.  The flight cap is worn by AF officers on a regular basis from 2d Lt all the way to General - why would we want to stick out?  I hate change for the sake of change.

Quote from: mikeylikey on November 19, 2007, 05:38:41 AM
17) Allow camelbacks as long as they are commercial and are all black or brown.
Camelbaks are already authorized with field uniforms with color standards; see CAPM 39-1 for guidance.


Quote from: mikeylikey on November 19, 2007, 05:38:41 AM
21) Mandate that those wearing BDU's MUST wear the same pattern pants, and blouse, both must either be winter weight or summer weight,  NO mixing and matching.

Table 2-3 "Men's and Women's Battle Dress Uniforms", Line 2:  "Material of shirt and trousers must match."

It's already required.  If members aren't complying, then it's an issue of enforcement.

Quote from: mikeylikey on November 19, 2007, 05:38:41 AM22) Get rid of the cadet officer shoulder boards.  let them pin their full size rank on the jackets. 

Agreed in the interest of cost savings to the cadets and congruity with the way the AF wears the uniform.  The cadet shoulderboards on the service dress jacket not only are expensive, but they are reminiscent of the old AF ceremonial dress blues uniform.

Quote from: mikeylikey on November 19, 2007, 05:38:41 AM
23)  Get rid of the current cadet officer rank insignia to be replaced by the smooth and shinny insignia the ROTC's use.  Looks like the current CAP cadet insignia but does not have any scores across the surface and are skinnier.  Vanguard produces them, not a problem there.
Solution in search of a problem?  No thanks.

Quote from: mikeylikey on November 19, 2007, 05:38:41 AM
25) Get rid of the CAP regimental tie.  Replace it with the AF necktie (full size, NOT clip-on!).

Already phasing it out, I believe.

Quote from: mikeylikey on November 19, 2007, 05:38:41 AM
26) Mandate policy for the carrying of telecommunication devices with the uniform.  Such as , one pager, on cell phone.....that's it!

You may need to take a re-read through CAPM 39-1.  This also is already mandated.  Table 2-5, "Clothing/Accessory Standards", Line 11 "Pagers, Cellular Phone, Two-way Radio": "Clipped to waistband or purse, or carried in left hand. Only one is authorized."

Simply because members might ignore it, doesn't mean it isn't already in the uniform manual.  Just enforce what's already written.

Quote from: mikeylikey on November 19, 2007, 05:38:41 AM
27) ADD to 39-1 that WOMEN and ONLY Women will be allowed to carry an umbrella.  Men using umbrellas in the military is a taboo.   

Men should instead become soaked while standing outdoors for the sake of looking "sauve"?  The AF allows the black umbrella in the left hand by males, I don't see CAP as any different.  Umbrellas serve a real and practical purpose.  To prohibit members from using them because someone thinks that just doesn't look cool and they, instead, should let their outerwear get soaked is silly.  Again, the AF doesn't prohibit it - why would we?

Quote from: mikeylikey on November 19, 2007, 05:38:41 AM28) Add a bowtie to the Cadet semi Formal uniform in place of a necktie.

The old-style cadet semi-formal uniform utilizes the bow-tie.  The new-style mirrors exactly (guess what?) the Air Force's version of the service dress gone semi-formal:  White shirt, regular tie, no nameplate.  It matches what the AF does, it looks nice, and it's already in place.  Why change for the sake of change?

Quote from: mikeylikey on November 19, 2007, 05:38:41 AM
29) remove the "CAP" cutout on the BDU pattern field jacket.  The jacket already has a HUGE "CIVIL AIR PATROL" branch tape.  Why do we need another "CAP" on our shoulders??

Agreed.  The ultramarine blue insignia and the "Civil Air Patrol" tape are distinctive enough from any distance.  The extra CAP cutout is not needed.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: NEBoom on November 19, 2007, 03:59:09 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on November 19, 2007, 05:38:41 AM
1) Return the Rank Insignia to the flight cap.  we can keep the distinctive CAP thing there too if you like.  (like how it was done for the initial TPU push). 

I'll vote no on this one.  I though it looked terrible when I saw it for the first time.  Part of the stated goal here (which I wholeheartedly support) is to make insignia and insignia placement consistent between the AF and Corporate uniforms.  We most likely won't be able to do this on the AF uniform, so we should not do it on the Corporate either.  Aside from this, you're requiring members to purchase an additional set of metal rank insignia so they have one for the cap.  Not cost saving to the member.

Quote
2) Return to all blue rank slides for all uniforms.  Lets go back pre-1990 and borrow this one.  They are very distinctive enough to tell between a person in CAP and an actual AF Officer.  For one, it is a slide on the jacket, instead of just metal rank, 2 it has CAP embroidered on it.

Probably not going to happen, AF would have to buy off on it.  Also adds expense.  Grey is already out there, and really doesn't look that bad.  Don't require members to spend more money to change color yet again.

Quote
4) eliminate the Grey pants, and replace it with AF shade trousers/skirts.  THEN invent a new color polo shirt so we will not have blue on blue! 

Again changing an established uniform for one of a different color.  Not needed or cost effective.

Quote
6) <snip>  When the ABU rolls our way, follow AF guidance on their end and don't allow patches at all. 

I agree with this.  Let's not let the utility uniform get out of hand again.

Quote7) <snip> When ABU comes, AF says "no organizational hats except for Redhorse".  CAP should say "No organizational colored hats except for special activities".

I'd even go so far as to say including special activities. <dons fire suit>

Quote13) standardized PT uniform. <snip>

No real need for this, and not cost effective to require it.

Quote14) Make the service cap mandatory for those officers Major and above.

NO!  Not cost effective.

Quote20) set a phase out date for Jungle boots (2 years sounds good)

Why?  If a member doesn't want to wear Jungle boots, they don't have to as it stands.  But they are a lower cost alternative for some.

Quote22) Get rid of the cadet officer shoulder boards. 

Agree.

Quote23)  Get rid of the current cadet officer rank insignia to be replaced by the smooth and shinny insignia the ROTC's use.  Looks like the current CAP cadet insignia but does not have any scores across the surface and are skinnier.  Vanguard produces them, not a problem there.

Which is cheaper?  Go with the cheaper of the two.  If a change is made, set a LONG phase-out date for the current rank.  There are a lot of units out there with large supplies of this insignia and it would be a big cost to them to have to toss it all.

Quote30) Get rid of the plastic encased rank insignia on the flight suit.  lets get sewn on insignia instead.  current colors are just fine. 

Agree

Quote31) On the AF style lightweight jacket, and all weather coat and raincoat and overcoat,  eliminate the grey rank slides for pin on metal rank and pin on CAP cutouts like what we have on the Army windbreaker.

Again, what is the cost?  Which way is cheaper?  Will we maintain sufficient distinctiveness from the AF uniform?

In closing, I want to emphasize my support for the idea that insignia and insignia placement should be standardized as much as possible between the AF and Corporate uniforms (dress, utility, and flight).  At present members gathered together in our various uniform combinations at times don't even look like they belong to the same organization.  Further, there is so much confusion out there right now as to which insignia (especially nameplates) goes on which uniform combination.  Coming up with a standardized (or nearly standardized) set of insignia for each uniform that works no matter what combo you're wearing would help with cost, compliance with 39-1, and our overall appearance.

I'm eagerly awaiting the preliminary ideas coming out of this committee, and I want to thank all that are contributing for their efforts!!

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jimmydeanno on November 19, 2007, 04:16:17 PM
Quote from: NEBoom on November 19, 2007, 03:59:09 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on November 19, 2007, 05:38:41 AM
1) Return the Rank Insignia to the flight cap.  we can keep the distinctive CAP thing there too if you like.  (like how it was done for the initial TPU push). 

I'll vote no on this one.  I though it looked terrible when I saw it for the first time. 

I'd be ok with the grade insignia on the flight cap (but not both devices).  I've actually had more AF members confused by our current insignia because it "looks like some kind of Colonel insignia" because of the eagle...
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on November 19, 2007, 04:18:03 PM
Quote from: DrJbdm on November 17, 2007, 05:26:50 PM
getting rid of AF flight suits for the blue flight suit makes no sense unless CAP starts issuing them. right now a good condition nomex AF flight suit can be had for around $30 used, that is many times less expensive then the the $240 price of a blue flight suit that you would have an extremely hard time buying used in order to save money.

  I don't know if a nomex flight suit offers me any protection or not but I think if I was in a fire I would rather be wearing a nomex flight suit that may offer some protection then in a cotten flight suit that will offer no protection.

Along that line, there was a time when seniors that didn't meet weight/grooming standards could wear the sage without rank insignia. I'd like to hear why that changed.

I've purchased five sage flightsuits in the last eight months for $45 or less. Three were new in the bag. We could reduce an expense for our members overall with that kind of option. Not to mention, it would be actual uniformity. Guy in a beard and long hair would look just like a guy that's "milspec" (military weight/grooming standards) on a mission.

Everyone wants the high dollar blue flightsuits. Why? They are expensive. Right now, I could have a couple of changes of flightsuits, and potentially lend one out for the price of a single blue one. Eliminating green and going with blue would be uniform, but at three to five times the expense. Doing that isn't practicality, it's daydreaming.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on November 19, 2007, 04:36:30 PM
Quote from: floridacyclist on November 19, 2007, 01:39:34 PM
I noticed several things on there that are already covered under the regs. Do we double-write them?

Camelbaks are allowed but only in certain colors, BDUs are already required to be the same patter and type of cloth, and I don't believe the pattern on our field gear is limited either.

Seems like the best thing would be to specify conservative colors. If we have to, makea list. Black, brown, tan, green (OD, or foliage or the military favorites), or grey. Allowing the Hi-Viz orange, or yellow-green ones would be nice for missions. Specifically, disallow colors like hot pink, or the neon colors that are intended as fashion statements rather than practical colors.

Allowing a little conservative latitude would reduce expense. Letting a cadet wear his foliage green CamelBak that he bought because he thought it was a hi-speed Army color would be practical. That's what they're going to buy anyway if they're so inclined. It's impractical to tell someone it's not allowed, and as far as cadets go, we don't want parents up in arms because the $40 their kid just spent isn't authorized, and they'll have to buy something else for the sake of being uniform.

I know, the logic is a little thin, but it is a legitimate concern. The Air Force has determined that they're going to use Army gear with the ABU anyway. No reason that some of our members can't buy it now.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: davedove on November 19, 2007, 04:48:54 PM
Quote from: Pylon on November 19, 2007, 03:18:36 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on November 19, 2007, 05:38:41 AM
27) ADD to 39-1 that WOMEN and ONLY Women will be allowed to carry an umbrella.  Men using umbrellas in the military is a taboo.   

Men should instead become soaked while standing outdoors for the sake of looking "sauve"?  The AF allows the black umbrella in the left hand by males, I don't see CAP as any different.  Umbrellas serve a real and practical purpose.  To prohibit members from using them because someone thinks that just doesn't look cool and they, instead, should let their outerwear get soaked is silly.  Again, the AF doesn't prohibit it - why would we?

The real reason that Army men are forbidden to carry an umbrella ---  It might frighten the horses!! ;D
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: floridacyclist on November 19, 2007, 04:55:04 PM
I'm not sure what change is being made here...39-1 states:
Quote"Camel Pack" Water Containers - Authorized for use with CAP field uniform or BDU only, in hot weather conditions, with or without built-in backpack. Will be black, brown, or camouflaged.

Or are you just talking about adding colors to the allowed list?

Quote from: Hawk200 on November 19, 2007, 04:36:30 PM
Seems like the best thing would be to specify conservative colors. If we have to, makea list. Black, brown, tan, green (OD, or foliage or the military favorites), or grey. Allowing the Hi-Viz orange, or yellow-green ones would be nice for missions. Specifically, disallow colors like hot pink, or the neon colors that are intended as fashion statements rather than practical colors.

Allowing a little conservative latitude would reduce expense. Letting a cadet wear his foliage green CamelBak that he bought because he thought it was a hi-speed Army color would be practical. That's what they're going to buy anyway if they're so inclined. It's impractical to tell someone it's not allowed, and as far as cadets go, we don't want parents up in arms because the $40 their kid just spent isn't authorized, and they'll have to buy something else for the sake of being uniform.

I know, the logic is a little thin, but it is a legitimate concern. The Air Force has determined that they're going to use Army gear with the ABU anyway. No reason that some of our members can't buy it now.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: NEBoom on November 19, 2007, 05:01:21 PM
Quote from: Becks on November 19, 2007, 08:18:42 AM
Darker tapes please...I think they've had their run since the old pickle suits.

When changing from the old "pickle suits" to the BDUs it was decided to keep the ultramarine blue tapes as a cost-saving measure (that and the AF wouldn't approve a color change back then, IIRC).  If the patches and tapes were in decent shape, a member could carefully remove them from their old uniform, put them on the BDUs, and they'd be good to go.

So the cost impact of a color change should be carefully considered.  I'd suggest that if a change is made, a LONG phase-out date be set for the current color.  It might work best if it were phased in with the ABU.  If patches and other insignia are kept to a minimum on the ABU (which I support) cost impact might not be so bad.  Going to darker tapes would also look better on the corporate BBDUs (again with a LONG phase-out date for ultramarine), and the rank insignia on darker background would also work on both kinds of flight suits (I support dropping plastic encased insignia in favor of embroderied .  I also read somewhere that Vanguard already uses darker blue tape material for other tapes they make, but the ultramarine color is only used by CAP.  Maybe there will be a cost savings there, or (more likely) we might avoid a cost increase in the future.  But then again, it is Vanguard....
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on November 19, 2007, 05:01:22 PM
Quote from: floridacyclist on November 19, 2007, 04:55:04 PM
I'm not sure what change is being made here...39-1 states:
Quote"Camel Pack" Water Containers - Authorized for use with CAP field uniform or BDU only, in hot weather conditions, with or without built-in backpack. Will be black, brown, or camouflaged.

Or are you just talking about adding colors to the allowed list?

Yeah, basically. I've got an OD one that isn't officially allowed by the manual, and I've seen a number of people with the same color wearing them. Now, I have a black one as well, so it's not really an issue for me, but it could be for some people.

There are a number of people that won't have a problem with the military colors, but I do know of others that will give someone a lot of grief for wearing other than the standard black, brown or camo. There are some that also believe that "camo" is only the woodland camo, and consider the desert colors as unacceptable. Doesn't make sense to me, but I have heard it.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: arajca on November 19, 2007, 05:33:27 PM
Quote from: NEBoom on November 19, 2007, 05:01:21 PM
Quote from: Becks on November 19, 2007, 08:18:42 AM
Darker tapes please...I think they've had their run since the old pickle suits.

When changing from the old "pickle suits" to the BDUs it was decided to keep the ultramarine blue tapes as a cost-saving measure (that and the AF wouldn't approve a color change back then, IIRC).  If the patches and tapes were in decent shape, a member could carefully remove them from their old uniform, put them on the BDUs, and they'd be good to go.

So the cost impact of a color change should be carefully considered.  I'd suggest that if a change is made, a LONG phase-out date be set for the current color.  It might work best if it were phased in with the ABU.  If patches and other insignia are kept to a minimum on the ABU (which I support) cost impact might not be so bad.  Going to darker tapes would also look better on the corporate BBDUs (again with a LONG phase-out date for ultramarine), and the rank insignia on darker background would also work on both kinds of flight suits (I support dropping plastic encased insignia in favor of embroderied .  I also read somewhere that Vanguard already uses darker blue tape material for other tapes they make, but the ultramarine color is only used by CAP.  Maybe there will be a cost savings there, or (more likely) we might avoid a cost increase in the future.  But then again, it is Vanguard....
A good phase in period would be to start now and end with the official adoption of the abu. Again, with the caveat that all insignia must match, ie. all with ultramaine blue background or all with dark blue background, no mixing them up.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: arajca on November 19, 2007, 06:24:47 PM
I could definitely see the argument for hi-viz orange or yellow hydration systems. Consider, they will be worn over the orange vest obstructing visibilty of the back of the vest. Allowing hi-vis colors will help maintain the visibility desired by wearing the vest.

This something that should be put into a "special purpose uniform items" section of CAPM 39-1.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DogCollar on November 19, 2007, 06:43:45 PM
Okay...boy, people sure want to make a lot of changes to the uniforms.  But, at the same time, thread after thread on this site has complained about there being too many uniform changes!
After all the changes are made to the uniforms, please leave the option of wearing the golf shirt and slacks combo, or civilian clothing, because I ain't spending anymore money on uniform stuff!!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Bluelakes 13 on November 19, 2007, 06:44:26 PM
LOL - 10 pages and going strong.  I'll voice my (very unpopular) opinion.

1. Phase-out all USAF-like uniforms for seniors.  We have too many uniforms.
2. Have one utility uniform and one formal uniform for _all_ seniors.  Furry or fat, clean or slim, a uniform is, well, uniform.
3. No more unfunded uniform changes from NHQ.  Enough said.
4. Phase out grade insignia for seniors and go to a job-based system where a new Professional Development system is created to support each job at multiple levels.  Reason for this has been discussed many times elsewhere, most notably, they are meaningless in our organization.

Such stuff as dreams are made off...
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on November 19, 2007, 06:59:44 PM
Quote from: jkalemis on November 19, 2007, 06:44:26 PM
LOL - 10 pages and going strong.  I'll voice my (very unpopular) opinion.

1. Phase-out all USAF-like uniforms for seniors.  We have too many uniforms.

Col White has already said this won't happen. Thankfully. It's all I have, and I'm still using perfectly serviceable blues from my time in the Air Force. I can accept minor changes, but a complete change of wardrobe is not something I consider practical.

What is the problem with USAF uniforms? So many people want to be associated with the AF, but not wear their uniform. Are there only a few of us that this doesn't make any sense to?

Quote from: jkalemis on November 19, 2007, 06:44:26 PM
2. Have one utility uniform and one formal uniform for _all_ seniors.  Furry or fat, clean or slim, a uniform is, well, uniform.

How about flight uniforms? It's natural for an organization with a flight mission (one of the missions anyway) to have one. Should be a single flightsuit, and the green flightsuits are used by other than the military as well. Not like everyone wearing one has to fit within military standards.

Quote from: jkalemis on November 19, 2007, 06:44:26 PM
3. No more unfunded uniform changes from NHQ.  Enough said.

It's doubtful that there will ever be anything funded from National. There isn't money for it.

Quote from: jkalemis on November 19, 2007, 06:44:26 PM
4. Phase out grade insignia for seniors and go to a job-based system where a new Professional Development system is created to support each job at multiple levels.  Reason for this has been discussed many times elsewhere, most notably, they are meaningless in our organization.

And already discussed is that it probably won't happen. Also has nothing to do with uniforms. And we certainly don't need CG Aux style rank insignia, either.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: arajca on November 19, 2007, 07:00:21 PM
Quote from: jkalemis on November 19, 2007, 06:44:26 PM
LOL - 10 pages and going strong.  I'll voice my (very unpopular) opinion.

1. Phase-out all USAF-like uniforms for seniors.  We have too many uniforms.
2. Have one utility uniform and one formal uniform for _all_ seniors.  Furry or fat, clean or slim, a uniform is, well, uniform.
Already stated, this is not happening.
Quote3. No more unfunded uniform changes from NHQ.  Enough said.
Great idea, but wishful thinking.
Quote4. Phase out grade insignia for seniors and go to a job-based system where a new Professional Development system is created to support each job at multiple levels.  Reason for this has been discussed many times elsewhere, most notably, they are meaningless in our organization.
That is well beyond the purpose of the committee and also takes away a huge benefit - the ability to take AFIADL PME courses. Granted, not alot of members do, but it is a huge benefit.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on November 19, 2007, 07:10:28 PM
Quote from: arajca on November 19, 2007, 07:00:21 PM
That is well beyond the purpose of the committee and also takes away a huge benefit - the ability to take AFIADL PME courses. Granted, not alot of members do, but it is a huge benefit.

I hadn't actually thought about that, but I do plan on taking a few eventually. A useful reason to keep it.

Something else I thought of, probably not a lower cost option, but allow most military badges on our uniforms. That's not to include marksmanship badges, but cover most of the ones that military members would wear above ribbons.

Many of our members come from other branches of service and would like to wear the badges they've earned. And they usually already have them, wouldn't be anything new. It may look strange, but should we get a guy that was a former Navy SEAL, there's no reason he shouldn't be allowed to wear the badge. Same for our guys that have earned combat badges as well. Instead of authorizing only a few, allow them all.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: SAR-EMT1 on November 20, 2007, 04:13:45 AM
Here in ILWG, my Group Commander is a former Combat SEAL and wears his badge proudly.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: cnitas on November 20, 2007, 03:41:02 PM
Have you politely asked himn to remove the badge, as it is a violation of uniform regulation?   ;D
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: alamrcn on November 20, 2007, 03:58:50 PM
At this point, I'm just reading Lt Col White's posts and responses here.

There's just TOO MUCH babble now -- commenting about someone's comments in regards to someone's reply about something that wasn't really prudent or productive to this thread's intention to begin with.

If you have a recommendation that can help the 39-1 folks, please do share.

If you see something you want to argue about or expound upon further, PLEASE have the courtesy to save those of us who DON'T live on this board some reading time, and take it to another thread. I think you'll find it more productive to discuss the finer points of each individual topic.

Thanks for the understanding, and sorry to have even had to post this particular off-topic message here.

-Ace
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jb512 on November 20, 2007, 05:35:12 PM
I was just thinking the same thing yesterday.  It looks like the regulars with sensible recommendations have made them and the thread is kinda petering off...  Looks like we've about got this thing wrapped up.   ;)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jeders on November 20, 2007, 05:41:57 PM
So when can we expect to see some summaries that the board will consider or some example pics?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: cnitas on November 20, 2007, 06:18:59 PM
Wow... I think my post just got dissed by the forum cop.

And to make this somewhat on topic....
I was kinda thinking that the fact that a navy SEAL cannot wear the badge in CAP was a little silly.  Perhaps the uniform committee should look into correcting this (and other badges)???  Since the point had already been made, I was in essence seconding the motion in a somewhat humorous way...I thought.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 20, 2007, 06:55:32 PM
Any badges worn on the USAF uniform have to be approved by USAF. If its not authorized for wear by USAF personnel on their service uniform, then they won't authorize if for CAP personnel.

I will have photos to post by the end of the week.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: cnitas on November 20, 2007, 07:59:38 PM
You are right. 
I had assumed that it was authorized for the Air Force Uniform.  I just went and looked up afi36-2903 to see what can be worn...

The list includes:
CIB
CAB
CMB
Air Assult
Pathfinder
Parachute rigger
Scuba
even the ranger tab in specific instances.
But no Naval badges....  Inter-service rivalry at its best.
In the end it does not matter since prior service will wear what they want anyway.

That said, are you going to write in the Blue Beret and Ranger stuff that was voted on a while back?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: arajca on November 20, 2007, 08:05:54 PM
Quote from: cnitas on November 20, 2007, 07:59:38 PM
In the end it does not matter since prior service will wear what they want anyway.
Not those who care about following the regs. I have a retired Navy E-8 who had been told he could wear his surface warfare badge along with his combat aircrew wings by a previous commander. When he transfered in, he asked if it was correct. My commander, former AF Capt, said he thought so, but would check with National. Susie Parker said the surface warfare badge was out, along with the submariner's badge another member earned. The E-8 simply said ok and the next meeting, the surface warfare badge was removed. The submariner hadn't put his on yet, so he left it off.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on November 20, 2007, 08:06:31 PM
Quote from: cnitas on November 20, 2007, 07:59:38 PM
You are right. 
I had assumed that it was authorized for the Air Force Uniform.  I just went and looked up afi36-2903 to see what can be worn...

The list includes:
CIB
CAB
CMB
Air Assult
Pathfinder
Parachute rigger
Scuba
even the ranger tab in specific instances.
But no Naval badges....  Inter-service rivalry at its best.
In the end it does not matter since prior service will wear what they want anyway.

That said, are you going to write in the Blue Beret and Ranger stuff that was voted on a while back?

Remember that there are a lot of AF types embedded into Army units: weather, tactical air control parties, airlift control parties.  It's much more likely for an Airman to have Army badges and still be in the AF than for an Airman to have Navy stuff.

Also, many of the badges (such as Ranger tabs) can only be worn while you are attached to an Army unit.  Once you're back in the mainstream AF, those badges come off.

Most prior service people don't wear "what they want" - usually only problem children who don't think rules apply to them.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on November 20, 2007, 09:02:03 PM
Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on November 20, 2007, 04:13:45 AM
Here in ILWG, my Group Commander is a former Combat SEAL and wears his badge proudly.

The manual says that only badges authorized on the AF uniform are permitted. So, officially, the SEAL badge would not be permitted, as well as many other ones from the various badges of service.

That being said, however, I think he ought to be able to wear it legally. There really is no reason that he shouldn't be able to. There are ways we should mirror the AF, but I also think that in some ways that we should make allowances for our many current and former military personnel to display their accomplishments on our uniform.

As to the original task of the thread, there's another thing. Delete the requirement for SMWOG and NCO's to wear the CAP cutouts on the collar of uniforms. It just isn't necessary. It's minor, but it would require one less thing for them to wear. And with stripes on the sleeve (for NCO's), it makes the uniform look a little busy.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 20, 2007, 09:08:59 PM
Yes we will be reviewing everything to make sure that any changes to the USAF authorized list are also covered in the revision on 39-1.

We will also review past items that were approved and have had no action taken to further the approval for wear.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on November 20, 2007, 09:26:58 PM
I think an appendix or similar with an FAQ or list of items commonly work but prohibited would be a good idea.

Its one thing to expect members to understand the regs and the fact that if its not authorized specifically, its not authorized at all, but another for members with no experience reading military-style regulations to figure things out.

I'm speaking of a simple list:

Something similar to this:

The following items are prohibited or restricted as indicated:

1) "boonie" - style hats are prohibited for all members.

2) Leather jackets will not be worn with any USAF-style uniform.

Etc., etc.,

I'd also suggest that contentious optional items such as berets have >explicit< instructions as to where they are allowed, and who may restrict their wear.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on November 20, 2007, 09:40:02 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 20, 2007, 09:26:58 PM
Its one thing to expect members to understand the regs and the fact that if its not authorized specifically, its not authorized at all, but another for members with no experience reading military-style regulations to figure things out.

I'm speaking of a simple list:

Something similar to this:

The following items are prohibited or restricted as indicated:

1) "boonie" - style hats are prohibited for all members.

2) Leather jackets will not be worn with any USAF-style uniform.

There's already a limitation very similar to that in place. Paragraph 1.1 says:

"COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY.  Any variation from this publication is not authorized.  Items not listed in this publication are not authorized for wear."

Considering lack of familiarity with military type pubs, maybe this statement needs to be repeated. Maybe once before each individual section, and make the entire statement in bold.  There's no reason to take up more room in a manual with long lists when you don't need to. I can see people trying to argue that something is allowed because it wasn't in the "forbidden" list.

With new members, I tell them to read the first chapter, and then each section that applies to the uniform they're wearing thoroughly before they even try to wear a uniform. I also tell them to not to be afraid to ask questions. I do get a lot of questions, and we usually don't have any problems.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on November 20, 2007, 09:43:43 PM
Practically every AFI is clearly marked in bold letters 'COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY!' on the cover page of each AFI. Perhaps CAP regs and manuals should begin to follow this precedent.

Back to the uniform discussion...
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on November 20, 2007, 09:48:56 PM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on November 20, 2007, 09:43:43 PM
Practically every AFI is clearly marked in bold letters 'COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY!' on the cover page of each AFI. Perhaps CAP regs and manuals should begin to follow this precedent.

Back to the uniform discussion...

One would like to think that our senior members, especially, could be explained what this means and move on, however history tells us otherwise, and considering this is >our< manual, we shoudl take into account the hand-holding many of our members need.

Most of the rest of the world works on the principle of "if it doesn't say you >can't<, you can", whereas CAP, and the RealMilitary® works the opposite.

Rather than conintue to fight this, As I said, I think summary do's and don'ts pages are needed.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on November 20, 2007, 09:52:14 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 20, 2007, 09:48:56 PM
Rather than conintue to fight this, As I said, I think summary do's and don'ts pages are needed.

Or maybe just explain it. Could save a lot of paper.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BillB on November 20, 2007, 09:53:18 PM
If you had a list in the manual of items not authorized, someone will say my pink socks aren't listed so they must be authorized. Any list on non-authorized items would never be complete as new uniform items come out in all military services and CAP members would probably try to wear them as they were not listed in the unauthorized list.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hoodsie on November 20, 2007, 09:58:10 PM
This has been mentioned before I concur with Cloth Name Tags and Cloth Rank for the AF Flight Suit.

The plastic encased rank is very much outdated.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on November 20, 2007, 10:03:57 PM
Quote from: Hoodsie on November 20, 2007, 09:58:10 PM
This has been mentioned before I concur with Cloth Name Tags and Cloth Rank for the AF Flight Suit.

The plastic encased rank is very much outdated.

At least dark green / white, please.  Blue / white is fine on the blue suit, but looks weird on the green suit.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on November 20, 2007, 10:16:12 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 20, 2007, 06:55:32 PM
Any badges worn on the USAF uniform have to be approved by USAF. If its not authorized for wear by USAF personnel on their service uniform, then they won't authorize if for CAP personnel.

I will have photos to post by the end of the week.

Then perhaps they can wear the badges on the Corporate Uniforms??  Possible change here!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on November 20, 2007, 10:22:32 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 20, 2007, 10:03:57 PM
Quote from: Hoodsie on November 20, 2007, 09:58:10 PM
This has been mentioned before I concur with Cloth Name Tags and Cloth Rank for the AF Flight Suit.

The plastic encased rank is very much outdated.

At least dark green / white, please.  Blue / white is fine on the blue suit, but looks weird on the green suit.

Or off the shelf rank that the AF uses would work here.  We are already wearing a a patch that says "CAP" on the suit, and if we sew cloth rank on, color won't matter.  So lets go with the cheapest around.  Off the shelf at MCSS is like $1.50  (But the Vanguard lobbyists won't allow this I know!....in fact, I think they may be the group deciding our uniform changes anyway).
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Falshrmjgr on November 20, 2007, 10:26:10 PM
If you want to move toward a more uniform appearance, then do the right thing and authorize the wear of military ribbons and badges awarded to members on ALL uniforms (within the scope of 39-1).

As a matter of fact, authorize the wear of NON-39-1 approved badges on the corporate uniforms.   SO if the aforementioned former SEAL wants to wear his budweiser badge, he CAN on the BBDU.

If you are worried about members having 20 rows of ribbons, then give them a choice:  wear military ribbons or CAP ribbons, but not both.

(Sorry, as a former grunt, I *expect* to see someone's 201 file on their uniform.  Former Marines, your mileage may differ)  ;D
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on November 20, 2007, 10:27:53 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on November 20, 2007, 10:22:32 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 20, 2007, 10:03:57 PM
Quote from: Hoodsie on November 20, 2007, 09:58:10 PM
This has been mentioned before I concur with Cloth Name Tags and Cloth Rank for the AF Flight Suit.

The plastic encased rank is very much outdated.

At least dark green / white, please.  Blue / white is fine on the blue suit, but looks weird on the green suit.

Or off the shelf rank that the AF uses would work here.  We are already wearing a a patch that says "CAP" on the suit, and if we sew cloth rank on, color won't matter.  So lets go with the cheapest around.  Off the shelf at MCSS is like $1.50  (But the Vanguard lobbyists won't allow this I know!....in fact, I think they may be the group deciding our uniform changes anyway).

Unfortunately, off the shelf is subdued, something the USAF has historically denied us...
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on November 20, 2007, 10:30:58 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 20, 2007, 10:27:53 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on November 20, 2007, 10:22:32 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 20, 2007, 10:03:57 PM
Quote from: Hoodsie on November 20, 2007, 09:58:10 PM
This has been mentioned before I concur with Cloth Name Tags and Cloth Rank for the AF Flight Suit.

The plastic encased rank is very much outdated.

At least dark green / white, please.  Blue / white is fine on the blue suit, but looks weird on the green suit.

Or off the shelf rank that the AF uses would work here.  We are already wearing a a patch that says "CAP" on the suit, and if we sew cloth rank on, color won't matter.  So lets go with the cheapest around.  Off the shelf at MCSS is like $1.50  (But the Vanguard lobbyists won't allow this I know!....in fact, I think they may be the group deciding our uniform changes anyway).

Unfortunately, off the shelf is subdued, something the USAF has historically denied us...

Also, subdued is a compromise b/w identification and maintaining concealment.  Since we don't need to go tactical, the insignia should be visible.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on November 20, 2007, 10:46:37 PM
^ I say go with what is cheaper......if it is Vanguards CAP specific rank so be it, if it is AF subdued so be it.  The rank is visible even though it is subdued.

Oh.....nice 12 pages long and hardly any fighting!  Way to go Col White for finding a topic that is awesome to add to.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on November 20, 2007, 10:55:09 PM
If possible, the regulation should be laid out as "fool-proof" as possible.

Part of our problem with uniforms is so much is left to the reader's judgment - a recipe for disaster around here.

Part of any revision of the uniform regs should be making the uniform easy to assemble, wear and inspect.  Along with reducing choices ("do you want the epaulets that go with the white shirt with gray slacks or the white shirt with blue slacks?") should be a document that lays it all out for you.

I could see a web site that hyper-linked areas of the uniform to the appropriate items, such as what badges can be worn on the pocket as opposed to the badges that can be worn above the pocket.

Also, questions on uniform items should be referred to the uniform board for a ruling instead of landing on Ms. Parker's desk for resolution.

These things might solve a lot of the current uniform problems.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on November 20, 2007, 10:56:30 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on November 20, 2007, 10:46:37 PM
^ I say go with what is cheaper......if it is Vanguards CAP specific rank so be it, if it is AF subdued so be it.  The rank is visible even though it is subdued.

If we want cheaper we could just dispense with grade insignia.  Considering a promotion can cost a chunk of change, it might be worth it.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on November 20, 2007, 11:13:21 PM
How about when your revision is finally put up on the e-services in draft form for review, that members be specifically authorized to contact the uniform committee (or whoever) directly to point out errors or contradictions?   I'm not talking about letting people make suggestions (I want dark green uniforms!), but pointing out problems only. 

Trying to get comments on regulations kicked up the chain is almost impossible and that sort of direct feedback on specific mistakes could be helpful. 

Frankly, that should be the way it should be for all draft regulations. 

Comments and suggestions about how to change the regs probably should go through the chain of command.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 20, 2007, 11:23:06 PM
OK, here are the 2 proposed submissions for the ABU.

One: ABU with full color (Navy blue to be submitted)
Two: ABU with white on sage green background (OD being used here but sage matches the dark green of the ABU well.)

(http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa65/LtColWhite/ABUCurrent.jpg)

(http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa65/LtColWhite/ABUProposed.jpg)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on November 20, 2007, 11:29:43 PM
I like white letters with just about any dark background. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jayleswo on November 20, 2007, 11:46:37 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 20, 2007, 11:23:06 PM
OK, here are the 2 proposed submissions for the ABU.

One: ABU with full color (Navy blue to be submitted)
Two: ABU with white on sage green background (OD being used here but sage matches the dark green of the ABU well.)


Hello Lt Col White. I think you may have missed my suggestion back on page 3 for Gray branch tapes, name tapes and insignia for ABU as one alternative.

This was presuming USAF did not approve ABU background name and branch tapes which would be simplest and the best looking of all. Perhaps with a different color of distinctive lettering such as White or Gray letters? This would allow former/current USAF to wear badges and insignia on their CAP uniform without any difficulty (cost) in obtaining them in alternate colors and allow those badges to better match. Grade insignia would be more easily obtained since that would be unaltered. Other 3rd Party sources could be used for name tape if only the thread color for the name was different, also reducing cost. I would imagine all CAP insignia would need to be produced in ABU background pattern though, which might increase cost but conversely make for a better looking uniform.

"If additional distinctiveness is required, then specify gray branch and name tapes vs. ultramarine blue or ABU background pattern. This color would provide consistency with the gray coloration of our shoulder mark insignia and be a better match for the coloration of this uniform."

Of the two options, #2 looks better.

-- John
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on November 20, 2007, 11:49:56 PM
You know what?

I like the green, the the blue doesn't really look that bad either.

The shirt is so busy already that the blue is kind of lost.  I'd like to see it in brighter light, though.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JC004 on November 20, 2007, 11:54:34 PM
^^ I saw one of these things for the first time in person, at the USO a couple of weeks ago.  It is the silliest thing.  But the Air Force is set on it.  I like the green or gray with white letters. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RogueLeader on November 21, 2007, 02:22:13 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 20, 2007, 11:49:56 PM

I like the green, the the blue doesn't really look that bad either.


Ditto as well.  Either would be fine with me.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Smokey on November 21, 2007, 02:48:15 AM
My vote is the green.......still distinctive but not garish.

At least though the blue is not electric smurf blue.

As for flight suit grade insignia....no we are not hiding/tactical......but the AF subdued rank is cheap and available.   If we ask for full color on green background Vanguard will charge us $5.95 instead of the $1.70 at the BX....why ...because they can as sole supplier.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on November 21, 2007, 03:19:28 AM
Col White thanks for the pics!  I would say either would work......but if we can get AF approval to use their color scheme that would be better.  (Just think we could then order nametapes and rank from any supplier). 

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on November 21, 2007, 03:10:31 PM
I would prefer the blue - it's not a major break from what we're wearing now and it uses the same grade insignia as the blue jumpsuit/flightsuit.

I think the sage will be too light to have effective contrast with the white lettering for readability, but I'm saving those rounds until I see the sage nametapes.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on November 21, 2007, 03:20:55 PM
Quote from: Smokey on November 21, 2007, 02:48:15 AM
My vote is the green.......still distinctive but not garish.

At least though the blue is not electric smurf blue.

As for flight suit grade insignia....no we are not hiding/tactical......but the AF subdued rank is cheap and available.   If we ask for full color on green background Vanguard will charge us $5.95 instead of the $1.70 at the BX....why ...because they can as sole supplier.

Vanguard does not have sole rights to eagles, oak leaves, or bars - or green clovers and blue diamonds, for that matter.  It should be easy enough to purchase grade insignia on the open market.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 21, 2007, 03:22:33 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 21, 2007, 03:10:31 PM
I would prefer the blue - it's not a major break from what we're wearing now and it uses the same grade insignia as the blue jumpsuit/flightsuit.

I think the sage will be too light to have effective contrast with the white lettering for readability, but I'm saving those rounds until I see the sage nametapes.

The grade insignia in the photo is on a sage background.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on November 21, 2007, 03:26:34 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 21, 2007, 03:22:33 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 21, 2007, 03:10:31 PM
I would prefer the blue - it's not a major break from what we're wearing now and it uses the same grade insignia as the blue jumpsuit/flightsuit.

I think the sage will be too light to have effective contrast with the white lettering for readability, but I'm saving those rounds until I see the sage nametapes.

The grade insignia in the photo is on a sage background.

Hard to see any difference b/w them and the OD nametapes.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 21, 2007, 03:30:40 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 21, 2007, 03:26:34 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 21, 2007, 03:22:33 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 21, 2007, 03:10:31 PM
I would prefer the blue - it's not a major break from what we're wearing now and it uses the same grade insignia as the blue jumpsuit/flightsuit.

I think the sage will be too light to have effective contrast with the white lettering for readability, but I'm saving those rounds until I see the sage nametapes.

The grade insignia in the photo is on a sage background.

Hard to see any difference b/w them and the OD nametapes.

the rank is on a true green background and the tapes have a bit more of brown in the green. It was the closest option available to get at least a similar appearance until sage tapes would be made if approved. There is sufficient contrast in the sage/white and it goes well with the darker green of the ABU almost perfectly.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: SStradley on November 21, 2007, 04:30:26 PM
Lt Col White,

Thank you for assuming this task.  Here are my suggestions:

USAF Style Uniforms
Service Dress Uniform: 1) Request that the USAF authorize the embroidered grade insignia be changed from a gray epaulet sleeve to a blue epaulet sleeve.  Keeping the embroidered "CAP".  This blue epaulet sleeve would then be worn on both the USAF style uniform and the Corporate Service Dress Uniform.  2) With respect to the weight issue:  As you know the USAF no longer has any height weight requirements.  They use a Body Mass Index method (at enlistment). We should confirm to the USAF current regulations for the USAF style uniforms (with a percentage allowance for civilians)  If the USAF requires us to keep a weight and height chart then it should be a sliding scale based upon age, with a phase out once a member has reached a certain age (perhaps 50).
Battle Dress Uniform: 1) Phase in the ABU as soon as possible. 2)  For the BDU (and later the ABU) replace the ultramarine background of the name tapes, badges and ranks with the white on green shown in your second picture above.  I have yet to have seen a cogent argument for the garish background used for our tapes and ranks on our field uniforms.  If we need to stand out in the field and the safety vests are not enough, then change the whole color of the field uniform.  However, the clash between the ultramarine blue and green of the BDU makes no sense.  3)  Authorize a "Boonie Cap" for the BDU.  In areas with a lot of sun (like Florida and Arizona) the additional protection received from the Boonie Cap is a safety issue.  4)  Retain the Jungle Boot option.  Here in Florida if you are in the field you are likely to get your feed wet.  The drains in the Jungle Boot allow the water to drain out.  (However, it remains to be seen what the hot weather version of the ABU boot will be.)
Flight Suite: 1) If the USAF will not allow a change to the weight standard for the Service Dress Uniform request it again for the Flight Suite.  The Nomex in the Flight Suite is a safety feature.  I would hate to think that a member was injured because he could not afford the option of a $265 blue Nomex Flight Suite and therefore was in a cotton flight suit or a polo shirt.  This would be a very high price to pay for the USAF's vanity.

Corporate Uniforms:
Corporate Service Dress Uniform: 1) Allow neatly trimmed beards and mustaches with the TPU. 2) Phase out the white/gray corporate uniform combination in favor of the TPU.  This should not be a problem if we allow beards and mustaches with the TPU. 3) Authorize the USAF Service Coat as the Corporate Service Coat for the TPU.  Since it would be worn over the White Aviator Shirt with the distinctive CAP gray (or blue) Epaulet Sleeve it should look sufficiently different  from the USAF uniform to avoid mistaking those members who don't meet the AF weight or facial hair requirements as AF Officers.  This will make the arguments about the sleeve trim moot, and simplify the change to the HAP uniform. 4) Authorize the USAF Light Weight Jacket (blue) with the TPU for the same reason, and phase out the Black Army Jacket.  5) Conform all badges, rank, name plates and ribbons between the TPU and the USAF Service Dress Uniform. 
BBDU: Phase out the BBDU in favor of the BDU.  As the USAF is going to the ABU for their uniform who or how the BDU is worn should no longer be a concern to the AF. 
Blue Nomex Flight Suit: Phase it out in favor of the Sage Green due to the lower cost/safety issue discussed above.
Blue Cotton Flight Suite: Phase it out.
Polo Shirt:  1) Eliminate the white silk screen version.  It looks cheep and at an $8 savings it is not worth it.  2) Suggest that the non-personalized polo shirt is for the use of Squadrons to supply to new members until they can order their own personalized Polo Shirt.  3) Encourage members to order the personalized version.  4) Authorize a gray BDU (tactical) style pant with boots for use in the field with the Polo Shirt.

Scott Stradley, Maj, CAP
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Phillip on November 21, 2007, 04:50:36 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 20, 2007, 11:23:06 PM
OK, here are the 2 proposed submissions for the ABU.

One: ABU with full color (Navy blue to be submitted)
Two: ABU with white on sage green background (OD being used here but sage matches the dark green of the ABU well.)

The White/Sage insignia really looks better than I thought it would, so I'd vote for that to be submitted to the USAF. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: arajca on November 21, 2007, 05:01:55 PM
So, is there a plan to have two colors of tapes/insignia backgrounds - green for the abu, navy for the bbdu?

As for those who say get rid of the bbdu, why? The AF is going to the ABU, so why should I have to buy a new uniform that that AF is abandoning?

I will recommend adopting the old USN beard standard for the corporate service uniforms.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on November 21, 2007, 05:53:17 PM
Quote from: Falshrmjgr on November 20, 2007, 10:26:10 PM
If you want to move toward a more uniform appearance, then do the right thing and authorize the wear of military ribbons and badges awarded to members on ALL uniforms (within the scope of 39-1).

Problem with that is that the miltary overall doesn't allow their badges on other than military uniforms. The Corporates may be uniform, but they're not military uniform. From what I've heard, it's something in the US Code. Don't ask me where, I never found the reference. We can't permit something that the military doesn't allow.

Quote from: LtCol White on November 20, 2007, 11:23:06 PM
OK, here are the 2 proposed submissions for the ABU.

One: ABU with full color (Navy blue to be submitted)
Two: ABU with white on sage green background (OD being used here but sage matches the dark green of the ABU well.)

I could go for the navy blue, and I think the sage might look OK. One suggestion: See if you can find tapes that match the grey background of ABU badges and rank insignia. It might be hard to read with white, but maybe we could get the AF to allow subdued lettering if the tapes are a solid  color instead of their Tiger Stripe (I know it's a long shot, but let them tell us no). We may get lucky, and someone could wear AF badges with CAP ones, and they wouldn't look out of place.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on November 21, 2007, 06:04:37 PM
Another thing to add, (or maybe return to the manual), is the black turtleneck with BDU's and flightsuit. They're currently authorized for the Air Force according to their current -2903.

Was looking at the thread on "Chilly in BDU's", and went looking for the turtleneck in 39-1. It wasn't there. I know it used to be, and I didn't realize it had been taken out. Been wearing one the last couple of weeks that got cold.

Guess I need to reread the 39-1 again.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Falshrmjgr on November 21, 2007, 06:12:28 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on November 21, 2007, 05:53:17 PM
Quote from: Falshrmjgr on November 20, 2007, 10:26:10 PM
If you want to move toward a more uniform appearance, then do the right thing and authorize the wear of military ribbons and badges awarded to members on ALL uniforms (within the scope of 39-1).

Problem with that is that the military overall doesn't allow their badges on other than military uniforms. The Corporates may be uniform, but they're not military uniform. From what I've heard, it's something in the US Code. Don't ask me where, I never found the reference. We can't permit something that the military doesn't allow.

The restrictions are placed by the "Current" service, not the former service.  It is my understanding that the US Code's restriction is only on the wear of awards and decorations that one has not earned.

Other restrictions are the normal, don't wear your uniform while making political speeches, etc.

Otherwise, it is no different than wearing your stuff on your VFW cap.

My opinion, is that the services tend to limit the wear of badges from other services for a few reasons:

The Army tends to limit the wear of badges from sister services that it considers "Soft Skill Badges," but has gotten more liberal in the last few years.

The Air Force tends to limit badges that are "Gaudy, detract from their aviation heritage, or are not similar to existing Air Force Awards"  e.g SEAL Badges, Ranger/SF Tabs, etc...

The Marine Corps just tends to restrict badges.  Period.  (Exceptions: Aviator Wings, Jump Wings, Scuba Badges....), or prefer to convert them to "equivalent" awards: e.g. CIB becomes a Combat Action Ribbon.  (Conversely, a CAR does not become a CIB because of different criteria.)

The Navy tends to, well  haven't looked at it in while.  I know they don't allow tabs.

Anyhow, it would seem to me that CAP controls it's Uniform Regulation, and that the Air Force has "discouraged" CAP from allowing the wear of awards for the Fat & Fuzzy.  I suppose there was a rationale that it prevented the casual observing from thinking that those awards had been made by CAP, but I find that argument specious at best.

Anyone else have insight in this?  Seems the (I hate to go here) CG Aux doesn't have such a hangup.  Their regulations seem to be "If you've earned it, wear it!" ;D
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 21, 2007, 06:14:45 PM
Quote from: arajca on November 21, 2007, 05:01:55 PM
So, is there a plan to have two colors of tapes/insignia backgrounds - green for the abu, navy for the bbdu?

As for those who say get rid of the bbdu, why? The AF is going to the ABU, so why should I have to buy a new uniform that that AF is abandoning?

I will recommend adopting the old USN beard standard for the corporate service uniforms.



Yes, with the submission, we will recommend going to all dark blue insignia for the Blue BDU with a phase in date. Its a very minor change so there is no real need to provide illustration for the change.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on November 21, 2007, 06:27:32 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 21, 2007, 06:14:45 PM
Quote from: arajca on November 21, 2007, 05:01:55 PM
So, is there a plan to have two colors of tapes/insignia backgrounds - green for the abu, navy for the bbdu?

As for those who say get rid of the bbdu, why? The AF is going to the ABU, so why should I have to buy a new uniform that that AF is abandoning?

I will recommend adopting the old USN beard standard for the corporate service uniforms.

Yes, with the submission, we will recommend going to all dark blue insignia for the Blue BDU with a phase in date. Its a very minor change so there is no real need to provide illustration for the change.

I would suggest making the BDU/ABU nametapes and grade insignia the same as the dark blue on the BBDU's.  This way there's a connection between the two field uniforms.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on November 21, 2007, 06:30:02 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 21, 2007, 06:27:32 PMI would suggest making the BDU/ABU nametapes and grade insignia the same as the dark blue on the BBDU's.  This way there's a connection between the two field uniforms.

Looking at it simply, this seems to be the most logical. Instead of replying "Which uniform will you be wearing?" you just tell someone "The navy blue tapes for either field uniform."

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: floridacyclist on November 21, 2007, 06:32:54 PM
Wonder how hard it would be to phase in Olive Drab BDUs to replace the Navy Blue ones? It would just look so much more uniform when you're in with a group of camo-wearing folks and you could use the same webgear without it looking really wierd.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Sarge on November 21, 2007, 06:35:40 PM
Lt Col White,
I suggest we try to cut down on uniforms as well. One corporate equivalent for each USAF uniform. Nice and simple. Ditch the shabby "CAP utility uniform" flight suit lookin' thing. The biggest change I would make is to get some new photo models for the 39-1....(see BBDU and utility uniform guy and the raincoat guy!)
The more we can find common items at AAFES for our uniforms, the better. I for one am active duty and enjoy as much commonality as possible between my CAP garb and my USAF wear. I agree with the cloth rank on flight suits and don't see the big deal with putting regular USAF subdued rank on. It has nothing to do with "going tactical" but does have everything to do with availability.
Agree with trying for blue epaulet slides w/ CAP embroidered.
I also think that the grays should go in favor of the white aviator with the blue pants.
Allow the ABU now, and make BDUs phase out 2013 (2 years after USAF in 2011)
I am glad we are addressing this now and attempting to "clean the closet out"
I like the idea of grey BDU pants being OK with blue polo, though I do not prefer the polo in the first place.
Why does the polo have the "old" corporate seal on it when all seems to be going to the "command patch"?....just a question
Let members wear badges they earned regardless of branch. They are accomplishments!
I like the blue on the ABU in case you're keeping track! Thanks for your work on this topic. Maybe after the smoke clears, we can all breathe a sigh of relief and stay with the same duds for a few years. This will give us more time to address the real "program" issues.

C/WO (Ret)
SMSgt, USAF
Lt Col, CAP
Anonymous Squadron Commander
A proud CAPer since '76!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Falshrmjgr on November 21, 2007, 06:37:11 PM
Quote from: floridacyclist on November 21, 2007, 06:32:54 PM
Wonder how hard it would be to phase in Olive Drab BDUs to replace the Navy Blue ones? It would just look so much more uniform when you're in with a group of camo-wearing folks and you could use the same webgear without it looking really wierd.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Amen!   OD + ABU is much better than ABU + BBDU.  (Geez I miss my Old OG-107's!!!!)

Not to mention the Sage or Desert Boots wouldn't look totally stupid with the OD BDU's.

However, if we went with the OD BDU, Navy Lettering on tape would be best.  White would get washed out IMO.  Then the only difference between the ABU & ODBDU would be the cloth color itself.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: arajca on November 21, 2007, 06:54:07 PM
Quote from: Falshrmjgr on November 21, 2007, 06:37:11 PM
Quote from: floridacyclist on November 21, 2007, 06:32:54 PM
Wonder how hard it would be to phase in Olive Drab BDUs to replace the Navy Blue ones? It would just look so much more uniform when you're in with a group of camo-wearing folks and you could use the same webgear without it looking really wierd.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Amen!   OD + ABU is much better than ABU + BBDU.  (Geez I miss my Old OG-107's!!!!)

Not to mention the Sage or Desert Boots wouldn't look totally stupid with the OD BDU's.   
So explain to me, in words of one syllable or less, why I (and many others) should have spend a couple hundred dollars to replace perfectly good blue work uniforms for new green uniforms.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 21, 2007, 07:00:34 PM
Quote from: floridacyclist on November 21, 2007, 06:32:54 PM
Wonder how hard it would be to phase in Olive Drab BDUs to replace the Navy Blue ones? It would just look so much more uniform when you're in with a group of camo-wearing folks and you could use the same webgear without it looking really wierd.

Not really a change that keeps the "cost to the member" in mind as directed by Gen Courter.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: davedove on November 21, 2007, 07:06:09 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 21, 2007, 07:00:34 PM
Quote from: floridacyclist on November 21, 2007, 06:32:54 PM
Wonder how hard it would be to phase in Olive Drab BDUs to replace the Navy Blue ones? It would just look so much more uniform when you're in with a group of camo-wearing folks and you could use the same webgear without it looking really wierd.

Not really a change that keeps the "cost to the member" in mind as directed by Gen Courter.

IF you were to change the corporate field uniform, once the switch to ABU occurs, it would make the most sense to make BDU's the new corporate field uniform.  There would admittedly be many who currently have the blue field uniform who would have to buy a new set.  However, many already have the BDU's and would not have to get a new uniform, unless they really wanted the ABU.  An appropriate phase out could be instituted for the blue field uniform to ease the financial burden on the members.  Note that I use the blue field uniform, so I would be one of those who would have to buy a new one in this case.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: floridacyclist on November 21, 2007, 07:17:46 PM
Same here. Of course, you could also always specify that existing BBDUs could be worn until the end of their useful service life. Regular BDUs would be good...am sure they will be available surplus for years to come, something that cannot be said for the BBDUs.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: 0 on November 21, 2007, 07:20:14 PM
Well first off Col. White do we have any official word that we will even get the ABU? Let's not forget when the Air Force made the switch from OD to BDU it took years till that trickled down to CAP.  So while starting to looking into ABU right now is it really a high priority than stream lining elsewhere in the 39-1 and making this easier for all of us.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DogCollar on November 21, 2007, 07:23:34 PM
It's about Cost to the Member!!!!!!!!!!!!  That has got to be priority one!!!

Allow present uniforms to be worn until they are beyond usefulness.

Don't make changes unless it is for safety or mission enhancement reasons.

If changing the pants that go with the polo shirt, make it khaki, as most of us already own a pair of khaki slacks.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: MIKE on November 21, 2007, 07:24:47 PM
I think it's a mistake to think that woodland camo BDUs will be available in sufficient quantity to justify retaining them as a CAP distinctive uniform for a length of time after the ABU is phased in.

I also think it's kind of stupid to have "new distinctive tapes/insignia" for the ABU... Unless you are saying I can pick up flag blue on ABU tapes and flag blue on gray insignia when I pick the uniform up at AAFES MCSS.  I think the white on sage/OD is a waste.  The most cost effective being using white on ultramarine or a wear out phase out to white on navy for the ABU and Field Uniform.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 21, 2007, 07:26:57 PM
Quote from: NERMA002 Safety on November 21, 2007, 07:20:14 PM
Well first off Col. White do we have any official word that we will even get the ABU? Let's not forget when the Air Force made the switch from OD to BDU it took years till that trickled down to CAP.  So while starting to looking into ABU right now is it really a high priority than stream lining elsewhere in the 39-1 and making this easier for all of us.

Yes, USAF has already said that we would make the switch. Phase in date and insignia changes are all that are in question. We intend to use the 2011 date for mandatory wear to remain consistant with USAF.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: alamrcn on November 21, 2007, 07:57:58 PM
OH, PLEASE! Changing a $2.00 uniform item over a phase-in time frame of probably several years IS NOT going to break ANYONE'S budget! Most everyone reading this message just stole $2.00 in productivity from their employer. If you or a member you know seriously can't afford new cloth tapes with their new uniform, write me a well thought-out "Dear Oprah" letter with the sob story and I'll buy them myself.

I concur with Proposal #2. Why would anyone take the old tapes off their BDUs and put them on their new ABUs? They probably already look like he|| from age, and I'm guessing might not be the exact width for the new pocket anyway. You're going to (SHOULD) buy new ones anyway!

Sage tapes for the sage-ish ABU uniform, and navy tapes for the navy BBDU uniform is not rocket science. This recommendation is solid on all counts, and it is not "a change for the sake of change." It would be met with great approval amoung the membership and look great in the public eye. If you were Joe Civilian and happened to see our two duty uniforms side-by-side... would you more likely comment:

a. I don't know why they chose ultra-marine blue cloth tapes for either uniform, but at least they are the same on both uniforms, or...

b. Hey, those are two very sharp and distinct uniforms!

If the committee is ever hung on any decision, let it come down to two final choices like the ones shown, and then let the membership vote? We've done it before at least once with a ballot included within the CAP-News.

-Ace

added...
QuoteWe intend to use the 2011 date for mandatory wear to remain consistant with USAF.
Very good idea!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: davedove on November 21, 2007, 07:59:04 PM
Quote from: MIKE on November 21, 2007, 07:24:47 PM
I think it's a mistake to think that woodland camo BDUs will be available in sufficient quantity to justify retaining them as a CAP distinctive uniform for a length of time after the ABU is phased in.

While we would no longer be able to get the cheaper BDU's from the military, I have no doubt that they will still be readily available in the marketplace.  One can readily buy the BDU style uniform in any number of patterns or colors now, and I don't think that will change.  Granted, they will cost a little more.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on November 21, 2007, 08:23:01 PM
Quote from: alamrcn on November 21, 2007, 07:57:58 PM
Sage tapes for the sage-ish ABU uniform, and navy tapes for the navy BBDU uniform is not rocket science. This recommendation is solid on all counts, and it is not "a change for the sake of change." It would be met with great approval amoung the membership and look great in the public eye. If you were Joe Civilian and happened to see our two duty uniforms side-by-side... would you more likely comment:

a. I don't know why they chose ultra-marine blue cloth tapes for either uniform, but at least they are the same on both uniforms, or...

b. Hey, those are two very sharp and distinct uniforms!

But we don't want distinctive uniforms!  We want uniforms that your average person will see as being part of the same org.

We don't want to drive a bigger wedge b/w the Fit and the Fat/Fuzzy, which is what you get if you make different tapes for each uniform.  Say it with me, "One Team, One Fight, One Suit (or as close as we can)."

Also, people are going to show up with blue on the ABU or sage on the BBDU.  Just have one color: dark blue.  It's a lot easier to say "take this dark blue grade - it goes on any of the field uniforms (and hopefully flight uniforms)" than say, "well, this goes on this one but not that one."
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DogCollar on November 21, 2007, 08:31:47 PM
Quote from: alamrcn on November 21, 2007, 07:57:58 PM
OH, PLEASE! Changing a $2.00 uniform item over a phase-in time frame of probably several years IS NOT going to break ANYONE'S budget! Most everyone reading this message just stole $2.00 in productivity from their employer. If you or a member you know seriously can't afford new cloth tapes with their new uniform, write me a well thought-out "Dear Oprah" letter with the sob story and I'll buy them myself.

We're NOT talking about $2.00 uniform items and you know it!  Besides, while a $2.00 item is not extravegent, perhaps; but, multiple changes, $2.00 here, $20 there, oh by the way you need to buy the ABU, the BDU is no longer authorized!  Oh yeah, a new style of boot...and on and on and on...eventually adding up to serious money!  And while it may not break my bank account, it goes against the priniciple of trying to reduce wasteful spending wherever possible.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RogueLeader on November 21, 2007, 08:46:24 PM
Another thing I would like to see is authorization to have a nametape on the back of the patrol cap- cover- you know what I mean. . . .
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Falshrmjgr on November 21, 2007, 08:58:02 PM
Quote from: arajca on November 21, 2007, 06:54:07 PM
Quote from: Falshrmjgr on November 21, 2007, 06:37:11 PM
Quote from: floridacyclist on November 21, 2007, 06:32:54 PM
Wonder how hard it would be to phase in Olive Drab BDUs to replace the Navy Blue ones? It would just look so much more uniform when you're in with a group of camo-wearing folks and you could use the same webgear without it looking really wierd.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Amen!   OD + ABU is much better than ABU + BBDU.  (Geez I miss my Old OG-107's!!!!)

Not to mention the Sage or Desert Boots wouldn't look totally stupid with the OD BDU's.   
So explain to me, in words of one syllable or less, why I (and many others) should have spend a couple hundred dollars to replace perfectly good blue work uniforms for new green uniforms.

Not sure I can use a word of less than one syllable, but here goes... (Dang!  syllable has three syllables...)

My argument is simply this:  Let's look at the long range plan.  I wouldn't propose any short term wear-out date for the BDU or BBDU.  *THAT* is the low impact to member piece.  But from a long range planning perspective, I can already see problems with different tape/thread colors on ABU versus BBDU.  So let's nip the 5 year from now argument in the bud that people don't look alike in uniform.

OD BDU's are going to look a lot more similar to the ABU when standing next to one another.  They are similar enough in color value, that the tapes can be the same, as can any badges.

Furthermore, the military, as a whole is moving away from BLACK BOOTS.  Long term, it makes sense for us to follow.  If we base our planning on the short term, we set ourselves up for more changes to annoy everyone in the future.

Do it once, and do it right.

So for Joe Capper, he doesn't go out and replace anything servicable on his uniform anytime soon.  But when it is time to replace that ratty old set of BDU's or BBDU's, he purchases the new ABU or ODBDU.  What kills people is not the "don't buy this uniform any more, buy this one,"

it's the "Resew all your uniforms by March" changes, and the "You are no longer authorized to wear X as of tommorow" changes.

Although I do have to concur that the incremental cost of uniforms is going up.  Not sure there is an answer for that....

Another thought:  Since folks seem to want to wear the polo shirt with some sort of BDU pant, what about (whatever else is decided) fixing the Polo Shirt Color so that is looks good with the BBDU/BBDU Replacement.  (Black Polo/OD Pants, or Tan Polo BBDU Pants, etc....)

My Goodness I don't envy Lt Col White this job.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 21, 2007, 09:27:44 PM
Quote from: ricecakecm on November 21, 2007, 09:03:44 PM
Embroidered bag tags with CAP wings.

Please do not post photos on this thread. You will create confusion as I am posting proposals for review. Please remove these.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on November 21, 2007, 09:29:37 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on November 21, 2007, 06:30:02 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 21, 2007, 06:27:32 PMI would suggest making the BDU/ABU nametapes and grade insignia the same as the dark blue on the BBDU's.  This way there's a connection between the two field uniforms.

Looking at it simply, this seems to be the most logical. Instead of replying "Which uniform will you be wearing?" you just tell someone "The navy blue tapes for either field uniform."



Why does the BBDU have to match with it's tapes?  Less BBDU's are worn, why are we going to base changes solely on how that uniform will look in the end?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on November 21, 2007, 09:37:45 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 21, 2007, 08:23:01 PM
  It's a lot easier to say "take this dark blue grade - it goes on any of the field uniforms (and hopefully flight uniforms)" than say, "well, this goes on this one but not that one."

Or to say "take this AF ABU rank insignia, and AF ABU pattern nametape and AF ABU Pattern "CAP" branch tape.......   why must we keep the blue??  Nothing wrong with subdues insignia.  NOTHING!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on November 21, 2007, 09:43:22 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 21, 2007, 09:27:44 PM
Quote from: ricecakecm on November 21, 2007, 09:03:44 PM
Embroidered bag tags with CAP wings.

Please do not post photos on this thread. You will create confusion as I am posting proposals for review. Please remove these.

Oh come on......they look good!  Are you just mad someone beat you to it? 

I would suggest adding rank to the tag, and emboidered rank insignia instead of plastic encased.  THEN the flight suit will LOOK awesome! 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 21, 2007, 09:45:36 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on November 21, 2007, 09:43:22 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 21, 2007, 09:27:44 PM
Quote from: ricecakecm on November 21, 2007, 09:03:44 PM
Embroidered bag tags with CAP wings.

Please do not post photos on this thread. You will create confusion as I am posting proposals for review. Please remove these.

Oh come on......they look good!  Are you just mad someone beat you to it? 

I would suggest adding rank to the tag, and emboidered rank insignia instead of plastic encased.  THEN the flight suit will LOOK awesome! 

Not the point. The point is that we will post what will be proposed for comment. I asked originally that members not post photos but that they could PM them or email them to me. There are numerous other threads where people can post any photos they like.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on November 21, 2007, 09:47:48 PM
^ Got it.  BUT what do you think of embroidered insignia and tags on the flight suit?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 21, 2007, 09:48:44 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on November 21, 2007, 09:47:48 PM
^ Got it.  BUT what do you think of embroidered insignia and tags on the flight suit?

We agree and plan to submit it up to USAF for approval. That was addressed earlier on here
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on November 21, 2007, 09:53:27 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on November 21, 2007, 09:29:37 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on November 21, 2007, 06:30:02 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 21, 2007, 06:27:32 PMI would suggest making the BDU/ABU nametapes and grade insignia the same as the dark blue on the BBDU's.  This way there's a connection between the two field uniforms.

Looking at it simply, this seems to be the most logical. Instead of replying "Which uniform will you be wearing?" you just tell someone "The navy blue tapes for either field uniform."



Why does the BBDU have to match with it's tapes?  Less BBDU's are worn, why are we going to base changes solely on how that uniform will look in the end?

The BBDU's don't have to match their tapes - whatever AF style uniform (ABU/BDU) should have the same tapes as the BBDU.  This way, if you have a mixed bag of ABU and BBDU troops there is at least some bit of commonality between them.

If we are going to have multiple types of uniforms, they should share as many accessories as possible.  Since the AF doesn't want fat/fuzzies in their suits and prescribes distinctive CAP accessories (blue nametapes, gray epaulet covers) we should use them in the corporate suits in order to make linkages b/w the uniforms.

The idea that you need two nametags and two sets of epaulet covers and you determine which one you wear on the white aviator shirt by the color slacks you're wearing is whacked.  If the AF says you wear X on the Service Dress, you should wear X on the TPU.  It fosters uniformity, which is why we should we wearing uniforms.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on November 21, 2007, 10:03:27 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on November 21, 2007, 09:37:45 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 21, 2007, 08:23:01 PM
  It's a lot easier to say "take this dark blue grade - it goes on any of the field uniforms (and hopefully flight uniforms)" than say, "well, this goes on this one but not that one."

Or to say "take this AF ABU rank insignia, and AF ABU pattern nametape and AF ABU Pattern "CAP" branch tape.......   why must we keep the blue??  Nothing wrong with subdues insignia.  NOTHING!

Subdued insignia is a compromise between readability and battlefield necessity.  Before they twigged to the idea that bad guys were shooting at them based on the visible insignia, the services wore full color tapes and grade.  We didn't come up with white on ultramarine blue for the tapes: that was what the AF was wearing at the time.

Since only the people from Tinfoil Hat Comp Sqdn will argue CAP's need to go tactical, our concern should be readability.  White on dark blue beats midnight blue on ABU.

Also, it would be silly to put the ABU tapes on the BBDU and even the suggested ODBDU.  This means two sets of insignia and more delineation b/w the fit and the fat/fuzzy.

One Team, One Fight, One Nametape.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ctrossen on November 21, 2007, 10:17:01 PM
FWIW...

I think the general consensus is that we need to cut back on the number of uniforms, and that with the USAF service uniforms, that we'd like to go back to "blue."

I've heard some comments that we should use AFI 36-2903 and just create a CAP-specific supplement to that reg, but I don't think that'll work – just too much confusion having to flip back and forth between two different pubs to figure out how to set up a uniform. On the other hand, I do think that whoever writes the new 39-1 should take the Air Force Instruction (reg), and use it as a template: delete the uniforms that don't apply, but keep the same wording for everything that does apply, changing only the CAP distinctive parts (which would also maintain the same rules for wear – the Command Badge is a prime example).

Also, can we make sure that the uniform "models" are not only wearing the uniforms properly, but convey the appropriate military image? I'll just say that some individuals photograph better than others...

Now, on to the specific uniforms:

USAF-Style

Service Uniforms – If we can't return to a blue epaulet sleeve, then can we get a standardized name plate, one that we can wear with both the corporate and USAF service uniforms? Either we stick with the gray, or go to the two-line blue, or even a single line blue? As it stands, we have four different nameplates (five, if you count the Blazer combo) – silver for the service coat, gray three-line for seniors, blue three-line for cadets, and blue two-line for the CAP distinctive. Can we get down to two?

Cadets – I like the idea of finally getting rid of the cadet shoulder boards for the service coat. They're needlessly expensive, and if you want to maintain a "clean" uniform, the minute you promote from C/Capt to C/Maj, you need a new set. And yes, can we put the shoulder cords back to where they used to be?

Honor Guard Uniform – Do we need it? It is significantly different than the USAF Honor Guard uniform for no apparent reason.

Future USAF Service Uniform – Plan now how to incorporate any future service coat, with a good long timeline for switchover, especially for cadets. Assumably there will be a good supply of the current style of service coats in surplus for a while, which should hopefully supply our cadets for years to come.

BDU – Change the current white/gold on ultramarine insignia to white/gold on sage/OD. We will still maintain distinctiveness by using the full color (white or gold thread), but it won't be as awkward as having the ultramarine or dark blue background. We will be able to use these cloth insignia for more than just this uniform, as well.

ABU – I like the sage/green insignia over the dark blue. See above (and below) – we can use these cloth insignia on a variety of different uniforms to maintain standardization on all of the USAF-style utility uniforms.

Boots – the trend has already gone to the suede-style boots in the military, so let's follow suit. That's the style that will be in the DRMO/surplus channels soon enough.

Flight Suit – Cloth namepatch, definitely. I'll echo the comments that we can either go with the standard USAF colors or even colors as determined by the wing. I'll also advocate going to cloth rank, but go one further – full color on sage/OD.

Command Patch - Let's pick one and stick with it. I personally like the "old" one, but that's IMHO. Whichever one, we use as the standard on all uniforms.


Corporate Style

Nametags – see above. Let's get down to a standardized nametag to wear on both the USAF-style and corporate service uniforms.

Corporate Service Uniform – I may be a lone voice in the wilderness here, but I'd like to see *all* of the insignia on this uniform and the USAF-style uniform the same, which means also the same epaulet slides. (Not including military ribbons, of course, unless the USAF relents.) Obviously, if the Air Force allows us to go back to blue epaulet slides, that would be a no-brainer. But I don't have a major problem with the gray slides, and I would like to see some uniformity *and* keep costs down. Also, lets allow those who don't meet USAF grooming standards wear this uniform as well (so long as they are well-kempt). Additionally, I'd be interested to see a formal version.

White/Blue uniform vs. White/Gray – they serve the same purpose, with the White/Blue uniform seemingly the more popular among members. Allow those not meeting grooming standards to wear the White/Blue and phase out the White/Gray. There's no need to keep both of these uniforms around.

Blazer Uniform – is there any practical reason to keep this uniform around (discounting any IACE arguments; from what I've seen, lately most of the time they sport a polo shirt anyway)? We now have a corporate service uniform, which we historically did not have, so let's send this one to history.

Golf Shirt – Despite what you might think after reading this board for any length of time, this is a very popular uniform combination, both for flying and for "general" use. Here in Wisconsin, it is fairly ubiquitous. Though considering I am in Wisconsin, I would like to see a heavier shirt (and one that is long-sleeved). I like the idea of allowing standard khakis to be worn instead of the gray trousers. One unique proposal, though – can we add a skirt for the females? (This is a request I just received from a new member.)

Field Uniform (Blue BDU) – White/full-color insignia on dark blue background. Don't really know what else to say (though I do like the concept of moving those outside of weight/grooming standards to the standard woodland BDU after a move to ABU).

Utility Uniform (Blue jumpsuit) – I'm not overly thrilled with this uniform combo. It fills the "slot" once occupied by the infamous "Smurf Suit," but other than being a convenient uniform to keep in your trunk and throw on when needed, I don't know that this is a uniform "slot" that needs to be maintained.

Blue Flight Suit – Pricey, but nice looking. Cloth wings and white/full color on dark blue insignia.


Regards, and thanks for taking on this task,

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: arajca on November 21, 2007, 10:28:34 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on November 21, 2007, 09:37:45 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 21, 2007, 08:23:01 PM
  It's a lot easier to say "take this dark blue grade - it goes on any of the field uniforms (and hopefully flight uniforms)" than say, "well, this goes on this one but not that one."

Or to say "take this AF ABU rank insignia, and AF ABU pattern nametape and AF ABU Pattern "CAP" branch tape.......   why must we keep the blue??  Nothing wrong with subdues insignia.  NOTHING!
Except the AF has repeatedly said "NO" to subdued tapes and insignia.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on November 21, 2007, 11:16:22 PM
Quote from: arajca on November 21, 2007, 10:28:34 PMExcept the AF has repeatedly said "NO" to subdued tapes and insignia.

Or stated more succinctly in the argot of New Yawk/Noo Joisey: Subdued tapes and insignia for CAP? Fuhgeddaboudit! ;D
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on November 21, 2007, 11:30:10 PM
Quote from: arajca on November 21, 2007, 10:28:34 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on November 21, 2007, 09:37:45 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 21, 2007, 08:23:01 PM
  It's a lot easier to say "take this dark blue grade - it goes on any of the field uniforms (and hopefully flight uniforms)" than say, "well, this goes on this one but not that one."

Or to say "take this AF ABU rank insignia, and AF ABU pattern nametape and AF ABU Pattern "CAP" branch tape.......   why must we keep the blue??  Nothing wrong with subdues insignia.  NOTHING!
Except the AF has repeatedly said "NO" to subdued tapes and insignia.

Really?  I never saw that written down from the AF anywhere.  If we put a decent proposal together, instead of the "how about this and that" pondering, we may get what we want.  I would love to get rid of the blue tapes.  A uniform should look clean.....the blue makes it look bad.  Aesthetics are part of this too!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on November 21, 2007, 11:59:26 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 21, 2007, 08:23:01 PMAlso, people are going to show up with blue on the ABU or sage on the BBDU.  Just have one color: dark blue.  It's a lot easier to say "take this dark blue grade - it goes on any of the field uniforms (and hopefully flight uniforms)" than say, "well, this goes on this one but not that one."

Based on this point, I would have to withdraw support for sage green tapes. Make one set of tapes. Also, there are rank insignia and badges to consider. You can already get rank in navy blue, tapes are easily produced. The badges would also go on existing cloth (they use that cloth for rank insignia anyway).

Vanguard (and many other places) could make that stuff tomorrow. Other colors would require them to buy tapes and cloth that they don't currently have. And you know who's going to foot the bill on their new acquisitions.

Seems like the easiest and best appearing option is navy blue. Might even buy a blue BDU if that was allowed.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on November 22, 2007, 12:06:39 AM
Quote from: mikeylikey on November 21, 2007, 11:30:10 PM
I never saw that written down from the AF anywhere. 

What makes you think you would? And consider that if we hadn't actually been denied subdued tapes in the past, we'd have them now. Sticking your head in a hole, or sticking fingers in your ears doesn't change the facts.

Quote from: mikeylikey on November 21, 2007, 11:30:10 PM
If we put a decent proposal together, instead of the "how about this and that" pondering, we may get what we want.  I would love to get rid of the blue tapes.  A uniform should look clean.....the blue makes it look bad.  Aesthetics are part of this too!

A lot of people would love to get rid of them. But if we can't, we ask for something less garish. Telling the AF that we are entitled to something is a sure way for them to tell us that they'll handle things from now on. As far as the aesthetics goes, right now the best thing to do is actively seek a reasonable compromise with the AF, not tell them that you'll do as you see fit. And think of it this way, if they approve navy blue tapes, you've won in that round.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 22, 2007, 12:07:13 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on November 21, 2007, 11:59:26 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 21, 2007, 08:23:01 PMAlso, people are going to show up with blue on the ABU or sage on the BBDU.  Just have one color: dark blue.  It's a lot easier to say "take this dark blue grade - it goes on any of the field uniforms (and hopefully flight uniforms)" than say, "well, this goes on this one but not that one."

Based on this point, I would have to withdraw support for sage green tapes. Make one set of tapes. Also, there are rank insignia and badges to consider. You can already get rank in navy blue, tapes are easily produced. The badges would also go on existing cloth (they use that cloth for rank insignia anyway).

Vanguard (and many other places) could make that stuff tomorrow. Other colors would require them to buy tapes and cloth that they don't currently have. And you know who's going to foot the bill on their new acquisitions.

Seems like the easiest and best appearing option is navy blue. Might even buy a blue BDU if that was allowed.

Why? With all do respect, people arent stupid. I think they can figure out when told that blue goes on blue and green goes on the camo. If they can't understand this, there is a MUCH bigger problem than their uniform.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on November 22, 2007, 12:16:02 AM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 22, 2007, 12:07:13 AM
Why? With all do respect, people arent stupid. I think they can figure out when told that blue goes on blue and green goes on the camo. If they can't understand this, there is a MUCH bigger problem than their uniform.

I've run into a few that are living proof of that kind of stupidity.

Anyway, having one set of tapes just makes it simpler. And you can stock your squadron with one supply of everything needed. No double stock to take up space.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on November 22, 2007, 01:53:45 AM
But what do we gain by having sage tapes and blue tapes?  It doesn't make us more uniform and it doesn't help with branding.

The only thing is seems to allow is for those in the ABU's to look more "airforce-y" than their teammates in blue.  While that may give the "Riders of the Sage" a warm fuzzy, it doesn't seem to help CAP any.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on November 22, 2007, 02:08:55 AM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 22, 2007, 01:53:45 AM
But what do we gain by having sage tapes and blue tapes?  It doesn't make us more uniform and it doesn't help with branding.

The only thing is seems to allow is for those in the ABU's to look more "airforce-y" than their teammates in blue.  While that may give the "Riders of the Sage" a warm fuzzy, it doesn't seem to help CAP any.

The point is that if we're going to take the time to design what is basically a completely new uniform, we should spend at least a little time on the aesthetics.

The ABUs do look better with a tape which is closer to one of the stripe colors - same with "fixing the blue field uniform to have a color-matched tape.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ZigZag911 on November 22, 2007, 03:40:59 AM
Quote from: jaybird512 on November 19, 2007, 12:37:31 AM
I still need someone to explain to me why camouflage-style BDUs or ABUs make sense for an organization whose specialty is air/ground coordinated SAR.

Topic for another thread, so I'll keep it short...

1.  As you said, we are the auxiliary of the AF.  We wear their uniforms whether they be dress, utility, flight, or otherwise.

2.  They are readily available in surplus from numerous sources and as so, not too expensive to aquire.

3.  We spend a relatively small amount of time engaged in air/ground coordinated SAR compared to other duties requiring a utility uniform.

4.  The military has coordinated air/ground missions in the BDU/ABU/ACU for years and so have we.

Sorry, Col White for the off topic response as well.

[/quote]
Actually, I don't think  you were off topic....I was implying we ought to consider getting rid of BDUs/ABUs...true, they are the AF field uniform, but don't really mix with what we do....of course, I'm not sure how available the BBDUs are commercially -- I'm fairly sure BBDUs are not available surplus -- so, since navy blue is probably no better visible from the air than cammy colors, that might be the decisive argument in favor of BDUs....personally, I still consider them inappropriate for a non-combatant organization, but that's just my opinion.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Falshrmjgr on November 22, 2007, 04:07:39 PM
Quote
Quote from: ZigZag911 on November 22, 2007, 03:40:59 AM
Quote from: jaybird512 on November 19, 2007, 12:37:31 AM
I still need someone to explain to me why camouflage-style BDUs or ABUs make sense for an organization whose specialty is air/ground coordinated SAR.


Topic for another thread, so I'll keep it short...

1.  As you said, we are the auxiliary of the AF.  We wear their uniforms whether they be dress, utility, flight, or otherwise.

2.  They are readily available in surplus from numerous sources and as so, not too expensive to aquire.

3.  We spend a relatively small amount of time engaged in air/ground coordinated SAR compared to other duties requiring a utility uniform.

4.  The military has coordinated air/ground missions in the BDU/ABU/ACU for years and so have we.

Sorry, Col White for the off topic response as well.

Actually, I don't think  you were off topic....I was implying we ought to consider getting rid of BDUs/ABUs...true, they are the AF field uniform, but don't really mix with what we do....of course, I'm not sure how available the BBDUs are commercially -- I'm fairly sure BBDUs are not available surplus -- so, since navy blue is probably no better visible from the air than cammy colors, that might be the decisive argument in favor of BDUs....personally, I still consider them inappropriate for a non-combatant organization, but that's just my opinion.

Funny, I always thought they were innapropriate for non-combat arms all together.  But since the military is comfortable with making a camoflauge maternity uniform, it seems that to the military at least, uniformity has merit.   Therefor I find it no more "innappropriate" for CAP to wear camoflauge than the G1 Finance guy at Fort Indiantown Gap wearing BDU's.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 22, 2007, 04:26:56 PM
There is another thread to debate on ABU already. Please take this discussion there and stay on topic.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: NEBoom on November 22, 2007, 04:48:40 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 22, 2007, 12:07:13 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on November 21, 2007, 11:59:26 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 21, 2007, 08:23:01 PMAlso, people are going to show up with blue on the ABU or sage on the BBDU.  Just have one color: dark blue.  It's a lot easier to say "take this dark blue grade - it goes on any of the field uniforms (and hopefully flight uniforms)" than say, "well, this goes on this one but not that one."

Based on this point, I would have to withdraw support for sage green tapes. Make one set of tapes. Also, there are rank insignia and badges to consider. You can already get rank in navy blue, tapes are easily produced. The badges would also go on existing cloth (they use that cloth for rank insignia anyway).

Vanguard (and many other places) could make that stuff tomorrow. Other colors would require them to buy tapes and cloth that they don't currently have. And you know who's going to foot the bill on their new acquisitions.

Seems like the easiest and best appearing option is navy blue. Might even buy a blue BDU if that was allowed.

Why? With all do respect, people arent stupid. I think they can figure out when told that blue goes on blue and green goes on the camo. If they can't understand this, there is a MUCH bigger problem than their uniform.
Having two different colors of tapes, rank, and badges for the AF and corporate utilities flies in the face of the idea that we should standardize our insignia across all uniforms.  I honestly don't care what color we ultimately settle on, but it should be the same for both just for uniformity's sake.  Standardizing the insignia (as much as possible) should be done for all uniforms, not just the dress uniforms.

Someone above mentioned a change in color to the corporate utilities (either changing to solid OD, or adopting the current BDU after it's phase out by the AF).  The only reason I might support this is that many of the blue BDUs I've seen have a tendency to fade.  They get a bit ratty looking fairly quickly, so for durability/appearance sake, it might be a good idea to consider a change.  Again, I don't really care what color we settle on (FWIW I'd prefer going to solid OD vs woodland, but that's just me).  And I call for a LONG phase-out date for the blue BDUs if a change is made.  Members should be allowed to get the full wear lifetime out of the uniforms they have.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: NEBoom on November 22, 2007, 04:57:29 PM
Quote from: ctrossen on November 21, 2007, 10:17:01 PM
FWIW...

<snip>
Corporate Service Uniform – I may be a lone voice in the wilderness here, but I'd like to see *all* of the insignia on this uniform and the USAF-style uniform the same, which means also the same epaulet slides. (Not including military ribbons, of course, unless the USAF relents.) Obviously, if the Air Force allows us to go back to blue epaulet slides, that would be a no-brainer. But I don't have a major problem with the gray slides, and I would like to see some uniformity *and* keep costs down. Also, lets allow those who don't meet USAF grooming standards wear this uniform as well (so long as they are well-kempt).
<snip>
Regards, and thanks for taking on this task,



Also FWIW, you are not a lone voice in the wilderness.  I think this is exactly how it should be done.  I do cringe at the grey shoulder marks on the coat, but if it's what we have to do for the AF uniform, it should be the same for the corporate.  Of course I'm beating a dead horse now as I've said this multiple times, but I think it's that important.  Our uniforms should be... um... uniform.  As much as humanly possible.

OK, I'll hush up now.  Thanks for taking our input.  Have a great Thanksgiving all!!!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on November 22, 2007, 05:10:39 PM
Add me to the voice for simple / same insignia.

As far as I am concerned, lose the metal and go with the gray slides on all uniforms, or grant us the blue on all uniforms - that would be distinctive enough.

Anything that let's us use off-the shelf inignia, even if it requires some kind of CAP flash, is fine with me.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: FlyingTerp on November 22, 2007, 06:10:02 PM
I may be alone on this one, but I'd really like to see the Corporate Service Uniform keep the blue slides and nametag.   The CSU (TPU) is a great looking uniform (minus the service coat bling).  Its being worn by those who could wear the AF Service Uniform.  Just look at the pictures from the NSC (http://mhuchette.albumpost.com/) or the stream from the NEC meeting.  My fear is that if we change the slides and nametag to grey on the CSU, that it will become the "fatty" uniform and not stand on its own as a sharp looking corporate uniform.   There was an interview with Col Russ Hodgkins, USAF, on CAPBlog a while back in which he mentioned that the AF didn't object to blue slides on the CSU, but "there was very little chance" of returning to the blue slides on the AF Service Uniform (http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/2006/04/capusaf_cc_on_u.html).

My recommendation is to keep the CSU "as is." Haven't we had enough changes!  Make (or ask for) absolutely no changes on the CAP wear of the AF Service Uniform.   Eliminate the greys (white aviator shirt, grey slides, grey slacks).  Allow those with neatly trimmed beards to wear the CSU.   All others can wear civilian clothes.  That will give us 2 uniforms that look relatively similar and present a professional image for both CAP and USAF.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: MIKE on November 22, 2007, 07:13:50 PM
Quote from: FlyingTerp on November 22, 2007, 06:10:02 PMMy fear is that if we change the slides and nametag to grey on the CSU, that it will become the "fatty" uniform and not stand on its own as a sharp looking corporate uniform.

Ummm... yeah.  :D  That's kind of the point now isn't it?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on November 22, 2007, 07:20:51 PM
Quote from: MIKE on November 22, 2007, 07:13:50 PM
Quote from: FlyingTerp on November 22, 2007, 06:10:02 PMMy fear is that if we change the slides and nametag to grey on the CSU, that it will become the "fatty" uniform and not stand on its own as a sharp looking corporate uniform.

Ummm... yeah.  :D  That's kind of the point now isn't it?

Other than the beard issue, the new corporate service dress is being worn by the exact same people who did/do wear the whites or the blazer.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on November 23, 2007, 12:10:52 AM
15 pages in less than 10 days, gees. Okay, here's my comprehensive, hope you can make out the formatting from my cut & paste effort.

1. Reg should be tied directly to AF reg for guidance & changes. That is if the AF decides to change the ribbon wear policy or something, it should be automatic in our reg, requiring only an administrative update, not approval of the NB/NEC. Might be a stretch, but that could include things like ABUs, albeit with adjusted wear dates. Policy should be as uniform as possible though, and it shouldn't take an act of congress to keep it that way.

2. Stronger policy change formula for starters.

a. It should not be changeable on the fly or off agenda.

b. It should have a mandatory wear test & member comment period – we do it for regs, but not stuff I have to buy?

i.   Test should NOT be restricted to NHQ or other levels above reality/sanity. It should be more random & well distributed. Item provided for free for participation.

ii.   A page should go up on the website announcing the wear test in progress & provide pictures as worn, but not yet in the comment period.

iii.   The "focus/test group" should leave comments/reviews over a period of time.

iv.   AF comments should be sought as well, and not just command but rank-in-file.

v.   Test ends, focus/test group reviews posted. Open comment period begins (obviously moderated, but not censored).

vi.   Then & only then should an item be eligible for consideration as a formal change.

c. Process of AF approval items should be better quantified. Would highly recommend the process for corporate items be standardized to seek AF endorsement in place of formal approval.

d. Wear dates. Should be far enough out that it doesn't cause problems. Take a note from the military on this & understand they do that cause they are paying for the items, and we don't because we're taxing members. May consider a Wing level transition date. Meaning, for uniformity, will wear the old style prior to X & must be switch by Y.

3. Clear dual option policy. That is one AF style uniform has one corporate alternative in each category (blue/white, BDU/BBDU, Grn Flt Suit/Blue), and that's it. Wear policy & items (nameplates, tapes, etc) should be as standardized between the two as is reasonably possible while delivering a professional appearance.

4. BDUs:

a. Tapes:
i.   I would prefer OD with medium gray text (same gray or slightly darkened gold grade on OD back). That'd be distinctive now versus dark blue text & the OD tapes would remain highly distinctive on ABUs when the transition eventually comes. At the same time it looks MUCH more professional and official. Freakin JROTC does it & we can't? Yeah that's the way to take care of your troops. Same time, I doubt that'd get approved.

ii.   In lieu of that, I'd support dark blue (matching BBDU; w/ white/gold grade on same back). Standardize to bring down costs.

b. Clear policy on patches. Get rid of the rainbow explosion. Either pull most of those off, or policy on new patches to use semi-subdued color schemes & mirror AF wear policy.

c. Take off the flag, we aren't the Army. That costs zero & saves people money/time. 

d. Standardize policy onto BBDU as well. Reg should read as one section for both items.

5. Blues.

a. Nameplate. I understand the logic on the gray nameplate. However, AF, AFA, AFROTC, & AFJROTC all wear the same standardized one-line nameplate, which makes it very affordable & easily attainable. Our gray epaulets are highly distinctive & designate CAP, and our cadet grade is clearly distinguishable, at least in as much as AFJROTC is. We should standardize to this one-line plate & deliver significant savings to our members over time.

b. Epaulets. The gray slides are fine. I'd prefer blue with the CAP or gray w/o it. It's okay the way it is though. Should consider making female sized ones though.

6. Corporate alternative blues (blue/white uniform).

a. Standardize to same distinctive gray epaulets on both shirt & coat. No metal grade, no blue AF slides.

b. Standardize outerwear to blue – seek AF approval as necessary.

c. Should be worn w/ flight hat.

d. Same standard one-line blue nameplate on shirt. Standard one-line metal for coat.

e. I don't like it, but just drop the grooming requirements & reduce the number of uniforms (ie get rid of blazer combo & gray/white). Same time, reg should state professional groomed appearance required at all times regardless of uniform.

7. Flight suit.

a. Standardize policy for blue/green versions.

b. Sewn on grade. Consider full color on OD back for green & full color on dark blue for blue, or standardize both to dark blue. Professional & less expensive, still distinctive.

c. Command Patch. Bring back the "US Air Force Auxiliary" command patch & get on with life, or at least pick one.

8. Golf shirt. Get rid of it, at least as a mission-authorized, official travel, or away from Sq item. In garrison at local unit for casual mtg of the month MAYBE I can deal with, but I won't like it. And for God's sake tuck it in.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eeyore on November 23, 2007, 12:52:03 AM
DNall has the first post that I completely, 100%  agree with across the board.

It all makes perfect sense, and is a good balance between the complete going over board approach that some have and the idea that we should move backwards as others have suggested.

:clap: :clap: :clap:
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on November 23, 2007, 02:34:42 AM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on November 21, 2007, 06:27:32 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 21, 2007, 06:14:45 PM
Quote from: arajca on November 21, 2007, 05:01:55 PM
So, is there a plan to have two colors of tapes/insignia backgrounds - green for the abu, navy for the bbdu?

As for those who say get rid of the bbdu, why? The AF is going to the ABU, so why should I have to buy a new uniform that that AF is abandoning?

I will recommend adopting the old USN beard standard for the corporate service uniforms.

Yes, with the submission, we will recommend going to all dark blue insignia for the Blue BDU with a phase in date. Its a very minor change so there is no real need to provide illustration for the change.

I would suggest making the BDU/ABU nametapes and grade insignia the same as the dark blue on the BBDU's.  This way there's a connection between the two field uniforms.

Dark blue backgrounds for all field uniform attachments also greatly simplifies the logistics.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on November 23, 2007, 02:41:07 AM
Quote from: DNall on November 23, 2007, 12:10:52 AM
15 pages in less than 10 days, gees. Okay, here's my comprehensive, hope you can make out the formatting from my cut & paste effort.

1. Reg should be tied directly to AF reg for guidance & changes. That is if the AF decides to change the ribbon wear policy or something, it should be automatic in our reg, requiring only an administrative update, not approval of the NB/NEC. Might be a stretch, but that could include things like ABUs, albeit with adjusted wear dates. Policy should be as uniform as possible though, and it shouldn't take an act of congress to keep it that way.

2. Stronger policy change formula for starters.

a. It should not be changeable on the fly or off agenda.

b. It should have a mandatory wear test & member comment period – we do it for regs, but not stuff I have to buy?

i.   Test should NOT be restricted to NHQ or other levels above reality/sanity. It should be more random & well distributed. Item provided for free for participation.

ii.   A page should go up on the website announcing the wear test in progress & provide pictures as worn, but not yet in the comment period.

iii.   The "focus/test group" should leave comments/reviews over a period of time.

iv.   AF comments should be sought as well, and not just command but rank-in-file.

v.   Test ends, focus/test group reviews posted. Open comment period begins (obviously moderated, but not censored).

vi.   Then & only then should an item be eligible for consideration as a formal change.

c. Process of AF approval items should be better quantified. Would highly recommend the process for corporate items be standardized to seek AF endorsement in place of formal approval.

d. Wear dates. Should be far enough out that it doesn't cause problems. Take a note from the military on this & understand they do that cause they are paying for the items, and we don't because we're taxing members. May consider a Wing level transition date. Meaning, for uniformity, will wear the old style prior to X & must be switch by Y.

3. Clear dual option policy. That is one AF style uniform has one corporate alternative in each category (blue/white, BDU/BBDU, Grn Flt Suit/Blue), and that's it. Wear policy & items (nameplates, tapes, etc) should be as standardized between the two as is reasonably possible while delivering a professional appearance.

4. BDUs:

a. Tapes:
i.   I would prefer OD with medium gray text (same gray or slightly darkened gold grade on OD back). That'd be distinctive now versus dark blue text & the OD tapes would remain highly distinctive on ABUs when the transition eventually comes. At the same time it looks MUCH more professional and official. Freakin JROTC does it & we can't? Yeah that's the way to take care of your troops. Same time, I doubt that'd get approved.

ii.   In lieu of that, I'd support dark blue (matching BBDU; w/ white/gold grade on same back). Standardize to bring down costs.

b. Clear policy on patches. Get rid of the rainbow explosion. Either pull most of those off, or policy on new patches to use semi-subdued color schemes & mirror AF wear policy.

c. Take off the flag, we aren't the Army. That costs zero & saves people money/time. 

d. Standardize policy onto BBDU as well. Reg should read as one section for both items.

5. Blues.

a. Nameplate. I understand the logic on the gray nameplate. However, AF, AFA, AFROTC, & AFJROTC all wear the same standardized one-line nameplate, which makes it very affordable & easily attainable. Our gray epaulets are highly distinctive & designate CAP, and our cadet grade is clearly distinguishable, at least in as much as AFJROTC is. We should standardize to this one-line plate & deliver significant savings to our members over time.

b. Epaulets. The gray slides are fine. I'd prefer blue with the CAP or gray w/o it. It's okay the way it is though. Should consider making female sized ones though.

6. Corporate alternative blues (blue/white uniform).

a. Standardize to same distinctive gray epaulets on both shirt & coat. No metal grade, no blue AF slides.

b. Standardize outerwear to blue – seek AF approval as necessary.

c. Should be worn w/ flight hat.

d. Same standard one-line blue nameplate on shirt. Standard one-line metal for coat.

e. I don't like it, but just drop the grooming requirements & reduce the number of uniforms (ie get rid of blazer combo & gray/white). Same time, reg should state professional groomed appearance required at all times regardless of uniform.

7. Flight suit.

a. Standardize policy for blue/green versions.

b. Sewn on grade. Consider full color on OD back for green & full color on dark blue for blue, or standardize both to dark blue. Professional & less expensive, still distinctive.

c. Command Patch. Bring back the "US Air Force Auxiliary" command patch & get on with life, or at least pick one.

8. Golf shirt. Get rid of it, at least as a mission-authorized, official travel, or away from Sq item. In garrison at local unit for casual mtg of the month MAYBE I can deal with, but I won't like it. And for God's sake tuck it in.


Dennis:

I have a few points of non-concurrence with your plan, but most of them are minor, and I don't want to sound like I'm quibbling.

I would like to keep the brushed silver (for jackets) and blue (for shirts) as the 2-line nameplate with "Civil Air Patrol" in small letters above the last name.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: SAR-EMT1 on November 23, 2007, 10:36:50 PM
What Dennis said. ^
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on November 23, 2007, 10:50:49 PM
I couldn't care less about the braid color, but the 2-line nameplate is one more thing that forces us to a single vendor, and runs against the idea of interchangeable insignia, etc.

No one would mistake the CSU as an Air Force uniform, and the USAF doesn't own the idea of a 1-line brushed steel nameplate.  PD's all over the country use them.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DrJbdm on November 24, 2007, 06:11:53 PM
Hi Dennis,

   good to see you posting again. Although I normally agree with most of what you have to say, but on this subject I have a few items of non-concurrence:

1) the CSU looks VERY sharp with the AF blue slides plus they are off the shelf & cheaper then Vanguard CAP grey. blue looks much sharper then grey.

2) the metal rank on the CSU jacket also looks very sharp. Although we need to lose the silver braid and replace with the standard AF blue braid.

  Other then those minor issues I think you have a lot of good ideas. The wear test should probably be done at wing conferences so as to allow the greatest number of people to see it up close and make their comments.

  I completely concur on the standard blue single line nametag (USAF style). If AFJROTC can do it then why can't we? it is off the shelf and there for cheaper and more professional looking.

  I know a major focus is on keeping things as low cost as possible for the members. But while we are looking at cost, lets also keep how it looks on the fore-front of our minds. We need to make sure that what we wear looks sharp and professional.

   The average person on the street will think more of us if our colors match what we are wearing versus not matching put looking the same..ie: blue tapes on the BBDU and sage green on the ABU or blue slides on CSU vs grey slides. lets not do something that will look clownish just because it will match another uniform.  a well written policy manual will fix the issue of people wearing the wrong items with the wrong uniform. If our members are too stupid to follow well written directives then perhaps CAP isn't for them. we need people who are intelligent enough to be able to comprehend and follow what they read. HOWEVER, we first need a WELL WRITTEN uniform policy with good pictures.

 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: FlyingTerp on November 24, 2007, 06:39:09 PM
Quote from: DrJbdm on November 24, 2007, 06:11:53 PM

HOWEVER, we need a WELL WRITTEN uniform policy with good pictures.
 

I couldn't agree more!  That should be the #1 priority of the recommendations to NHQ.  How difficult can it be?  I'm sure a few of us could knock it out over a weekend with a laptop, a digital camera, and every uniform. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JayT on November 24, 2007, 07:16:14 PM
Quote from: DrJbdm on November 24, 2007, 06:11:53 PM


1) the CSU looks VERY sharp with the AF blue slides plus they are off the shelf & cheaper then Vanguard CAP grey.


It'll look just as sharp with gray or blue CAP slides.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on November 24, 2007, 07:19:57 PM
Submitted for the esteemed assembly's perusal and consideration by the NHQ Uniform Committee:

Here's a somewhat sensible wear policy for the AF-style FDU, CAP FDU and utility uniform, blatantly plagiarized from AFI 36-2903 with CAP-specific information from 39-1 replacing the AF-specific stuff.

Quote

Grade Insignia. Officers will wear vivid cloth grade insignia on each shoulder of the USAF-style, CAP FDU, utility uniform and Nomex-style flight jackets (Plastic covered grade insignia is not authorized). Grade will be sewn-on 5/8 inches from the shoulder seam, centered on the shoulder. Officer grade insignia cloth and cable (thread) standards: USAF-style and CAP FDU base cloth is [olive green or dark blue] Officer grade insignia will be white (cable #?) except for 2d Lt and Major which will be golden yellow (cable #?) Enlisted and cadet grade is included on the nametag of the USAF-style FDU and CAP FDU and Nomex-style flight jackets. Both officer and enlisted/cadet grade insignia on the black leather A-2 Flying Jacket is on the name tag only. EXCEPTION: Placement of General Officer (GO) stars on the USAF-style FDU, CAP FDU and Nomex jackets will be centered on the shoulder halfway between the neck and shoulder seam. Generals wear 1-inch stars on flight suits; 3/4-inch stars may be used if there is insufficient room for the 1-inch stars. GO grade insignia will be on base cloth [olive green or dark blue] GO stars will be white (cable #?) and displayed point-to-center.

Nametags. Cloth nametags for USAF-style FDU, CAP FDU, utility uniform and Nomex-style flight jackets will be 2 inches by 4 inches in size and worn over the left breast pocket. As a minimum, CAP aeronautical badge or specialty insignia (if awarded) are mandatory and nametags will contain individual's name and grade (grade is only mandatory for enlisted and cadet personnel). Embroidered badges will be silver (white) in color. Region and wing supplements to this instruction will standardize nametags (i.e., background/border colors, squadron logos, naming convention, etc). Nametags for black leather A-2 Flying Jacket will be 2 inches by 4 inches, brown or black leather or simulated leather. Emboss with silver wings/badges, first and last name, grade, and CAP. NOTE: Commanders authorized to wear the commander's badge will wear the badge on the left side of the nametag. The badge will be worn only while performing commander duties.

Right Breast Pocket. CAP MAJCOM-style patch will be centered above the right breast pocket. CAP MAJCOM-style patch for the right breast area of the black leather A-2 flying jacket will have a brown or black leather, simulated leather background.

Left Sleeve. The US flag, positioned no lower than 1 inch from shoulder seam. The US flag will be red, white, and blue with golden-yellow border portraying a straight flag, not a waving flag. The flag will be approximately 2 by 3 inches, with the union to the front and stripes trailing. Chapter 1, Title 4, United States Code, specifies the flag colors as red, white, and blue; therefore, subdued flag replicas are not authorized for wear on the USAF-style FDU, CAP FDU or utility uniform.

Right Sleeve. The unit emblem (squadron patch) will be worn as authorized through region or wing supplement to this instruction. When authorized to fly with another unit, individuals may wear the emblem of the unit they are assigned to for flight duties.

Add-On Patches. Regions and wings will publish guidance on wear of add-on patches (i.e., flying
hour milestone, instructor, flight examiner scroll, etc). Campaign/exercise patches are not authorized. Region and wing commanders must approve all emblems/patches not specifically addressed in this instruction.

Neckwear. The wear of scarves will be addressed by region and wing supplements. When authorized, scarves will be worn around the neck and tucked in.

The Air Force brown leather A-2 flight jacket is NOT authorized with this or any Air Force style uniform. The CWU-45/P or CWU-36/P style green Nomex or nylon flight jackets may be worn ONLY with the AF-style FDU. The CAP black leather flight jacket is authorized with the CAP FDU or any CAP distinctive corporate uniform. Alternately, the CWU 45/P or CWU 36/P style flight jackets in dark blue Nomex or nylon may be worn.


AUTHORIZED RIGHT SLEEVE PATCHES

AFRCC SAR Management Course Graduate
CAP Stan/Eval Check Pilot
CAP Proficient Pilot
CAP Cadet Orientation Pilot
CAP NESA patch
CAP Emergency Services (either Pluto or T-34 style)
Region patch (if authorized by region or wing supplement)
Wing patch (if authorized by region or wing supplement)
Group patch (if authorized by region or wing supplement)
Squadron patch (if authorized by region or wing supplement)

Only one of these patches may be worn on the right sleeve.

OK guys... any constructive crtiticism is welcome, but don't kill the messenger, alright?  ;D
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: FlyingTerp on November 24, 2007, 07:59:53 PM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on November 24, 2007, 07:19:57 PM

OK guys... any constructive criticism is welcome, but don't kill the messenger, alright?  ;D

Criticism??!  Its easy to follow, clear on what is and is not permitted, and logical.  My only criticism is that I'm not accustomed to a reg like that  ;D.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DrJbdm on November 24, 2007, 08:12:22 PM
I think it's well written, logical, concise and shows what is and isn't authorised. Throw in the well done pictures of the uniforms and devices and you would have it completely covered.

but we all know it will never be done this way because that makes too much sense!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on November 24, 2007, 09:07:37 PM
New three-letter acronym we should all learn: FDU - flight dress uniform. That's what the RealAirForce® calls the green bag. (DFDU for the desert tan bag which we will never wear.)

So, in a rewrite of 39-1 these should be the approved terminologies for the aircrew bag:

USAF-style FDU - green Nomex bag
CAP FDU - blue Nomex bag

For the red-headed stepchild called the utility uniform: instead of making it look like the CAP FDU, why not make a little change:

Sew on nametapes and CIVIL AIR PATROL tapes in dark blue with white letters, in line with the upper pockets just like the BDUs. Officer grade: cloth just like the CAP FDU on the shoulders. US flag patch and optional right shoulder patch just like the CAP FDUs. May be sewn or velcroed (not for the nametapes or grade).

Headgear: plain dark blue ballcap with metal pin-on grade.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: arajca on November 24, 2007, 09:35:25 PM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on November 24, 2007, 09:07:37 PM
For the red-headed stepchild called the utility uniform: instead of making it look like the CAP FDU, why not make a little change:

Sew on nametapes and CIVIL AIR PATROL tapes in dark blue with white letters, in line with the upper pockets just like the BDUs. Officer grade: cloth just like the CAP FDU on the shoulders. US flag patch and optional right shoulder patch just like the CAP FDUs. May be sewn or velcroed (not for the nametapes or grade).

Headgear: plain dark blue ballcap with metal pin-on grade.
The pockets on the utility uniform have angled tops just like the flight suit. If you hold the two next to each other, they are identical, except for the material. The cut is the same. The pockets are the same. So why should the insignia be different?

As to the FDU idea:
Why are cadets REQUIRED to have their grade on their nametags and sm officers aren't? Putting "CADET" on the nametag makes more sense. Why are commanders required to buy a new nametag when they take office and another when they leave office? Wasn't there something about minimizing the expense to members mentioned somewhere? ???
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on November 24, 2007, 10:24:06 PM
Quote from: FlyingTerp on November 24, 2007, 06:39:09 PM
Quote from: DrJbdm on November 24, 2007, 06:11:53 PM

HOWEVER, we need a WELL WRITTEN uniform policy with good pictures.
 

I couldn't agree more!  That should be the #1 priority of the recommendations to NHQ.  How difficult can it be?  I'm sure a few of us could knock it out over a weekend with a laptop, a digital camera, and every uniform. 

"Every uniform" will cost more than the laptop!!!!!  :D
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on November 25, 2007, 12:19:00 AM
Quote from: arajca on November 24, 2007, 09:35:25 PM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on November 24, 2007, 09:07:37 PM
For the red-headed stepchild called the utility uniform: instead of making it look like the CAP FDU, why not make a little change:

Sew on nametapes and CIVIL AIR PATROL tapes in dark blue with white letters, in line with the upper pockets just like the BDUs. Officer grade: cloth just like the CAP FDU on the shoulders. US flag patch and optional right shoulder patch just like the CAP FDUs. May be sewn or velcroed (not for the nametapes or grade).

Headgear: plain dark blue ballcap with metal pin-on grade.
The pockets on the utility uniform have angled tops just like the flight suit. If you hold the two next to each other, they are identical, except for the material. The cut is the same. The pockets are the same. So why should the insignia be different?

As to the FDU idea:
Why are cadets REQUIRED to have their grade on their nametags and sm officers aren't? Putting "CADET" on the nametag makes more sense. Why are commanders required to buy a new nametag when they take office and another when they leave office? Wasn't there something about minimizing the expense to members mentioned somewhere? ???

Only a suggestion... don't kill the messenger.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: arajca on November 25, 2007, 02:51:57 AM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on November 25, 2007, 12:19:00 AM
snip
Only a suggestion... don't kill the messenger.
Who's killing anyone? I'm asking about the rational behind the suggestion.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on November 25, 2007, 03:19:06 AM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on November 24, 2007, 09:07:37 PM
New three-letter acronym we should all learn: FDU - flight dress uniform. That's what the RealAirForce® calls the green bag. (DFDU for the desert tan bag which we will never wear.)

So, in a rewrite of 39-1 these should be the approved terminologies for the aircrew bag:

USAF-style FDU - green Nomex bag
CAP FDU - blue Nomex bag

For the red-headed stepchild called the utility uniform: instead of making it look like the CAP FDU, why not make a little change:

Sew on nametapes and CIVIL AIR PATROL tapes in dark blue with white letters, in line with the upper pockets just like the BDUs. Officer grade: cloth just like the CAP FDU on the shoulders. US flag patch and optional right shoulder patch just like the CAP FDUs. May be sewn or velcroed (not for the nametapes or grade).

Headgear: plain dark blue ballcap with metal pin-on grade.

Is it REALLY a "Flight Dress Uniform," or was that a joke?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: PHall on November 25, 2007, 04:36:57 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on November 25, 2007, 03:19:06 AM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on November 24, 2007, 09:07:37 PM
New three-letter acronym we should all learn: FDU - flight dress uniform. That's what the RealAirForce® calls the green bag. (DFDU for the desert tan bag which we will never wear.)

So, in a rewrite of 39-1 these should be the approved terminologies for the aircrew bag:

USAF-style FDU - green Nomex bag
CAP FDU - blue Nomex bag

For the red-headed stepchild called the utility uniform: instead of making it look like the CAP FDU, why not make a little change:

Sew on nametapes and CIVIL AIR PATROL tapes in dark blue with white letters, in line with the upper pockets just like the BDUs. Officer grade: cloth just like the CAP FDU on the shoulders. US flag patch and optional right shoulder patch just like the CAP FDUs. May be sewn or velcroed (not for the nametapes or grade).

Headgear: plain dark blue ballcap with metal pin-on grade.

Is it REALLY a "Flight Dress Uniform," or was that a joke?


Actually, it's "Flight Duty Uniform" as per AFI 36-2903.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on November 25, 2007, 11:44:41 AM
Quote from: arajca on November 25, 2007, 02:51:57 AM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on November 25, 2007, 12:19:00 AM
snip
Only a suggestion... don't kill the messenger.
Who's killing anyone? I'm asking about the rational behind the suggestion.

Simply a suggestion... obviously that went down like a lead Zeppelin (pun intended). That's what's good about this thread.

I stand corrected viz. 'Flight Duty Uniform' vs. 'Flight Dress Uniform'. Thanks for the correction.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: hoverguy on November 26, 2007, 02:42:35 AM
I am not a CAP member but might become a member, hence my question: Which uniforms are Senior Members required to wear and when?

I found the 2007 national conference PPT on CAP uniforms and can see that there are two categories: (1) USAF-style uniforms and (2) CAP corporate uniforms.

It is my understanding that Senior members can optionally choose to wear corporate uniforms only - correct? (Regardless of weight standard and depending on grooming).

Thus, my following questions are restricted to the corporate uniform category and am assuming that the USAF-style uniforms are not required of Senior members (unless they choose to wear the AF-style and qualify by weight/grooming standards).

The local CAP squadron (except for the head officer) normally wears civilian clothing for meetings, and has worn AF-style BDUs for some events and public service functions. I imagine they wear other uniforms at other events too.

Which corporate uniforms are required of Senior members? The PPT lists the following:

Corporate Service coat?
Corporate Uniform? (white shirt, AF-blue pants, etc)
Outergarments? (Black windbreaker, black leather jacket)?
Blazer combination?
Aviator shirt?
CAP Field Uniform (Blue, said to be same as AF BDU)
CAP Flight suit or Utility uniform?
Golf shirts?

What - specifically - out of this list is normally required for a Senior member? I have several practical reasons for asking, one of which is expense, of course ...

Thanks!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on November 26, 2007, 02:52:39 AM
What is "normal"?  You'll see here we can't answer that.

The only time, by reg, that you are required to wear a uniform, is when participating in an leadership role with cadets.

Other than that, ES participation may/will dictate when and if you have to wear a uniform.

The most basic uniform is the golf shirt and gray pants.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on November 26, 2007, 03:04:30 AM
OK... in a nutshell:

Senior members and cadets over 18 that meet CAP weight and grooming standards may wear the USAF-style uniform, essentially a USAF uniform with distinctive CAP insignia.

Senior members and cadets over 18 who do not meet CAP weight standards, but who do meet CAP grooming standards may wear the corporate service uniform, which are dark blue AF-style trousers, white aviator-style shirt with flap pockets and epaulets and CAP distinctive insignia. A double-breasted corporate service dress jacket is available.

Senior members (only) who do not meet CAP weight or grooming standards may wear  the white aviator shirt and gray trousers.

Minimum basic service uniform (AF style):

Light blue shirt (shade 1550 or 1581), short sleeve or long sleeve. Must wear a dark blue AF-style tie if wearing long sleeves; optional with short sleeves.
Dark blue trousers (shade 1620 or 1625).
Blue web belt with bright silver buckle and tip.
Flight cap (should match the shade and weave of trousers).

Minimum basic corporate uniform (blue)

White aviator-style shirt. (Van Heusen makes one called the 'Aviator'; some - including myself - prefer a shirt that closely resembles the AF-style shirt.) Long sleeve/short sleeve tie rule applies.
Dark blue trousers (shade 1625).
Blue web belt with bright silver buckle and tip.
Flight cap.

Minimum basic corporate uniform (gray)

White aviator-style shirt. (Van Heusen makes one called the 'Aviator'; some - including myself - prefer a shirt that closely resembles the AF-style shirt.) Long sleeve/short sleeve tie rule applies.
Medium gray dress trousers. Pleated or plain front OK, cuffed or straight leg OK
No headgear required, though a dark blue ball cap is OK.
Black leather belt with silver buckle.

For all three, distinctive CAP insignia are required.

Members who meet weight and crooming standards can wear any of the three above combinations. Don't mix and match! ;D





Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: MIKE on November 26, 2007, 03:10:52 AM
Guys this is a derail.  Don't give me an excuse to lock the thread.

Also, Eclipse... CAPM 39-1 Table 1-1.  6th one down.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on November 26, 2007, 03:24:12 AM
Quote from: MIKE on November 26, 2007, 03:10:52 AM
Guys this is a derail.  Don't give me an excuse to lock the thread.

Also, Eclipse... CAPM 39-1 Table 1-1.  6th one down.

Works for me, however a lot of Commanders would argue that making a member change after work is "imposing an unreasonable requirement".

Sorry to push this sideways, I didn't even realize which thread I was in when I replied.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: MIKE on November 26, 2007, 03:28:28 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 26, 2007, 03:24:12 AM
Works for me, however a lot of Commanders would argue that making a member change after work is "imposing an unreasonable requirement".

^ What this thread is for.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on November 27, 2007, 12:08:02 AM
Meant to add one other item to my original statement...

Process to make changes.... after results from wear test, proposed changes should be recommended to a uniform board that meets on a limited basis - as in no more than once every 2 years, and in conjunction with the AETC or higher uniform board (like across the hall from them). Board should contain voting AF reps.

Anything that absolutely MUST be changed before that time would be an emergency change. Which means it has to meet a set criteria (like safety or AF ordered us to do this) to categorize it that way, and need an overwhelming vote (like 2/3rds of NB) to be enacted.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Grumpy on November 27, 2007, 02:16:29 AM
"Why are cadets REQUIRED to have their grade on their nametags and sm officers aren't?"

With regards to the cadets, I'm a little foggy on that myself.  These young people promote on an average of every 2 1/2 months.  How about just the word "Cadet" on the name tag?  Or did you say that?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: MIKE on November 27, 2007, 02:31:28 AM
That is what CAPM 39-1 used to specify, which was left out of the most recent edition.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 27, 2007, 02:47:03 AM
Quote from: Grumpy on November 27, 2007, 02:16:29 AM
"Why are cadets REQUIRED to have their grade on their nametags and sm officers aren't?"

With regards to the cadets, I'm a little foggy on that myself.  These young people promote on an average of every 2 1/2 months.  How about just the word "Cadet" on the name tag?  Or did you say that?

This is for the leather flight suit nametag and instead of rank it says "CADET"
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on November 27, 2007, 04:00:07 AM
Quote from: DNall on November 27, 2007, 12:08:02 AM
Which means it has to meet a set criteria (like safety or AF ordered us to do this) to categorize it that way, and need an overwhelming vote (like 2/3rds of NB) to be enacted.

In the case of safety, or the Air Force telling us to, I don't think an NB vote is even appropriate. We do what mother branch tells us, and in the case of safety, we do what's needed. A necessary safety related change shouldn't require months of waiting for the Board to bring it up.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on November 27, 2007, 06:00:50 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on November 27, 2007, 04:00:07 AM
Quote from: DNall on November 27, 2007, 12:08:02 AM
Which means it has to meet a set criteria (like safety or AF ordered us to do this) to categorize it that way, and need an overwhelming vote (like 2/3rds of NB) to be enacted.

In the case of safety, or the Air Force telling us to, I don't think an NB vote is even appropriate. We do what mother branch tells us, and in the case of safety, we do what's needed. A necessary safety related change shouldn't require months of waiting for the Board to bring it up.

I would agree, but I don't want to get into a case where the policy letter of the month changes the command patch yet again with a sentence about some made up safety claim that exists only in the proponent's mind.

On the whole, I'm quite alright with regs being decentralized from the corporate governing structure all together. Why are they voting on uniform changes or any other reg changes for that matter.Those should be handled the same way the military does, which is to delegate the authority to the level where the expertise is & not micromanage so much.

I'm open on how to work that angle of the process. Mainly I'm focused on longer term stability for uniforms & much greater alignment with the parent org.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on November 27, 2007, 09:09:36 PM
Quote from: DNall on November 27, 2007, 06:00:50 PM
I would agree, but I don't want to get into a case where the policy letter of the month changes the command patch yet again with a sentence about some made up safety claim that exists only in the proponent's mind.

We're definitely in one accord there. That's the kind of thing that needs to be bounced back with a "Denied. Resubmit in 90 years.".

I guess it would have to see some kind of board then, with repercussions on emergency submissions that are submitted on a basis of stupidity. I think most of us would agree that an immediate new command patch design based on safety probably isn't going to be really valid.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BillB on November 27, 2007, 09:24:01 PM
Having served for a short (very) period on the National Uniform Committee years ago, the first priority should be to clean up 39-1 and get rid of the conflicting portions. Clarify the information so there is no misunderstandings. In general you can see from the various threads and posts that members feel there are to many corporate uniform combinations, and many should be dropped. Probably one action that could be taken is to place insignia on uniforms where USAF places theirs and limit the 3rd world amount of insignia worn on USAF style uniforms.  The idea of former commanders wearing the command badge on blues on the pocket or pocket flap rather than above it appears to be a valid suggestion
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: davedove on November 28, 2007, 12:27:20 PM
One place that I think needs more clarification is uniforms for SMWOG.  It's not bad for the AF-style uniform, but for the Corporate uniforms it needs some clarification on what devices to wear (CAP cutout, etc.).
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: scooter on November 28, 2007, 08:09:42 PM
The gray pants with the golf shirt uniform. I my wing there must be 20 different shades of gray. To keep the cost to a minimum and have some standardization recommend a store available manufacturer, like Dockers, that we can all find at the local mall.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DrJbdm on November 28, 2007, 08:37:23 PM
better yet, because of those problems of standardization why don't we simply just eliminate that uniform. it would be one less uniform. it truly doesn't serve an absolute needed purpose. Nothing that the CSU and golf shirt don't already do.


   Get rid of the three different styles of golf shirts and go to one well made, professional looking standardized golf shirt. those should all look the same, except for pilot wings or aircrew wings if the person is rated, otherwise it's blank on that side.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: A.Member on November 28, 2007, 09:05:40 PM
Quote from: DrJbdm on November 28, 2007, 08:37:23 PM
Get rid of the three different styles of golf shirts.
I think you could've just ended your statement there.  ;) :)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: SJFedor on November 29, 2007, 02:25:38 AM
Quote from: DrJbdm on November 28, 2007, 08:37:23 PM
Get rid of the three different styles of golf shirts and go to one well made, professional looking standardized golf shirt. those should all look the same, except for pilot wings or aircrew wings if the person is rated, otherwise it's blank on that side.

Amen. Although, I don't really see a problem with, if someone is non-aircrew and has no desire to be, allowing the GT emblems there. If I didn't have wings, I'd be proud of my senior GT badge.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Jerry on November 29, 2007, 04:08:27 AM
Quote5.  Consider allowing wear of AF-style uniforms by those who don't meet the height/weight requirement if they do meet some variation of the body fat percentage scale that the AF uses as an alternate.

Not to throw cold water, but I can see how this would open a can of worms and leave too much to interpretation----unless there is some really clever way of regulating it.  I've already seen Senior members with their bellies hanging over their belts in clear defiance of the regs, and when you pointed it out to the appropriate commander, etc, nothing was done. I've seen beards-------Yes! Full beards or scruffy half-shaven or 5 o'clock shadow.   So this would be very difficult to enforce.  WHO decides who looks good in a uniform or not?  Now, I look decent in my USAF uniform. I am large-framed, something I inherited from my mother's side.  But I am NOT fat, nor does my belly hang distended over my belt!  But according to the chart, I am 20 lbs "overweight".  So, I cannot wear the USAF uniform--and I despise the aviator combo!  I HATE that cussed thing.  But I wear it because I am "big-boned", large-shouldered and my age works against me as well in trying to get rid of the weight.  So I ought to support allowing "non-compliant" members to wear the USAF uniform, right?   NO!  USAF is VERY sensitive to their image, and they simply cannot take a chance on having CAP members with huge distended bellies hanging over their belts just BURSTING their buttons. And I don't want to see that, either!
So until I can exercise (and, yes, I have been) enough, or starve meself ;D enough to get down to 219, I will remain out of the uniform--much as I would love to be back IN it. I still remember how much I resented those who ignored the uniform standards when I COULD wear it.   >:(  I could wear the uniform and look fine in it------but my weight will STILL say 20 lbs over, so.   And I don't like that----that-------that "1898 'Commodore'-looking thing, either (corporate dress) ;D  Picky picky ;D


Jerry
MERNC-024

Tags - MIKE
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on November 29, 2007, 04:52:43 AM
You've just pointed out that ignoring regulations can be a problem no matter what the regulation is, but this isn't a problem with the regulation itself, it is a people problem.  Should we keep from adopting a more modern and sensible approach to the issue just because the same people ignoring the current standards might ignore the new ones?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on November 29, 2007, 06:36:46 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on November 29, 2007, 04:52:43 AM
You've just pointed out that ignoring regulations can be a problem no matter what the regulation is, but this isn't a problem with the regulation itself, it is a people problem.  Should we keep from adopting a more modern and sensible approach to the issue just because the same people ignoring the current standards might ignore the new ones?
My thing here is you need to enforce the regs... with an iron fist if necessary.

I'm really not much of a uniform nazi, but what is a big deal is the same guy that's lax about following the uniform rules is going otb e lax on his flight checklist, his safety brief, his regard for regs when on GT or working with cadets. Discipline & attention to detail start with the little things. If you can't or refuse to get those things right, then we can't trust you & there is absolutely no place for you in CAP -- here's your 2b, thanks for playing. If a commander isn't willing to take it to the mat like that, then they don't belong in command, and if no one at that location is capable of doing it, then by God, shut down the unit. We have to have quality over quantity or we're dead. I mean that figuratively of course, but you should know very well it can turn literal in a heart beat.


Oh, and yeah I support aligning wear policy on the CC badge to AF. That's yet another example of what I mean when I say the regs should be linked so it doesn't take ana ct of congress to keep policies aligned. It should just be an administrative correction on our side to follow the AF reg on such issues/items.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on November 29, 2007, 07:55:00 PM
The only reason not to allow former CCs to wear the command badge is that we give out a ribbon for command service, so the badge would be redundant.

So the answer is easy - get rid of the ribbon and allow the badge.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on November 29, 2007, 08:02:01 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on November 29, 2007, 07:55:00 PM
The only reason not to allow former CCs to wear the command badge is that we give out a ribbon for command service, so the badge would be redundant.

So the answer is easy - get rid of the ribbon and allow the badge.
Perfect. far too many ribbons already.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Cecil DP on November 29, 2007, 08:03:27 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on November 29, 2007, 07:55:00 PM
The only reason not to allow former CCs to wear the command badge is that we give out a ribbon for command service, so the badge would be redundant.

So the answer is easy - get rid of the ribbon and allow the badge.

The National Board actually wears the Command Service Ribbon, the NEC Badge, and the Command Badge.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Cecil DP on November 29, 2007, 08:14:02 PM
On the subject of suggested changes/corrections. Can we have just ONE nameplate? We currently have at least 4 (silver for service dress, , grey for shirts, Blue for Cadets, blue for CDU)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on November 29, 2007, 08:57:02 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on November 29, 2007, 07:55:00 PM
The only reason not to allow former CCs to wear the command badge is that we give out a ribbon for command service, so the badge would be redundant.

So the answer is easy - get rid of the ribbon and allow the badge.

I disagree - the command badge should be the honor of the sitting commander(s) ONLY, which means in most cases they can pass them from member to member.

If we allow every current and former commander to continue to wear the badge, in about 10 years, 1/3 of the room at any given time will be wearing them.

The ribbon works just fine.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on November 29, 2007, 09:04:34 PM
But USAF handles this just fine - the current commander wears it above the pocket.  Former commanders wear it on the pocket.  No confusion for them - why is it confusing for us?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Trung Si Ma on November 29, 2007, 09:15:39 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on November 29, 2007, 09:04:34 PM
But USAF handles this just fine - the current commander wears it above the pocket.  Former commanders wear it on the pocket.  No confusion for them - why is it confusing for us?

They don't have people sitting in the room who gave up command 30+ years ago?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: MIKE on November 29, 2007, 09:19:40 PM
They also have only one commanders badge.

I would delete the group commanders badge and institute a wear policy IAW AFI 36-2903.... I would keep the Command Service Ribbon, but I would make it time in service based and not echelon based since many of the senior commanders will already have NB or NEC badges etc.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on November 29, 2007, 09:41:53 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 29, 2007, 08:57:02 PM
I disagree - the command badge should be the honor of the sitting commander(s) ONLY, which means in most cases they can pass them from member to member.

I don't advocate anything that requires a member to give something they have purchased to someone else. I might do it voluntarily, but I don't think it should be required.

I would just soon get rid of the ribbon, I've got enough already. And make it optional for former commanders. Since there's a four badge limit, let them pick what they want to wear.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BillB on November 29, 2007, 10:24:58 PM
Sure there is a command ribbon, but how many people wear ribbons with the short sleeve USAF blues? The command badge worn under the name badge on the pocket, or pocket flap.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on November 29, 2007, 10:31:45 PM
Quote from: BillB on November 29, 2007, 10:24:58 PM
Sure there is a command ribbon, but how many people wear ribbons with the short sleeve USAF blues? The command badge worn under the name badge on the pocket, or pocket flap.

Lots, especially in the summer...
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Larry Mangum on November 29, 2007, 11:27:56 PM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on November 24, 2007, 07:19:57 PM
Submitted for the esteemed assembly's perusal and consideration by the NHQ Uniform Committee:

Here's a somewhat sensible wear policy for the AF-style FDU, CAP FDU and utility uniform, blatantly plagiarized from AFI 36-2903 with CAP-specific information from 39-1 replacing the AF-specific stuff.

Quote

Grade Insignia. Officers will wear vivid cloth grade insignia on each shoulder of the USAF-style, CAP FDU, utility uniform and Nomex-style flight jackets (Plastic covered grade insignia is not authorized). Grade will be sewn-on 5/8 inches from the shoulder seam, centered on the shoulder. Officer grade insignia cloth and cable (thread) standards: USAF-style and CAP FDU base cloth is [olive green or dark blue] Officer grade insignia will be white (cable #?) except for 2d Lt and Major which will be golden yellow (cable #?) Enlisted and cadet grade is included on the nametag of the USAF-style FDU and CAP FDU and Nomex-style flight jackets. Both officer and enlisted/cadet grade insignia on the black leather A-2 Flying Jacket is on the name tag only. EXCEPTION: Placement of General Officer (GO) stars on the USAF-style FDU, CAP FDU and Nomex jackets will be centered on the shoulder halfway between the neck and shoulder seam. Generals wear 1-inch stars on flight suits; 3/4-inch stars may be used if there is insufficient room for the 1-inch stars. GO grade insignia will be on base cloth [olive green or dark blue] GO stars will be white (cable #?) and displayed point-to-center.

Nametags. Cloth nametags for USAF-style FDU, CAP FDU, utility uniform and Nomex-style flight jackets will be 2 inches by 4 inches in size and worn over the left breast pocket. As a minimum, CAP aeronautical badge or specialty insignia (if awarded) are mandatory and nametags will contain individual's name and grade (grade is only mandatory for enlisted and cadet personnel). Embroidered badges will be silver (white) in color. Region and wing supplements to this instruction will standardize nametags (i.e., background/border colors, squadron logos, naming convention, etc). Nametags for black leather A-2 Flying Jacket will be 2 inches by 4 inches, brown or black leather or simulated leather. Emboss with silver wings/badges, first and last name, grade, and CAP. NOTE: Commanders authorized to wear the commander's badge will wear the badge on the left side of the nametag. The badge will be worn only while performing commander duties.

Right Breast Pocket. CAP MAJCOM-style patch will be centered above the right breast pocket. CAP MAJCOM-style patch for the right breast area of the black leather A-2 flying jacket will have a brown or black leather, simulated leather background.

Left Sleeve. The US flag, positioned no lower than 1 inch from shoulder seam. The US flag will be red, white, and blue with golden-yellow border portraying a straight flag, not a waving flag. The flag will be approximately 2 by 3 inches, with the union to the front and stripes trailing. Chapter 1, Title 4, United States Code, specifies the flag colors as red, white, and blue; therefore, subdued flag replicas are not authorized for wear on the USAF-style FDU, CAP FDU or utility uniform.

Right Sleeve. The unit emblem (squadron patch) will be worn as authorized through region or wing supplement to this instruction. When authorized to fly with another unit, individuals may wear the emblem of the unit they are assigned to for flight duties.

Add-On Patches. Regions and wings will publish guidance on wear of add-on patches (i.e., flying
hour milestone, instructor, flight examiner scroll, etc). Campaign/exercise patches are not authorized. Region and wing commanders must approve all emblems/patches not specifically addressed in this instruction.

Neckwear. The wear of scarves will be addressed by region and wing supplements. When authorized, scarves will be worn around the neck and tucked in.

The Air Force brown leather A-2 flight jacket is NOT authorized with this or any Air Force style uniform. The CWU-45/P or CWU-36/P style green Nomex or nylon flight jackets may be worn ONLY with the AF-style FDU. The CAP black leather flight jacket is authorized with the CAP FDU or any CAP distinctive corporate uniform. Alternately, the CWU 45/P or CWU 36/P style flight jackets in dark blue Nomex or nylon may be worn.


AUTHORIZED RIGHT SLEEVE PATCHES

AFRCC SAR Management Course Graduate
CAP Stan/Eval Check Pilot
CAP Proficient Pilot
CAP Cadet Orientation Pilot
CAP NESA patch
CAP Emergency Services (either Pluto or T-34 style)
Region patch (if authorized by region or wing supplement)
Wing patch (if authorized by region or wing supplement)
Group patch (if authorized by region or wing supplement)
Squadron patch (if authorized by region or wing supplement)

Only one of these patches may be worn on the right sleeve.

OK guys... any constructive crtiticism is welcome, but don't kill the messenger, alright?  ;D

How about adding the "Inland Sar" patch as it is a harder course then the AFRCC SAR management course and taught by the same people.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Pylon on November 30, 2007, 01:13:18 AM
Quote from: wawgcap on November 29, 2007, 11:27:56 PM
How about adding the "Inland Sar" patch as it is a harder course then the AFRCC SAR management course and taught by the same people.

Sounds pretty reasonable.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JCJ on November 30, 2007, 01:42:37 AM
Quote from: Cecil DP on November 29, 2007, 08:03:27 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on November 29, 2007, 07:55:00 PM
The only reason not to allow former CCs to wear the command badge is that we give out a ribbon for command service, so the badge would be redundant.

So the answer is easy - get rid of the ribbon and allow the badge.

The National Board actually wears the Command Service Ribbon, the NEC Badge, and the Command Badge.

Not really true for a sitting NB or NEC member.  The command badge is for sitting squadron and group commanders only.  It goes off the uniform at the end of a tour (although I think it should follow the USAF wear policy).  A wing or region commander version was not adopted becasue wing or region commanders wear the NB or NEC badge, respectively.  NB or NEC members may, however, wear their NB or NEC badge after their tour is over.  So if you saw a sitting squadron or group commander who was a former NB or NEC member, he/she might wear a NB or NEC badge and a command badge.

The command service ribbon is for at least one year in command.  A NB member in his first year, who has never served before in command (it has happenned) wouldn't rate one.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on November 30, 2007, 02:08:16 AM
It was pointed out to me in another thread that I should put this here, so here goes:

Green flightsuit:

1. Currently it says that the ES patch may be worn on the right breast. On the blue flightsuit page, it says "right breast pocket". The two need to be the same criteria.

2. Blue flightsuit allows wear of a region patch in place of the CAP command patch. This option is not listed for either the green suit, or the blue utility.

Suggestion for the flightsuits: Mandate unit insignia on the right shoulder, and make the left shoulder the "optional" patch shoulder. This is more inline with the Air Force way on flightsuits. Considering that CAP wears many things on our green bags that aren't even authorized on AF ones, we should look more into mirroring them.

Also, the blue bag page should say literally the same thing as the page for the green, with the addition of a statement that military badges and insignia are not authorized on the corporate one.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on November 30, 2007, 03:26:53 AM
That reminds me:  Why do we have two different ES patches?  If we're going to have them at all (which I don't think is necessary), we should only have 1 version. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Pylon on November 30, 2007, 04:50:23 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on November 30, 2007, 02:08:16 AM
It was pointed out to me in another thread that I should put this here, so here goes:

Green flightsuit:

1. Currently it says that the ES patch may be worn on the right breast. On the blue flightsuit page, it says "right breast pocket". The two need to be the same criteria.

2. Blue flightsuit allows wear of a region patch in place of the CAP command patch. This option is not listed for either the green suit, or the blue utility.

Suggestion for the flightsuits: Mandate unit insignia on the right shoulder, and make the left shoulder the "optional" patch shoulder. This is more inline with the Air Force way on flightsuits. Considering that CAP wears many things on our green bags that aren't even authorized on AF ones, we should look more into mirroring them.

Also, the blue bag page should say literally the same thing as the page for the green, with the addition of a statement that military badges and insignia are not authorized on the corporate one.

Also good points.  Thank you.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on November 30, 2007, 06:08:54 AM
would concur on standardizing policy for blue/grn flt suits.. cut the util, cut the ES patch from all the above, and all together for that matter.

Oh yeah, one more thing while we're on psatches. Badges worn on blues should be embroidered for BDUs, not a big honkin patch. The wear policies should be standardized & mirrior AF to the greatest extent possible. That should clean up some things on both ends of that equation.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: afgeo4 on November 30, 2007, 06:33:39 AM
As per transition from BDU to ABU for CAP. If such a transition is planned and okay'd by the USAF (as previously stated on this board), please allow for wear of Sage Green boots with BDU uniform until ABU uniforms are authorized and available for purchase.

The availability of quality BDUs is dropping quickly with almost none left at AAFES. The quality at many Army/Navy suppliers is often questionable and the prices at Vanguard  are high. With the eye on the future, I believe the Civil Air Patrol should be transitioning to the USAF Airman Battle Uniform (ABU). The black combat boots are disappearing as well. As combat uniforms switch to suede boots of branch specific colors we are seeing a trend in growing prices for black leather combat boots while prices for the same version of boots in Sage/ABU color is much lower. The difference in ICB boots can be as much as $40 with black leather being the more expensive. That's from the same vendor!

The USAF has recently authorized wear of Sage Green ABU boot with BDUs as a transitional uniform while also allowing the desert/army boots with ABU as transitional combination. With all this in mind, I request 2 things:

1. A transition to Airman Battle Uniform be in place with phase-in date that will be accepted by the USAF and NHQ.
2. All patches be removed from ABU once transitioned to preserve USAF heritage.
3. Nametape color be changed to something that works well with ABU (white lettering on ABU or navy blue background?)
3. ACU pattern and black accessories (vests, camelbaks, rucks) be authorized for wear with ABU uniform (as it is for the USAF) once the ABU is authorized for wear.
2. Sage Green boots be authorized for wear with BDU as a transitional item.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: SAR-EMT1 on November 30, 2007, 09:02:12 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 29, 2007, 10:31:45 PM
Quote from: BillB on November 29, 2007, 10:24:58 PM
Sure there is a command ribbon, but how many people wear ribbons with the short sleeve USAF blues? The command badge worn under the name badge on the pocket, or pocket flap.

Lots, especially in the summer...

Maybe up in Chicago, but in the lower parts of the state many Seniors AND Cadets tend to follow USAF tradition and keep all ribbons off the blue shirts (both ss and ls) and wear them exclusively on the Service Dress. (Ribbons on the shirts is a BIG taboo, skygods and some /CC's being the exception) Dont know about other states though.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JayT on November 30, 2007, 03:23:38 PM
Are black boots really disappearing? I can still go to any surplus store in my area, any police store, any EMS store, etc etc etc, and find regulation black boots.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: afgeo4 on November 30, 2007, 05:23:49 PM
Quote from: JThemann on November 30, 2007, 03:23:38 PM
Are black boots really disappearing? I can still go to any surplus store in my area, any police store, any EMS store, etc etc etc, and find regulation black boots.
Dunno about your area, but EMT and PD personnel here wear soft Magnum boots which are not military boots. They're black and they're leather, yes, but they're more like high-top sneakers than combat boots.

Plus, much of what you see in "surplus" stores isn't surplus, it's Chinese or Korean knockoffs. Made to look like the original, but last just a few garrison wears until they start forming leaks or stop taking shines. Many have to be resoled after just a few months of garrison type wear. Now... they're not expensive and they're widely available, but why give the members and their families the headaches and burdens of buying 6 pairs of boots for $49.99 when one pair of true Belleville or Altama boots will do at $99.99?

Also, I'm not saying that black boots with BDUs should be phased out. Not at all. They should not be authorized for wear with ABU, but certainly they're fine with BDUs. What I'm saying is that I think that either desert or sage boots should be authorized as well, while we go through the adaptation of ABUs.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on November 30, 2007, 10:46:33 PM
Please get back on topic guys
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Tim Medeiros on December 01, 2007, 12:38:19 AM
One thing I'd like to see is verbage on when shoulder cords are worn.  I've often seen wing authorized shoulder cords being worn outside the wing, at region and national activities and to me that just doesn't seem quite right.

Personally I like the white/gray/blazer combination, it seems like a good uniform to introduce the organization to new potential sources of income and support in especially when you don't know how much they support the "military look".  Example, in my DDR job, when proposing a DDR event at a school, I'd most likely wear the white/gray with blazer to make the proposal, especially if they don't have a JROTC program, until I can feel out their stance on military looking people being within their halls.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: afgeo4 on December 01, 2007, 03:20:59 AM
Quote from: LtCol White on November 30, 2007, 10:46:33 PM
Please get back on topic guys

Thought uniform items that would save members money WAS the topic...
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: dogden on December 01, 2007, 04:32:40 AM
Lt Col White,

An item that has been overlooked in CAPM 39-1 is maternity uniforms for females. My wife is expecting our third child currently, the second since being a CAP member and if all remains the same she will have to go inactive once she hits a certain point because she has no uniform to wear.

My simple proposal is to allow a white maternity aviator to be worn untucked with maternity grey or AF slacks or with the AF blue jumper. All insignia can be worn IAW AFI 36-2903. By using a white aviator shirt we do not need approval from the AF.

My long term goal is to have permission to wear the AF maternity uniforms since they can be easily acquired from the airmans attic on most bases. These uniforms would include the uniforms mentioned above with the maternity AF blue shirt and the maternity BDU/ABU.

Thanks
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 01, 2007, 05:08:45 AM
Quote from: dogden on December 01, 2007, 04:32:40 AM
Lt Col White,

An item that has been overlooked in CAPM 39-1 is maternity uniforms for females. My wife is expecting our third child currently, the second since being a CAP member and if all remains the same she will have to go inactive once she hits a certain point because she has no uniform to wear.

My simple proposal is to allow a white maternity aviator to be worn untucked with maternity grey or AF slacks or with the AF blue jumper. All insignia can be worn IAW AFI 36-2903. By using a white aviator shirt we do not need approval from the AF.

My long term goal is to have permission to wear the AF maternity uniforms since they can be easily acquired from the airmans attic on most bases. These uniforms would include the uniforms mentioned above with the maternity AF blue shirt and the maternity BDU/ABU.

Thanks

You are not the first to bring up this uniform as overlooked. We are planning a comprehensive review of the entire USAF closet to see what exists that could be of benefit to CAP members and will request approval for all items for CAP. This should help to eliminate having to go back piecemeal to USAF to ask for approval of items.

The only exception would be as USAF creates new items. We are planning to request some sort of blanket approval of new items as USAF introduces them with the appropriate CAP insignia replacing USAF insignia. This may be a stretch but we are going to explore its possibility with CAP USAF CC
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 01, 2007, 11:54:44 PM
OK folks, remembering that one of our mandates is to align the USAF Service Uniform with the Corporate Service Uniform, here are the products we have developed.

There are 2 options for each service coat. One uses the metal USAF style nameplate and the second uses the 3-line blue plastic CAP nameplate.
The advantage with the blue nameplate is that it would be the same on coat and shirt where as the metal would be on the coat and plastic on the shirt.

Blue rank epaulets with embroidered CAP would be used on all coats, shirts and outergarments from USAF and CSU. All metal rank would be removed from the CSU garments. Silver braid on the CSU coat would be replaced by standard USAF style blue braid. Silver chinstrap on CSU service cap would be replaced by standard USAF black leather strap.

By USAF decree, the Corporate Uniform must have the CAP cutouts. Only the USAF style Service Uniform is authorized for the US cutouts.

We intend to propose adopting the grooming standards from US Public Health Service to allow for the wear of neatly trimmed beard/goatee with regulation haircut for the CSU. Doing this would allow for the gray/white combination uniform to be eliminated. The Blazer combination uniform would be maintained for wear by those members who choose not to wear the USAF/Corporate Service Uniforms.

Choices for the ABU are:1. Sage Green background with white/full color insignia, 2. Navy blue with white/full color insignia and 3. Ultramarine Blue as currently worn.

                                      ABU

(http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa65/LtColWhite/ABUProposed.jpg)

(http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa65/LtColWhite/ABUCurrent.jpg)

                                    USAF Style Service Uniform

(http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa65/LtColWhite/USAFCoat1.jpg)


(http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa65/LtColWhite/USAFCoat2.jpg)

(http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa65/LtColWhite/USAFShirt.jpg)


                                     Corporate Style Service Uniform


(http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa65/LtColWhite/CorpCoat1.jpg)

(http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa65/LtColWhite/CorpCoat2.jpg)

(http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa65/LtColWhite/CorporateShirt.jpg)






Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on December 02, 2007, 12:00:38 AM
I think that the plastic name tag on the service coat looks out of place and somewhat un-professional.  It just doesn't seem formal enough to me. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jayleswo on December 02, 2007, 12:03:31 AM
Lt Col White,

Wow. I am very appreciative of all the hard work on these proposals. Some feedback on what I  read: The blue 3-line nameplate on the service jacket doesn't look so hot. I'd prefer to keep the brushed silver nameplate on the coats (with just last name on it). The 3-line blue nametag on the shirt is fine. Love the idea of going back to the blue epaulet slides with CAP on them - that's what we wore in the 80's and it looks sharp.

John Aylesworth, Lt Col
Commander PCR-CA-151
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 02, 2007, 12:05:15 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 02, 2007, 12:00:38 AM
I think that the plastic name tag on the service coat looks out of place and somewhat un-professional.  It just doesn't seem formal enough to me. 

Well its what we wore for years before the metal type and USAF did the same. Metal is being submitted as the first choice with the plastic as the backup. Its always better to give USAF 2 choices. This allows them to disapprove one but approve the other.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jeders on December 02, 2007, 12:41:56 AM
I definitely prefer the metal over the plastic nametag on the coat simply because I think it looks nicer. Other than that, I think you guys have everything spot on as far as the uniforms go. Any finality on the ABU yet, or are you guys still working on that one?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on December 02, 2007, 12:44:18 AM
I don't think we wore any nametag on the service coat before the current metal one. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 02, 2007, 12:46:58 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 02, 2007, 12:44:18 AM
I don't think we wore any nametag on the service coat before the current metal one. 

We wore the blue plastic for MANY years prior to the McPeak coat. When this was adopted neither USAF or CAP wore one. Then the metal one was introduced that is worn today.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on December 02, 2007, 12:52:56 AM
Quote from: LtCol White on December 02, 2007, 12:05:15 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 02, 2007, 12:00:38 AM
I think that the plastic name tag on the service coat looks out of place and somewhat un-professional.  It just doesn't seem formal enough to me. 

Well its what we wore for years before the metal type and USAF did the same. Metal is being submitted as the first choice with the plastic as the backup. Its always better to give USAF 2 choices. This allows them to disapprove one but approve the other.

Or if the RealAirForce® should have kittens over the simple brushed silver nametag, why not adopt the current brushed silver nametag with 'CIVIL AIR PATROL' above the name as a third option?

In the olden days of the four-pocket service dress uniform, blue plastic nametags were the only thing available, whether one line USAF or three-line CAP. Lt Gen and up didn't have to wear a nametag.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 02, 2007, 12:55:50 AM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on December 02, 2007, 12:52:56 AM
Quote from: LtCol White on December 02, 2007, 12:05:15 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 02, 2007, 12:00:38 AM
I think that the plastic name tag on the service coat looks out of place and somewhat un-professional.  It just doesn't seem formal enough to me. 

Well its what we wore for years before the metal type and USAF did the same. Metal is being submitted as the first choice with the plastic as the backup. Its always better to give USAF 2 choices. This allows them to disapprove one but approve the other.

Or if the RealAirForce® should have kittens over the simple brushed silver nametag, why not adopt the current brushed silver nametag with 'CIVIL AIR PATROL' above the name as a third option?

In the olden days of the four-pocket service dress uniform, blue plastic nametags were the only thing available, whether one line USAF or three-line CAP. Lt Gen and up didn't have to wear a nametag.

The metal nametag will be submitted with that option as will the blue nametag as a 2-line as well but these photos give you and idea of how the choices will look regardless of the exact verbage on them.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on December 02, 2007, 12:57:19 AM
Quote from: LtCol White on December 02, 2007, 12:55:50 AMThe metal nametag will be submitted with that option as will the blue nametag as a 2-line as well but these photos give you and idea of how the choices will look regardless of the exact verbage on them.

Danke, Herr Oberstleutnant!  ;D
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on December 02, 2007, 01:30:51 AM
Nice work, amazing what can be done with a little time and effort.

Other than the lighting issues, I would prefer that the uniform manual be presented in a similar manner - no people, just mannequins.

And let's hope we get to keep the single-line metal nametag! Love the blue epaulets!

I have to say these are the most common-sense transitions I have seen in my 8 years in CAP.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: FlyingTerp on December 02, 2007, 01:48:10 AM
Lt Col White,

Thank you for all your work on recommending revisions to our uniforms to present a consistant and professional image.   All the proposed changes look great and hopefully USAF will concur.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on December 02, 2007, 02:53:16 AM
Great work, Sir!

As a suggestion, for the ABU... Sage green nametapes/rank badges would work best, especially if we can use the same embroidered rank insignia on the flight suit.  We would not have to confuse Vanguard by having to stock and ship 2 different background colors.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: sandman on December 02, 2007, 06:16:51 AM
Looking Sharp!

BTW, The grooming standards for USPHS officers no longer allow facial hair (except crumb broom of course) after 1 Jan 2008. Standards are the same as the US Navy.

v/r
LT
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: CadetProgramGuy on December 02, 2007, 08:05:16 AM
Really like the ABU with Green nametapes, the AF Blues with Brushed Name Tag (Blue Epulates, Awesome!!)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 02, 2007, 01:46:13 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 02, 2007, 02:53:16 AM
Great work, Sir!

As a suggestion, for the ABU... Sage green nametapes/rank badges would work best, especially if we can use the same embroidered rank insignia on the flight suit.  We would not have to confuse Vanguard by having to stock and ship 2 different background colors.

Already have that written into the document on the ABU that the same cloth rank will also be used on the green flightsuit completely eliminating the plastic encased.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on December 02, 2007, 02:08:18 PM
Don't forget there'll still be two different background colors for cloth insiginia - dark blue for the corporate flight suit, utilities and BBDUs; eventually, - if the RealAirForce buys off on it - we'll also have vivid sage green for the ABUs and green bags.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on December 02, 2007, 02:10:05 PM
Quote from: sandman on December 02, 2007, 06:16:51 AM
Looking Sharp!

BTW, The grooming standards for USPHS officers no longer allow facial hair (except crumb broom of course) after 1 Jan 2008. Standards are the same as the US Navy.

v/r
LT

That's no crumb broom, that's a snotcatcher!  ;D

<-- proudly sporting an in-regs snotcatcher.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ironputts on December 02, 2007, 02:14:20 PM
Sir,

I am for all the uniform options displayed here understanding the position of the Air Force. The look is professional and cognizant of both organizations. Of course, after all is said and done we ALL will have to invest several hundred dollars more in uniform changes. Will the cadets have to wear the new ABU also?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on December 02, 2007, 02:16:16 PM
Quote from: ironputts on December 02, 2007, 02:14:20 PM
Sir,

I am for all the uniform options displayed here understanding the position of the Air Force. The look is professional and cognizant of both organizations. Of course, after all is said and done we ALL will have to invest several hundred dollars more in uniform changes. Will the cadets have to wear the new ABU also?

Both seniors and cadinks will wind up in ABUs, but not for a long time. Woodland BDU will still be around a little longer.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 02, 2007, 02:18:02 PM
Quote from: ironputts on December 02, 2007, 02:14:20 PM
Sir,

I am for all the uniform options displayed here understanding the position of the Air Force. The look is professional and cognizant of both organizations. Of course, after all is said and done we ALL will have to invest several hundred dollars more in uniform changes. Will the cadets have to wear the new ABU also?

These changes involve very minimal costs. On the service uniform you're only looking at epaulets and nametag.

The exception is the ABU and yes, cadets will have to wear this uniform.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on December 02, 2007, 02:29:43 PM
As a "General rule," if there are any rules to uniforms, our wear-out dates for old uniforms is about twice that which is allowed for the AF.  The AF intends to phase in the ABU over 5 years.  If the same rule applies, you will have to scrap what's left of your BDU's in 2017 or so.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: riffraff on December 02, 2007, 04:11:32 PM
Lt Col White:
Great job in 'threading the needle' around the many divergent opinions/desires for the uniform!! The proposed/suggested changes are a well thought out approach that addresses many of the issues brought up in this thread.

My only comment is regarding the color of tapes/badging:
While I think the white-on-sage looks good on the ABU, adopting this color would look (IMO) terrible on any of the blue field uniforms. I also think USAF will likely have an issue -- vis-a-vis not distinctive enough.

To minimize costs to members, extended wear-out dates for those already using the ultramarine tapes/badging on their current uniforms.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 02, 2007, 04:14:52 PM
Quote from: riffraff on December 02, 2007, 04:11:32 PM
Lt Col White:
Great job in 'threading the needle' around the many divergent opinions/desires for the uniform!! The proposed/suggested changes are a well thought out approach that addresses many of the issues brought up in this thread.

My only comment is regarding the color of tapes/badging:
While I think the white-on-sage looks good on the ABU, adopting this color would look (IMO) terrible on any of the blue field uniforms. I also think USAF will likely have an issue -- vis-a-vis not distinctive enough.

To minimize costs to members, extended wear-out dates for those already using the ultramarine tapes/badging on their current uniforms.

BBDU's would have the navy/white insignia. Sage would only be for the ABU
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jeders on December 02, 2007, 04:25:15 PM
Here's my new question. Now that you guys seem to have things fairly finalized, when are you going to present these things to the Air Force, or are you still finalizing?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: MIKE on December 02, 2007, 04:32:02 PM
I wouldn't call changing a bunch of insignia finalized.  Addressing the existing deficiencies should be job 1.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jb512 on December 02, 2007, 04:36:32 PM
Excellent job, and glad that you guys are using member input.  Looks like a good compromise of the most popular opinions of the group.

The blue epaulets all the way around is a great idea.  I would only add a suggestion that we change from the short stubby size that we have for the current gray ones and make male and female versions that match the size and shape of the AF epaulets.  Maybe I'm being picky...
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on December 02, 2007, 05:35:23 PM
Lt. Col. White, et al,

I understand that one of the missions of this committee is to maximize the use of grade insignia and other items across the various uniforms, and that is a good idea.

However, please do not spend an inordinate amount of time or re-development effort with only cost in mind. 

As configured above, either service dress will require minimal cost and effort to reconfigure, and as mentioned, the expectation is phase-ins for those on a budget.

Too many of our uniform choices and designs have been effected by well-intentioned, but misguided efforts to control cost, which is usually a small difference, but effects our look for years.

We also need to directly address the wear of ABU's by cadets.  My suggestion is that ABU's not be approved for cadet wear until >AFTER< the initial senior-member phase out.

Otherwise we will wind up with a handful of cadets in ABU's who have better financial resources or access to uniforms (for whatever reason).  In the interim, the cadets would be the intended targets of the uniforms being phased-out by senior members.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on December 02, 2007, 05:37:40 PM
Quote from: jaybird512 on December 02, 2007, 04:36:32 PM
Excellent job, and glad that you guys are using member input.  Looks like a good compromise of the most popular opinions of the group.

The blue epaulets all the way around is a great idea.  I would only add a suggestion that we change from the short stubby size that we have for the current gray ones and make male and female versions that match the size and shape of the AF epaulets.  Maybe I'm being picky...


For what its worth, Jason, I don't think you're being picky.  Vanguard makes Army and Air Force epaulet sleeves in male and female sizes, and they are of better quality that that which they sell to us.  They are also cheaper.

I'm not looking for charity, only parity.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JayT on December 02, 2007, 05:53:08 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 02, 2007, 05:35:23 PM
Lt. Col. White, et al,


We also need to directly address the wear of ABU's by cadets.  My suggestion is that ABU's not be approved for cadet wear until >AFTER< the initial senior-member phase out.

Otherwise we will wind up with a handful of cadets in ABU's who have better financial resources or access to uniforms (for whatever reason).  In the interim, the cadets would be the intended targets of the uniforms being phased-out by senior members.

Don't take this the wrong way, but thats Senior Member elitest crap.

If the old guys get to wear it, the cadets get to wear it.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Smokey on December 02, 2007, 05:55:11 PM
Lt Col White,

Great job.....looks good.

My vote ....metal nametag on the coat, blue plastic on the shirt
sage for the ABU

We must get away from ultramarine blue....it so.......70ish along with disco and  advocado refrigerators ;D

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jeders on December 02, 2007, 05:56:07 PM
Quote from: JThemann on December 02, 2007, 05:53:08 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 02, 2007, 05:35:23 PM
Lt. Col. White, et al,


We also need to directly address the wear of ABU's by cadets.  My suggestion is that ABU's not be approved for cadet wear until >AFTER< the initial senior-member phase out.

Otherwise we will wind up with a handful of cadets in ABU's who have better financial resources or access to uniforms (for whatever reason).  In the interim, the cadets would be the intended targets of the uniforms being phased-out by senior members.

Don't take this the wrong way, but thats Senior Member elitest crap.

If the old guys get to wear it, the cadets get to wear it.

Agreed. Plus we have plenty of Senior Members who can't afford basic uniforms. No matter what, you're going to have people in both ABUs and BDUs at the same place, get over it.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 02, 2007, 06:18:53 PM
Phase in for ABU's will be for all members at the same time. There will be no segregation of seniors and cadets for wear.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Grumpy on December 02, 2007, 06:24:43 PM
Quote from: Smokey on December 02, 2007, 05:55:11 PM
Lt Col White,

Great job.....looks good.

My vote ....metal nametag on the coat, blue plastic on the shirt
sage for the ABU

We must get away from ultramarine blue....it so.......70ish along with disco and  advocado refrigerators ;D



Good Obs Smokey
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on December 02, 2007, 06:24:49 PM
Umm......lets "align the corporate uniform to the AF uniform", not the other way around.  Some people here worked really hard to get the brushed metallic nameplate for the AF style jacket.  

Why would we go to plastic nameplate on the uniform coat when it is not an "issue" with the AF?

Leave the AF style jacket alone, if you want to make the grade slides blue, fine......but don't take away anything.  

As far as the ABU goes.....I seriously doubt the AF will approve anything but ultramarine blue.  

As for the comments about not letting Cadets into the ABU's....WHAT?!?  I agree that when we are allowed into whatever uniform.....it needs to be CAP wide.

I also would like to bring up a comment made by MIKE, about lets fix the major issues with the uniforms not just aesthetics.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DrJbdm on December 02, 2007, 06:41:44 PM
Lt Col. White,

   Sir, You have done oustanding work in trying to get all this in order and with trying to keep everyones suggestions in mind, I know that several compromises where in order. while I may not be happy with all the changes (ie: no metal rank on CSU) I can live with the compromise.

   I do have one question that I don't think you or anyone else had addressed; why are we submitting to the Air Force a request to wear the brushed metal nametag when the Air Force has already approved that for wear?

   I certainly hope and pray that the Air Force approves the blue slides. I think that is a much needed change. I also hope and pray that they also approve the sage green tapes for the ABU when that time comes.

  Thank you for all the hard work you and the other officers have done on this issue.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 02, 2007, 06:51:42 PM
Quote from: DrJbdm on December 02, 2007, 06:41:44 PM
Lt Col. White,

   Sir, You have done oustanding work in trying to get all this in order and with trying to keep everyones suggestions in mind, I know that several compromises where in order. while I may not be happy with all the changes (ie: no metal rank on CSU) I can live with the compromise.

   I do have one question that I don't think you or anyone else had addressed; why are we submitting to the Air Force a request to wear the brushed metal nametag when the Air Force has already approved that for wear?

   I certainly hope and pray that the Air Force approves the blue slides. I think that is a much needed change. I also hope and pray that they also approve the sage green tapes for the ABU when that time comes.

  Thank you for all the hard work you and the other officers have done on this issue.

The proposal isn't asking for the metal nameplate. The plastic nameplate is the backup choice in the event that USAF doesn't feel the blue epaulets are quite distinct enough with the metal nameplate.

If we had to go to the plastic nameplate to get rid of the gray epaulets and have the blue epaulets on the coats and shirts, We think losing the metal nameplate is a small price to pay with that one item.

This being said, again, the Coats with the metal nameplate are the PRIMARY submission.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on December 02, 2007, 07:31:21 PM
^ It might be the primary submission.....but when you list "alternatives" you are willing to accept, why submit anything at all? 

I am getting sick of the uniform issues.  When will 39-1 be rewritten??  Do you have a timeframe, or has everything been pushed into getting blue slides and the Corporates to feel better?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 02, 2007, 07:44:40 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 02, 2007, 07:31:21 PM
^ It might be the primary submission.....but when you list "alternatives" you are willing to accept, why submit anything at all? 

I am getting sick of the uniform issues.  When will 39-1 be rewritten??  Do you have a timeframe, or has everything been pushed into getting blue slides and the Corporates to feel better?

Why are u always so negative? Obviuosly, you know nothing about proposal submissions. If you are so sick of the uniform issues, then stop participating in discussions. If you re-read the inital post on page #1, you'll see the purpose of this project is a complete overhaul of 39-1 as well as the align the two service uniforms. The priority issue as assigned was the service uniforms and ABU. These along with a few others will be submittied at the Winter Board in February. The larger revision and work on 39-1 is not something that can be done in 3 months if it is to be done properly and comprehensively.

As the proposals are being completed, they are being posted on here for comment and review. Feel free to hold your comments if you have nothing constructive to say.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Pylon on December 02, 2007, 08:55:50 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 02, 2007, 07:31:21 PM
^ It might be the primary submission.....but when you list "alternatives" you are willing to accept, why submit anything at all? 

I am getting sick of the uniform issues.  When will 39-1 be rewritten??  Do you have a timeframe, or has everything been pushed into getting blue slides and the Corporates to feel better?

Hey mikey, there's a thread on ambiguities, errors, conflicts/contradictions, and gray areas in CAPM 39-1.  If you're aware of things that haven't been addressed, please do post them there.  We're compiling all of the issues before attempting to rewrite it.  That process is already underway, but as Lt Col White indicated, it is not a three month job - certainly not when done entirely by volunteers.

If you'd like to help with the re-write, please let us know where there are errors that we can address.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jb512 on December 02, 2007, 09:36:32 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 02, 2007, 05:37:40 PM
Quote from: jaybird512 on December 02, 2007, 04:36:32 PM
Excellent job, and glad that you guys are using member input.  Looks like a good compromise of the most popular opinions of the group.

The blue epaulets all the way around is a great idea.  I would only add a suggestion that we change from the short stubby size that we have for the current gray ones and make male and female versions that match the size and shape of the AF epaulets.  Maybe I'm being picky...


For what its worth, Jason, I don't think you're being picky.  Vanguard makes Army and Air Force epaulet sleeves in male and female sizes, and they are of better quality that that which they sell to us.  They are also cheaper.

I'm not looking for charity, only parity.

Thanks.  If the blue is approved, common sense would have them take the AF slides they're already producing in the two sizes and just add the CAP embroidery.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on December 02, 2007, 09:36:46 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 02, 2007, 07:31:21 PM
^ It might be the primary submission.....but when you list "alternatives" you are willing to accept, why submit anything at all? 

I am getting sick of the uniform issues.  When will 39-1 be rewritten??  Do you have a timeframe, or has everything been pushed into getting blue slides and the Corporates to feel better?

You might want to actually read the thread, part of the mission here is to correct 39-1 at the same time.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Phillip on December 02, 2007, 10:35:25 PM
LtCol White:

If I may, here are my thoughts -

ABU
The more I see white/sage insignia on the uniform, the more I like it.  Personally, I think it is distinctive enough from the USAF version.

Service Uniform
Silver nametags are the way to go for the coats, no question.  And blue epaulets on the coat look so much better than the gray.   :D

I don't see USAF balking at the idea of blue epaulets and the silver nametags, but if they do, I'd rather have the epaulets.

Photos
Your example photos are great, and should be how the uniform combos are presented in the next 39-1 (i.e. sans people).  I'd recommend close up photos of areas such as ribbon & badge placement on the coats and shirts as well.


Also, I mentioned this earlier in the thread, and though I'd bring it up again because I didn't see it mentioned since then:  Will the board as USAF permission for the black A-2 to be worn with USAF style service (and flight too I guess) uniforms?  I only ask because I find the blue lightweight jacket inadequate during the winter months.  That and they are easier to obtain.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JayT on December 02, 2007, 10:49:05 PM
Quote from: Phillip on December 02, 2007, 10:35:25 PM
LtCol White:

If I may, here are my thoughts -

ABU
The more I see white/sage insignia on the uniform, the more I like it.  Personally, I think it is distinctive enough from the USAF version.

Service Uniform
Silver nametags are the way to go for the coats, no question.  And blue epaulets on the coat look so much better than the gray.   :D

I don't see USAF balking at the idea of blue epaulets and the silver nametags, but if they do, I'd rather have the epaulets.

Photos
Your example photos are great, and should be how the uniform combos are presented in the next 39-1 (i.e. sans people).  I'd recommend close up photos of areas such as ribbon & badge placement on the coats and shirts as well.


Also, I mentioned this earlier in the thread, and though I'd bring it up again because I didn't see it mentioned since then:  Will the board as USAF permission for the black A-2 to be worn with USAF style service (and flight too I guess) uniforms?  I only ask because I find the blue lightweight jacket inadequate during the winter months.  That and they are easier to obtain.

You can wear a sweater under the light weight jacket.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 02, 2007, 10:58:50 PM
Quote from: Phillip on December 02, 2007, 10:35:25 PM
LtCol White:

If I may, here are my thoughts -

ABU
The more I see white/sage insignia on the uniform, the more I like it.  Personally, I think it is distinctive enough from the USAF version.

Service Uniform
Silver nametags are the way to go for the coats, no question.  And blue epaulets on the coat look so much better than the gray.   :D

I don't see USAF balking at the idea of blue epaulets and the silver nametags, but if they do, I'd rather have the epaulets.

Photos
Your example photos are great, and should be how the uniform combos are presented in the next 39-1 (i.e. sans people).  I'd recommend close up photos of areas such as ribbon & badge placement on the coats and shirts as well.


Also, I mentioned this earlier in the thread, and though I'd bring it up again because I didn't see it mentioned since then:  Will the board as USAF permission for the black A-2 to be worn with USAF style service (and flight too I guess) uniforms?  I only ask because I find the blue lightweight jacket inadequate during the winter months.  That and they are easier to obtain.

No, we will not ask for the Black Leather A-2 for wear with the USAF uniform. The reason is that it is not an item authorized for wear with USAF uniforms by USAF and therefore USAF will not consider any non-USAF item for wear with USAF uniforms. We know this for fact so there is no reason to even ask.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on December 02, 2007, 11:05:44 PM
Quote from: Phillip on December 02, 2007, 10:35:25 PM
Also, I mentioned this earlier in the thread, and though I'd bring it up again because I didn't see it mentioned since then:  Will the board as USAF permission for the black A-2 to be worn with USAF style service (and flight too I guess) uniforms?  I only ask because I find the blue lightweight jacket inadequate during the winter months.  That and they are easier to obtain.

It's been asked before and it's HIGHLY unlikely Mama Blue will let us wear the brown A-2 leather jacket. And most certainly not the black corporate A-2 jacket on AF style.

The A-2 leather jacket in the Air Force is issued only to active, mission qualified aircrew, air battle managers and missileers. It's their initiation badge and the 'ops mafia' in the AF would rather die than give up the jacket to the 'shoe clerks'. Especially heinous to them would be giving it up to the 'wannabe Air Force'. That would give the shoe clerks a conniption fit!  ;D

I would rather see a proper leather-backed CAP MAJCOM patch for the leather jacket.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DrJbdm on December 02, 2007, 11:07:43 PM
Lt. Col. White,

   Has the board considered a phase in date for when we will be allowed to start transitioning into the ABU?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 02, 2007, 11:13:12 PM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on December 02, 2007, 11:05:44 PM
Quote from: Phillip on December 02, 2007, 10:35:25 PM
Also, I mentioned this earlier in the thread, and though I'd bring it up again because I didn't see it mentioned since then:  Will the board as USAF permission for the black A-2 to be worn with USAF style service (and flight too I guess) uniforms?  I only ask because I find the blue lightweight jacket inadequate during the winter months.  That and they are easier to obtain.

It's been asked before and it's HIGHLY unlikely Mama Blue will let us wear the brown A-2 leather jacket. And most certainly not the black corporate A-2 jacket on AF style.

The A-2 leather jacket in the Air Force is issued only to active, mission qualified aircrew, air battle managers and missileers. It's their initiation badge and the 'ops mafia' in the AF would rather die than give up the jacket to the 'shoe clerks'. Especially heinous to them would be giving it up to the 'wannabe Air Force'. That would give the shoe clerks a conniption fit!  ;D

I would rather see a proper leather-backed CAP MAJCOM patch for the leather jacket.

Its generally not a good idea to keep asking for something they have already denied when there is no other reason than it would look cool. We don't really need that. Therefore we will not make that request again.

We are asking with the return to the original, already USAF approved MAJCOM patch that an appropriate size/quality version be produced for the Black A-2 for the Corporate Uniform.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 02, 2007, 11:16:28 PM
Quote from: DrJbdm on December 02, 2007, 11:07:43 PM
Lt. Col. White,

   Has the board considered a phase in date for when we will be allowed to start transitioning into the ABU?

On the ABU we are going to ask for initial authorization to begin June 1 2008 with a mandatory phase date of 2011 to be consistant with USAF. This is something that USAF has total control over so we just have to wait and see what they think on this one. They may tell us we have to wait until June 09. It just depends on their logistics system and when they feel it can handle the supply.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on December 02, 2007, 11:25:34 PM
2007?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on December 02, 2007, 11:31:26 PM
;D

I am just a "Negative Nancy" when it comes to issues that will effect CAP for years. 

We have to look at both sides of the situation, from my view, it looks like we are trying to make the corporate uniform owners feel better about themselves at the expense of the AF style owners. 

Why would we ditch the brushed metal nameplate in favor a plastic one, when the AF will be wearing the brushed plate FOR YEARS?  Why would that even be a suggestion??  Weird, right?

I guess I just don't get what this committee is trying to do.  Perhaps if I bought a Corporate jacket I would understand better.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 02, 2007, 11:43:27 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 02, 2007, 11:25:34 PM
2007?

Sorry, typo. Has been corrected.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DrJbdm on December 02, 2007, 11:47:11 PM
Mikey, I know you believe this is all about trying to make those in the Corporates "feel" better, but I assure you, that has nothing to do with it. the plastic nameplate is only part of a second option for trying to get blue slides. Let me place the question to you: If AF said we will give you blue slides but you will have to wear the blue nametag on the service coat. What would your responce be?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on December 02, 2007, 11:48:44 PM
^ Understood. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 02, 2007, 11:49:58 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 02, 2007, 11:31:26 PM
;D

I am just a "Negative Nancy" when it comes to issues that will effect CAP for years. 

We have to look at both sides of the situation, from my view, it looks like we are trying to make the corporate uniform owners feel better about themselves at the expense of the AF style owners. 

Why would we ditch the brushed metal nameplate in favor a plastic one, when the AF will be wearing the brushed plate FOR YEARS?  Why would that even be a suggestion??  Weird, right?

I guess I just don't get what this committee is trying to do.  Perhaps if I bought a Corporate jacket I would understand better.

Yes, are are most definitely a negative nancy.

Perhaps you just need to READ the 1st post I made here. It is stated QUITE clearly. No one is proposing dropping the metal nameplate. Let me say it again NO ONE IS PROPOSING DROPPING THE METAL NAMEPLATE.

The proposal includes a BACKUP choice for USAF in the event they feel there needs to be more difference than just the blue epaulets. Rather than give them ONE choice to which the answer is YES or NO, its better to give a second option. I doubt many will be upset if they have to give up the metal nameplate for the sake of getting the blue epaulets back and eliminating the gray. We think the plastic nameplate is an acceptable compromise to improve the overall appearance of the uniform even if it isn't our 1st choice. Anyone who is horrified at losing the metal nameplate needs to seriously rethink why they are in CAP.

Finally, NO ONE IS PROPOSING DROPPING THE METAL NAMEPLATE
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Phillip on December 03, 2007, 12:02:56 AM
Quote from: JThemann on December 02, 2007, 10:49:05 PM
You can wear a sweater under the light weight jacket.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I love my sweater. ;D  Sometimes though, it just isn't enough.  And sometimes it is too much once in doors.  I was just hoping to have another option available.

Quote from: LtCol White on December 02, 2007, 10:58:50 PM
No, we will not ask for the Black Leather A-2 for wear with the USAF uniform. The reason is that it is not an item authorized for wear with USAF uniforms by USAF and therefore USAF will not consider any non-USAF item for wear with USAF uniforms. We know this for fact so there is no reason to even ask.
Point noted.  Thanks for your reply.

Quote from: LtCol White on December 02, 2007, 11:13:12 PM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on December 02, 2007, 11:05:44 PM
Quote from: Phillip on December 02, 2007, 10:35:25 PM
Also, I mentioned this earlier in the thread, and though I'd bring it up again because I didn't see it mentioned since then:  Will the board as USAF permission for the black A-2 to be worn with USAF style service (and flight too I guess) uniforms?  I only ask because I find the blue lightweight jacket inadequate during the winter months.  That and they are easier to obtain.

It's been asked before and it's HIGHLY unlikely Mama Blue will let us wear the brown A-2 leather jacket. And most certainly not the black corporate A-2 jacket on AF style.

The A-2 leather jacket in the Air Force is issued only to active, mission qualified aircrew, air battle managers and missileers. It's their initiation badge and the 'ops mafia' in the AF would rather die than give up the jacket to the 'shoe clerks'. Especially heinous to them would be giving it up to the 'wannabe Air Force'. That would give the shoe clerks a conniption fit!  ;D

I would rather see a proper leather-backed CAP MAJCOM patch for the leather jacket.

Its generally not a good idea to keep asking for something they have already denied when there is no other reason than it would look cool. We don't really need that. Therefore we will not make that request again.
I didn't ask about it because it thought it was cool,  I just wanted another option because I was cold.

Now, I'm actually kinda sorry I even brought it up.   :-[
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on December 03, 2007, 12:09:15 AM
Quote from: LtCol White on December 02, 2007, 11:13:12 PMIt's generally not a good idea to keep asking for something they have already denied when there is no other reason than it would look cool. We don't really need that. Therefore we will not make that request again.

Exactimundo! Most of us already know it ain't gonna happen, and that's that. But there'll be someone out there (hopefully not in our Esteemed Assembly) who will wear an A-2 leather jacket with USAF-style blues. ("Why? Because I can!") To add further insult to injury, it'll probably be the black corporate A-2. Wait until the RealAirForce 'uniform nazis' go to town... - CHOMP! - (Not targeting you, Lt. Overgaard; unfortunately we already suffer a bad track record on USAF-style uniform wear, especially with some in the RealAirForce®.)

Quote from: LtCol White on December 02, 2007, 11:13:12 PMWe are asking with the return to the original, already USAF approved MAJCOM patch that an appropriate size/quality version be produced for the Black A-2 for the Corporate Uniform.

Danke, Herr Oberstleutnant!

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on December 03, 2007, 12:29:08 AM
Quote from: Phillip on December 03, 2007, 12:02:56 AM
Quote from: JThemann on December 02, 2007, 10:49:05 PM
You can wear a sweater under the light weight jacket.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I love my sweater. ;D  Sometimes though, it just isn't enough.  And sometimes it is too much once in doors.  I was just hoping to have another option available.

Quote from: LtCol White on December 02, 2007, 10:58:50 PM
No, we will not ask for the Black Leather A-2 for wear with the USAF uniform. The reason is that it is not an item authorized for wear with USAF uniforms by USAF and therefore USAF will not consider any non-USAF item for wear with USAF uniforms. We know this for fact so there is no reason to even ask.
Point noted.  Thanks for your reply.

Quote from: LtCol White on December 02, 2007, 11:13:12 PM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on December 02, 2007, 11:05:44 PM
Quote from: Phillip on December 02, 2007, 10:35:25 PM
Also, I mentioned this earlier in the thread, and though I'd bring it up again because I didn't see it mentioned since then:  Will the board as USAF permission for the black A-2 to be worn with USAF style service (and flight too I guess) uniforms?  I only ask because I find the blue lightweight jacket inadequate during the winter months.  That and they are easier to obtain.

It's been asked before and it's HIGHLY unlikely Mama Blue will let us wear the brown A-2 leather jacket. And most certainly not the black corporate A-2 jacket on AF style.

The A-2 leather jacket in the Air Force is issued only to active, mission qualified aircrew, air battle managers and missileers. It's their initiation badge and the 'ops mafia' in the AF would rather die than give up the jacket to the 'shoe clerks'. Especially heinous to them would be giving it up to the 'wannabe Air Force'. That would give the shoe clerks a conniption fit!  ;D

I would rather see a proper leather-backed CAP MAJCOM patch for the leather jacket.

Its generally not a good idea to keep asking for something they have already denied when there is no other reason than it would look cool. We don't really need that. Therefore we will not make that request again.
I didn't ask about it because it thought it was cool,  I just wanted another option because I was cold.

Now, I'm actually kinda sorry I even brought it up.   :-[

Phil:

Try the sage green flight jacket with the orange liner.  We are authorized that jacket with flight gear, and that is far warmer than the lightweight blue.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: afgeo4 on December 03, 2007, 12:44:19 AM
Also, try the extreme cold weather parka! It's an authorized item with USAF uniforms and any commander who is going to comment on you wearing it in extremely cold weather deserves to be shot reminded of the mission and importance of taking care of your volunteer airmen members.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: NEBoom on December 03, 2007, 12:46:27 AM
Lt Col White,
Wow.  I didn't think going for blue shoulder marks on the AF style uniform was even a viable option.  If you can make that stick, I'd be all for it.  And the blue marks look much better on the service coats than I ever thought they might.  Good deal all around.

Will add my voice to the chorus regarding nameplates.  Obviously sliver would be the best but would not have a problem changing to blue if it meant getting the blue shoulder marks back.

Since we're looking at a potentially short time before we can start wearing ABUs, am I to assume that insignia on current Woodland BDUs would remain unchanged until their phase-out?  I'd suggest that if it hasn't already been considered.  No sense in making a change on a uniform that will be heading in to phase-out.

On the ABUs I'm going to have to be the lone holdout for blue tapes.  I still think one color that will work on both ABUs and corporate BBDUs, and one color rank insignia that will work on both as well as both the green and blue flight suits is the way we should be going.

Thanks for your efforts!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: afgeo4 on December 03, 2007, 12:47:23 AM
Quote from: LtCol White on December 02, 2007, 11:16:28 PM
Quote from: DrJbdm on December 02, 2007, 11:07:43 PM
Lt. Col. White,

    Has the board considered a phase in date for when we will be allowed to start transitioning into the ABU?

On the ABU we are going to ask for initial authorization to begin June 1 2008 with a mandatory phase date of 2011 to be consistant with USAF. This is something that USAF has total control over so we just have to wait and see what they think on this one. They may tell us we have to wait until June 09. It just depends on their logistics system and when they feel it can handle the supply.


Thank you. Would you also please ask for green boots to be authorized to wear with BDU until transition is finished? I can buy those at the (insert AFB name here) MCSS while I cannot buy the black ones as replacement for my old, worn out ones. Plus... think of the money new members will save since most of our boots that are worn for meetings last 5 years or more!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: afgeo4 on December 03, 2007, 12:48:51 AM
Quote from: NEBoom on December 03, 2007, 12:46:27 AM
Lt Col White,
Wow.  I didn't think going for blue shoulder marks on the AF style uniform was even a viable option.  If you can make that stick, I'd be all for it.  And the blue marks look much better on the service coats than I ever thought they might.  Good deal all around.

Will add my voice to the chorus regarding nameplates.  Obviously sliver would be the best but would not have a problem changing to blue if it meant getting the blue shoulder marks back.

Since we're looking at a potentially short time before we can start wearing ABUs, am I to assume that insignia on current Woodland BDUs would remain unchanged until their phase-out?  I'd suggest that if it hasn't already been considered.  No sense in making a change on a uniform that will be heading in to phase-out.

On the ABUs I'm going to have to be the lone holdout for blue tapes.  I still think one color that will work on both ABUs and corporate BBDUs, and one color rank insignia that will work on both as well as both the green and blue flight suits is the way we should be going.

Thanks for your efforts!

White letters on navy blue background works for all of the above. Does it work for you?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on December 03, 2007, 12:50:14 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 03, 2007, 12:29:08 AM
Phil:

Try the sage green flight jacket with the orange liner.  We are authorized that jacket with flight gear, and that is far warmer than the lightweight blue.

Or the green nomex CWU-45/P (winter weight) or CWU-36/P (summer weight) jacket. Nylon knockoffs of these style jackets abound for a lot cheaper than the $200+ cost of nomex (average about $75-$100). However, you can't wear the green flight jacket with blues.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: NEBoom on December 03, 2007, 12:53:07 AM
Quote from: afgeo4 on December 03, 2007, 12:48:51 AM
Quote from: NEBoom on December 03, 2007, 12:46:27 AM
Lt Col White,
Wow.  I didn't think going for blue shoulder marks on the AF style uniform was even a viable option.  If you can make that stick, I'd be all for it.  And the blue marks look much better on the service coats than I ever thought they might.  Good deal all around.

Will add my voice to the chorus regarding nameplates.  Obviously sliver would be the best but would not have a problem changing to blue if it meant getting the blue shoulder marks back.

Since we're looking at a potentially short time before we can start wearing ABUs, am I to assume that insignia on current Woodland BDUs would remain unchanged until their phase-out?  I'd suggest that if it hasn't already been considered.  No sense in making a change on a uniform that will be heading in to phase-out.

On the ABUs I'm going to have to be the lone holdout for blue tapes.  I still think one color that will work on both ABUs and corporate BBDUs, and one color rank insignia that will work on both as well as both the green and blue flight suits is the way we should be going.

Thanks for your efforts!

White letters on navy blue background works for all of the above. Does it work for you?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 03, 2007, 01:02:08 AM
Quote from: NEBoom on December 03, 2007, 12:46:27 AM
Lt Col White,
Wow.  I didn't think going for blue shoulder marks on the AF style uniform was even a viable option.  If you can make that stick, I'd be all for it.  And the blue marks look much better on the service coats than I ever thought they might.  Good deal all around.

Will add my voice to the chorus regarding nameplates.  Obviously sliver would be the best but would not have a problem changing to blue if it meant getting the blue shoulder marks back.

Since we're looking at a potentially short time before we can start wearing ABUs, am I to assume that insignia on current Woodland BDUs would remain unchanged until their phase-out?  I'd suggest that if it hasn't already been considered.  No sense in making a change on a uniform that will be heading in to phase-out.

On the ABUs I'm going to have to be the lone holdout for blue tapes.  I still think one color that will work on both ABUs and corporate BBDUs, and one color rank insignia that will work on both as well as both the green and blue flight suits is the way we should be going.

Thanks for your efforts!

You are correct. There will be no changes made to the BDU's other than requesting wear of the green boots which is consistant with current USAF policy.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: arajca on December 03, 2007, 01:20:17 AM
Quote from: NEBoom on December 03, 2007, 12:46:27 AM
On the ABUs I'm going to have to be the lone holdout for blue tapes.  I still think one color that will work on both ABUs and corporate BBDUs, and one color rank insignia that will work on both as well as both the green and blue flight suits is the way we should be going.

You're not alone. I think the dark blue tape w/white lettering provides a better distinction than the sage green does.

Lt Col White,
    While talking boot for bdu's, would the green boots become a replacement or an option for the bbdu?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 03, 2007, 01:23:13 AM
Quote from: arajca on December 03, 2007, 01:20:17 AM
Quote from: NEBoom on December 03, 2007, 12:46:27 AM
On the ABUs I'm going to have to be the lone holdout for blue tapes.  I still think one color that will work on both ABUs and corporate BBDUs, and one color rank insignia that will work on both as well as both the green and blue flight suits is the way we should be going.

You're not alone. I think the dark blue tape w/white lettering provides a better distinction than the sage green does.

Lt Col White,
    While talking boot for bdu's, would the green boots become a replacement or an option for the bbdu?

No, BBDU would still use black boots.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Phillip on December 03, 2007, 01:46:39 AM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on December 03, 2007, 12:50:14 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 03, 2007, 12:29:08 AM
Phil:

Try the sage green flight jacket with the orange liner.  We are authorized that jacket with flight gear, and that is far warmer than the lightweight blue.

Or the green nomex CWU-45/P (winter weight) or CWU-36/P (summer weight) jacket. Nylon knockoffs of these style jackets abound for a lot cheaper than the $200+ cost of nomex (average about $75-$100). However, you can't wear the green flight jacket with blues.
Thanks for the suggestions gentleman, but I've already chosen (like a month ago) the dark blue flightsuit for flight duties.   ;D 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on December 03, 2007, 02:00:23 AM
I think we should ask for white on navy tapes and insignia for the ABU instead of sage.  We should also ask for full color on navy grade insignia for the sage flightsuit instead of the plastic encased.

Now that we are moving toward blue for the epaulet slides and nametags, we can then link the uniforms using that color.

I would prefer both our field uniforms and flight/utility uniforms use the same accessories to reduce variations.  Since putting sage on the BBDU would be odd, putting navy on the ABU seems the best plan.

Likewise, putting full color on blue grade on the sage flightsuit would be a better choice than full color on sage on the blue flightsuit/utility jumpsuit.  IMHO, putting full color on sage on the sage flightsuit won't make us look more AF - it will make us look like Naval Aviators.

Also, if we keep BDU's longer than 2012 we should phase out the white on ultramarine for white on navy.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: arajca on December 03, 2007, 03:15:55 AM
Addressing the structure of CAPM 39-1. I think it should be broken up by function, not AF/CAP. For example:
Chapter 1 - Uniform Policy
Chapter 2 - Work Uniforms (bdu, bbdu, golf shirt)
Chapter 3 - Service Uniforms (AF blue shirt, aviator shirts)
Chapter 4 - Flight Uniforms
Chapter 5 - Dress Uniforms (Service dress, mess dress, semi formal, blazer)
Chapter 6 - Awards
Chapter 7 - Insignia (excl. grade which is covered in the appropriate chapters) incl. specifications
Chapter 8 - Special equipment (vests, es gear, safety gear, etc)
Chapter 9 - Grooming and H/W standards
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: billford1 on December 03, 2007, 03:19:33 AM
I'm new to this forum so this may have been already addressed but here goes. How do the National Board folks feel about how uniform CAP members should look when they participate as a group on SAR or other CAP activities? When I ask this I include overweight and bearded types who show up and are quite able to fill multiple roles. Our unit was called out on an active SAR recently in a very large transportation facility where there was an ELT. The management and workers were a little confused when the the four ground team members had 4 different uniforms. There was a BDU, a BBDU, a golf shirt corporate and a flight suit. They could have laughed at us but we were able to convince them that the AFRCC had located an ELT in or near their facility, and in the absence of a crashed airplane there may be illegal drug smuggling in their midst. The facility managers cooperated with us and we did complete the ELT find in a aircraft being shipped in a large container. If we had all been authorized to wear the BDU it would have made us look like a team.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on December 03, 2007, 03:23:45 AM
We also need an updated form with a more current date from AAFES authorizing MCSS purchases.  Perhaps even a section detailing what is permissible to buy without an MSA, and what is allowed with the MSA.  They used to have a chapter on AAFES purchases and whatnot about 40 years ago.  Bring it back?

Also, Are the buttons on the Corp Jacket staying "CAP", or is there a push to make them the Hap Arnold? 

If the push is to get the blue rank slides, lets get slides that match the jacket in color.  I am not sure, is the Corporate jacket the same shade as the current AF service coat?  (what 1620??)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 03, 2007, 03:26:59 AM
Quote from: billford1 on December 03, 2007, 03:19:33 AM
I'm new to this forum so this may have been already addressed but here goes. How do the National Board folks feel about how uniform CAP members should look when they participate as a group on SAR or other CAP activities? When I ask this I include overweight and bearded types who show up and are quite able to fill multiple roles. Our unit was called out on an active SAR recently in a very large transportation facility where there was an ELT. The management and workers were a little confused when the the four ground team members had 4 different uniforms. There was a BDU, a BBDU, a golf shirt corporate and a flight suit. They could have laughed at us but we were able to convince them that the AFRCC had located an ELT in or near their facility, and in the absence of a crashed airplane there may be illegal drug smuggling in their midst. The facility managers cooperated with us and we did complete the ELT find in a aircraft being shipped in a large container. If we had all been authorized to wear the BDU it would have made us look like a team.

Not a topic for this Thread. Please read the initial post on page one. Thanks
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 03, 2007, 03:28:45 AM
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 03, 2007, 03:23:45 AM
We also need an updated form with a more current date from AAFES authorizing MCSS purchases.  Perhaps even a section detailing what is permissible to buy without an MSA, and what is allowed with the MSA.  They used to have a chapter on AAFES purchases and whatnot about 40 years ago.  Bring it back?

Also, Are the buttons on the Corp Jacket staying "CAP", or is there a push to make them the Hap Arnold? 

If the push is to get the blue rank slides, lets get slides that match the jacket in color.  I am not sure, is the Corporate jacket the same shade as the current AF service coat?  (what 1620??)

The buttons on the corp coat are the old CAP buttons. USAF said no to the Hap Arnold buttons. Yes, the CSU is the same as the USAF service uniform. The blue eps will match the shade of the coat.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: SAR-EMT1 on December 03, 2007, 06:07:29 AM
Thank you for your efforts Lt Col. White. Is there any way in which we may further assist your group in this process?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on December 03, 2007, 07:25:13 AM
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 03, 2007, 03:23:45 AM
We also need an updated form with a more current date from AAFES authorizing MCSS purchases.  Perhaps even a section detailing what is permissible to buy without an MSA, and what is allowed with the MSA.  They used to have a chapter on AAFES purchases and whatnot about 40 years ago.  Bring it back?

Also, Are the buttons on the Corp Jacket staying "CAP", or is there a push to make them the Hap Arnold? 

If the push is to get the blue rank slides, lets get slides that match the jacket in color.  I am not sure, is the Corporate jacket the same shade as the current AF service coat?  (what 1620??)

Corporate service dress is shade 1625 polyester doubleknit. The RealAirForce® service dress jacket is available only at the MCSS in shade 1620 poly/wool. You can get the RealAirForce® service dress jacket in 1625, but it's a private purchase item - it's no longer stocked at the MCSS.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on December 03, 2007, 07:26:51 AM
Quote from: Phillip on December 03, 2007, 01:46:39 AM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on December 03, 2007, 12:50:14 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 03, 2007, 12:29:08 AM
Phil:

Try the sage green flight jacket with the orange liner.  We are authorized that jacket with flight gear, and that is far warmer than the lightweight blue.

Or the green nomex CWU-45/P (winter weight) or CWU-36/P (summer weight) jacket. Nylon knockoffs of these style jackets abound for a lot cheaper than the $200+ cost of nomex (average about $75-$100). However, you can't wear the green flight jacket with blues.
Thanks for the suggestions gentleman, but I've already chosen (like a month ago) the dark blue flightsuit for flight duties.   ;D 

Not a problem at all.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Pylon on December 03, 2007, 01:54:24 PM
Quote from: billford1 on December 03, 2007, 03:19:33 AM
I'm new to this forum so this may have been already addressed but here goes. How do the National Board folks feel about how uniform CAP members should look when they participate as a group on SAR or other CAP activities? When I ask this I include overweight and bearded types who show up and are quite able to fill multiple roles. Our unit was called out on an active SAR recently in a very large transportation facility where there was an ELT. The management and workers were a little confused when the the four ground team members had 4 different uniforms. There was a BDU, a BBDU, a golf shirt corporate and a flight suit. They could have laughed at us but we were able to convince them that the AFRCC had located an ELT in or near their facility, and in the absence of a crashed airplane there may be illegal drug smuggling in their midst. The facility managers cooperated with us and we did complete the ELT find in a aircraft being shipped in a large container. If we had all been authorized to wear the BDU it would have made us look like a team.

Though not a topic for this thread, I just want to quickly address this so people don't confuse this with an actual issue.  "If we had all been authorized to wear the BDU it would have made us look like a team" is the quote from your post.

The Air Force is not going to consider dropping weight/height or grooming standard requirements for the AF-style uniforms, so we're not going to waste everyone's time going down that route.  That having been said, your team was authorized a handful of uniforms that everyone could have worn.  Everyone on your team could have worn the Blue BDUs.  Everyone on your team could have worn the golf shirt.  Everyone on your team could have worn the blue utility uniform.  Everyone on your team could have received guidance from the incident commander regarding appropriate uniforms in which to report to mission base.

The fact that members choose to wear a variety of uniforms is not the fault of what is and what is not authorized based on grooming and weight standards.  Your members could have shown up in mess dress lacking definitive guidance from above, so let's not blame the disjointed appearance on all members not being able to wear AF-style uniforms.

If the appropriate uniform and its one corporate equivalent is established as the expected uniform for an activity, you'll end up with members in no more than two uniforms - with the same insignia and placement on each - the only difference being the color of the fabric.

The Uniform Committee is going to look at reducing down the closet of CAP uniforms close to a one-for-one equivalence with the AF-style uniforms.  This doesn't alleviate local commander's however from needing to prescribe appropriate uniforms for an activity.  If anybody would like to discuss this concept further, let's take it to a new thread so as not to bog down this one.  I did, however, want to clarify that we don't find weight/grooming standards as an effective reason for exploring unlikely uniform changes.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on December 03, 2007, 03:56:13 PM
Quote from: Pylon on December 03, 2007, 01:54:24 PM
The Air Force is not going to consider dropping weight/height or grooming standard requirements for the AF-style uniforms, so we're not going to waste everyone's time going down that route. 

What?!?  Not even try because you feel it would be a waste of time.  How about try, and then say "hey at least we tried".  How hard would it be to type a proposal to drop or CHANGE HT/WT standards......WHILE your typing up all this other "small stuff". 

Must be nice to pick and choose for all of us......I liked some of where the committee is going, but not putting the HT/WT change request in is silly.  Unless you have personally spoken to the AF, and they said "weight standards won't even be considered", don't make such a quick judgement call for everyone.

If you don't want to write up the proposal, I am sure someone else would be happy too.

Did I miss the point of your post? Perhaps....but now I know how this committee is really working.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 03, 2007, 04:49:28 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 03, 2007, 03:56:13 PM
Quote from: Pylon on December 03, 2007, 01:54:24 PM
The Air Force is not going to consider dropping weight/height or grooming standard requirements for the AF-style uniforms, so we're not going to waste everyone's time going down that route. 

What?!?  Not even try because you feel it would be a waste of time.  How about try, and then say "hey at least we tried".  How hard would it be to type a proposal to drop or CHANGE HT/WT standards......WHILE your typing up all this other "small stuff". 

Must be nice to pick and choose for all of us......I liked some of where the committee is going, but not putting the HT/WT change request in is silly.  Unless you have personally spoken to the AF, and they said "weight standards won't even be considered", don't make such a quick judgement call for everyone.

If you don't want to write up the proposal, I am sure someone else would be happy too.

Did I miss the point of your post? Perhaps....but now I know how this committee is really working.



What is your problem? No, we aren't going to ask USAF to adjust the height/weight standards BECAUSE they have repeatedly said "it is not an option". You don't ask for something when you know the answer is "No". I HAVE personally spoken with HQ CAP USAF on this.

If you read everyone else's posts, this committee is working QUITE well. I really think you should reconsider why you are a CAP member and whether or not you want to stay in the organization. You don't seem to like much about it at all and have nothing but criticism.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: pixelwonk on December 03, 2007, 04:58:07 PM
cease fire.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Trung Si Ma on December 03, 2007, 05:01:37 PM
At the risk of making this less than civil ...

Has the golf shirt issue moved up the priority list yet?

I'm going to the Wing Staff meeting tonight and I am sure of only two things -

a) most of us (including me) will be in golf shirts;
b) none of the gray slacks will match.

I am still advocating that y'all change the color to khaki and that you specify a nationally available manufacturer that can also be mail ordered for those that happen to be where there is no mall. 

My personal preference is that we go to only one authorized golf shirt (the embroidered one), in only two options (with name/specialty badge or plain) and that khaki Dockers (pleated or un-pleated, cuffed or un-cuffed) with black belt, socks/hose, and black shoes.

Simple, repeatable, comfortable.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Gunner C on December 03, 2007, 05:05:18 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 03, 2007, 03:56:13 PM
Quote from: Pylon on December 03, 2007, 01:54:24 PM
The Air Force is not going to consider dropping weight/height or grooming standard requirements for the AF-style uniforms, so we're not going to waste everyone's time going down that route. 


I would have to agree  - It's important that we look like skinny Air Force Professionals with all the others wearing distinctive uniforms rather than looking like a bunch of Curtis LeMays [/sarcasm]

The Air Force (and all of the other services) have officially (albeit indirectly) made sure that all officers will be non-endomorphs with fine features.  (Ever see a field grade military officer who looked like a 1970s lineman for the Detroit Lions? - really fit but too big to be a gentleman).  Every successful officer I know is slim, hat size 7 or less, and weighs less than 200 pounds (your mileage may vary).  Fact is if you don't fit in this profile, you don't look like an officer according to the conventional wisdom.

I never realized this until I heard a group of officers discussing Gen Norman Schwartzcopf (sp?).  He was being excoriated for being a fatso (their words), completely forgetting his military brilliance.  But that's just the way the military is.

The Gunner's Axiom:  Uniforms without uniformity are just costumes.

__
AR
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jeders on December 03, 2007, 05:06:22 PM
Quote from: Trung Si Ma on December 03, 2007, 05:01:37 PM
At the risk of making this less than civil ...

Has the golf shirt issue moved up the priority list yet?

I'm going to the Wing Staff meeting tonight and I am sure of only two things -

a) most of us (including me) will be in golf shirts;
b) none of the gray slacks will match.

I am still advocating that y'all change the color to khaki and that you specify a nationally available manufacturer that can also be mail ordered for those that happen to be where there is no mall. 

My personal preference is that we go to only one authorized golf shirt (the embroidered one), in only two options (with name/specialty badge or plain) and that khaki Dockers (pleated or un-pleated, cuffed or un-cuffed) with black belt, socks/hose, and black shoes.

Simple, repeatable, comfortable.



I like your ideas on the golf shirt with these exceptions.

I think that all golf shirts should have the name embroidered on them. I think this just makes sense since all of our other uniforms have names. Also it makes it a lot easier to identify people you don't know at a mission base when most are in golf shirts.

On the pant color, I have absolutely no problem with khakis since most of us either have khakis or can get khakis easily. But I would propose a possible change to the AF style blue pants simply because it eliminates one more pant option, thus making things less confusing.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 03, 2007, 05:10:42 PM
Quote from: Trung Si Ma on December 03, 2007, 05:01:37 PM
At the risk of making this less than civil ...

Has the golf shirt issue moved up the priority list yet?

I'm going to the Wing Staff meeting tonight and I am sure of only two things -

a) most of us (including me) will be in golf shirts;
b) none of the gray slacks will match.

I am still advocating that y'all change the color to khaki and that you specify a nationally available manufacturer that can also be mail ordered for those that happen to be where there is no mall. 

My personal preference is that we go to only one authorized golf shirt (the embroidered one), in only two options (with name/specialty badge or plain) and that khaki Dockers (pleated or un-pleated, cuffed or un-cuffed) with black belt, socks/hose, and black shoes.

Simple, repeatable, comfortable.



Yes, we are working on  the nonmilitary uniforms as well (golf shirt and Blazer combos). We will be proposing a standard format and a better quality shirt. Also being proposed is to change the trousers to "Dockers" style khaki  pants. Females will be authorized to wear a khaki skirt if the choose. Same change will be proposed for the blazer combo uniform trousers.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Gunner C on December 03, 2007, 05:31:28 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on December 03, 2007, 05:10:42 PM

Yes, we are working on  the nonmilitary uniforms as well (golf shirt and Blazer combos). We will be proposing a standard format and a better quality shirt. Also being proposed is to change the trousers to "Dockers" style khaki  pants. Females will be authorized to wear a khaki skirt if the choose. Same change will be proposed for the blazer combo uniform trousers.

Along the same lines - is anyone working on limiting the use of the golf shirt to non-mission settings.  I've seen pilots flying missions in them.  That's one of the stupidest brainless worst ideas I've seen.  If you've ever had to spend the night in the woods, in the rain or snow, dressed for the golf course instead of for survival you'd know what I'm talking about.  Polyester pants melt, low quarters provide no protection, and you'll die of exposure in a short sleeved shirt in just about any inclement wx.

I may be off base, but there are places where dressing for the PGA Tour just isn't appropriate - not to mention, it makes us look like a flying club instead of a military auxiliary.  Golf shirts at meetings are a whole different ball of wax . . .

GC
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 03, 2007, 05:35:19 PM
Quote from: Gunner C on December 03, 2007, 05:31:28 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on December 03, 2007, 05:10:42 PM

Yes, we are working on  the nonmilitary uniforms as well (golf shirt and Blazer combos). We will be proposing a standard format and a better quality shirt. Also being proposed is to change the trousers to "Dockers" style khaki  pants. Females will be authorized to wear a khaki skirt if the choose. Same change will be proposed for the blazer combo uniform trousers.

Along the same lines - is anyone working on limiting the use of the golf shirt to non-mission settings.  I've seen pilots flying missions in them.  That's one of the stupidest brainless worst ideas I've seen.  If you've ever had to spend the night in the woods, in the rain or snow, dressed for the golf course instead of for survival you'd know what I'm talking about.  Polyester pants melt, low quarters provide no protection, and you'll die of exposure in a short sleeved shirt in just about any inclement wx.

I may be off base, but there are places where dressing for the PGA Tour just isn't appropriate - not to mention, it makes us look like a flying club instead of a military auxiliary.  Golf shirts at meetings are a whole different ball of wax . . .

GC

Yes, thats all part of the changes for this uniform.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: O-Rex on December 03, 2007, 05:36:33 PM
Lt Col White:  

Thanks for the pics-this would be a big win for all in harmonizing corp and USAF-style uniforms: TPU's won't stand out unless you're up-close.  Interestingly enough, some of the images harken back to the 1980's-seems like we're coming full-circle.

Works for me.

What's the word on rank for SMWOG's? I always thought that having an SM identical to a C/AB was kind of wrong, but what's six months?  Despite regs, some are using blank boards and cutouts interchangeably.  Why not legitimize the blank boards (heck, even USMA New Cadets, AFA Doolies and Navy Plebes get blank boards)  Or use the U.S. cutouts on the collar of the blue & Aviator shirts?  I've seen OSI and DAF Civilians do this, so I don't see a problem with CAP (?)  Also, plain collars for BDU/BBDU's.

Personally, I think a 2008 intro date for the ABU is a bit aggressive for USAF (they'll probably lean towards 2013 or thereabouts-I'm being conservative) but hey, throw it on the wall and see if it sticks. . . .

Boots: any word on allowing black boots with ABU's for a while?  I gotta think that the black boot market will soften, and have seen some nice markdowns from some popular tactical gear distributors. There should be some fallout from DRMO in the next few years, why not ride that wave?  What about boots with USAF-style flightsuits?

has anyone mentioned a leather-bordered A-2 command patch to harmonize with the brown/black nametag? I had this done to mine, and it was worth the couple of bucks (if you are already going to spend the money on a leather jacket, you're definitely not pinching pennies.)  Athough I usually advocate income opportunity for Vanguard, they stock them for a couple of bucks more: this would be a win/win.

Perhaps I missed it on previous pages, but any word on phasing out the grays?

This is by far one of the most productive and interesting threads I've seen in a while, with good input from all-what blogs should be.  :)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 03, 2007, 05:42:59 PM
Quote from: O-Rex on December 03, 2007, 05:36:33 PM
Lt Col White:  

Thanks for the pics-this would be a big win for all in harmonizing corp and USAF-style uniforms: TPU's won't stand out unless you're up-close.  Interestingly enough, some of the images harken back to the 1980's-seems like we're coming full-circle.

Works for me.

What's the word on rank for SMWOG's? I always thought that having an SM identical to a C/AB was kind of wrong, but what's six months?  Despite regs, some are using blank boards and cutouts interchangeably.  Why not legitimize the blank boards (heck, even USMA New Cadets, AFA Doolies and Navy Plebes get blank boards)  Or use the U.S. cutouts on the collar of the blue & Aviator shirts?  I've seen OSI and DAF Civilians do this, so I don't see a problem with CAP (?)  Also, plain collars for BDU/BBDU's.

Personally, I think a 2008 intro date for the ABU is a bit aggressive for USAF (they'll probably lean towards 2013 or thereabouts-I'm being conservative) but hey, throw it on the wall and see if it sticks. . . .

Boots: any word on allowing black boots with ABU's for a while?  I gotta think that the black boot market will soften, and have seen some nice markdowns from some popular tactical gear distributors. There should be some fallout from DRMO in the next few years, why not ride that wave?  What about boots with USAF-style flightsuits?

has anyone mentioned a leather-bordered A-2 command patch to harmonize with the brown/black nametag? I had this done to mine, and it was worth the couple of bucks (if you are already going to spend the money on a leather jacket, you're definitely not pinching pennies.)  Athough I usually advocate income opportunity for Vanguard, they stock them for a couple of bucks more: this would be a win/win.

Perhaps I missed it on previous pages, but any word on phasing out the grays?

This is by far one of the most productive and interesting threads I've seen in a while, with good input from all-what blogs should be.  :)

All of these are in the works. ABU date is only for initial authorization, not the mandatory change. We just have to see what USAF thinks is possible compared to their logistics.

USAF isn't going to allow black boots with the ABU since it isn't authorized for them.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Gunner C on December 03, 2007, 05:44:05 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on December 03, 2007, 05:35:19 PM
Quote from: Gunner C on December 03, 2007, 05:31:28 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on December 03, 2007, 05:10:42 PM

Yes, we are working on  the nonmilitary uniforms as well (golf shirt and Blazer combos). We will be proposing a standard format and a better quality shirt. Also being proposed is to change the trousers to "Dockers" style khaki  pants. Females will be authorized to wear a khaki skirt if the choose. Same change will be proposed for the blazer combo uniform trousers.

Along the same lines - is anyone working on limiting the use of the golf shirt to non-mission settings.  I've seen pilots flying missions in them.  That's one of the stupidest brainless worst ideas I've seen.  If you've ever had to spend the night in the woods, in the rain or snow, dressed for the golf course instead of for survival you'd know what I'm talking about.  Polyester pants melt, low quarters provide no protection, and you'll die of exposure in a short sleeved shirt in just about any inclement wx.

I may be off base, but there are places where dressing for the PGA Tour just isn't appropriate - not to mention, it makes us look like a flying club instead of a military auxiliary.  Golf shirts at meetings are a whole different ball of wax . . .

GC

Yes, thats all part of the changes for this uniform.

That's fantastic!  You and your committee are IMHO right on target.  I think you've found the right compromises between the two uniform types to standardize them.  FWIW, I think it's a shame that the hard rank on the CSU will go by the wayside, but that's the way it is.  We will never get everything we want.

Kudos for going to the membership and getting comments and taking the heat.  You've been given a daunting task, but I think it will produce a more cohesive, professional looking force.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: davedove on December 03, 2007, 06:06:13 PM
This is not a criticism, just a question.  Why would we phase out the Woodland BDU's?  It would make more sense to me to convert the Woodland BDU's to the corporate field uniform when the ABU's came on board, and phase out the Blue Field Uniform. 

Why?  Many members already have the BDU's, so they would not have to buy a new uniform until it becomes unserviceable.  Only those who really wanted the ABU would have to go out and buy one.  Of course, those with the blue uniform (myself included) would still have to get a new uniform, but I believe that number of members would be much smaller.  Additionally, the ABU's and Woodland BDU's would be closer in color and therefore blend together better, something that the blue uniform does not do.  As far as availability, I wouldn't think that the Woodland BDU's would be any more difficult to get than the blue ones, and may actually be a bit easier to acquire.

Just some thoughts.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: dwb on December 03, 2007, 06:11:16 PM
BTW, there are about a hundred different shades of "beige" as well, so changing the pants color for the golf shirt/blazer isn't going to solve the problems you think it's going to solve.  And it's an added expense to the member to make that change.

The woodland BDUs will eventually have to go, for all the same reasons the fatigues had to go by the early 90s.  What they will be replaced with is up for debate, but I'm willing to bet by ~2015 you'll have a hard time finding milspec woodland BDUs.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: davedove on December 03, 2007, 06:14:57 PM
Quote from: justin_bailey on December 03, 2007, 06:11:16 PM
The woodland BDUs will eventually have to go, for all the same reasons the fatigues had to go by the early 90s.  What they will be replaced with is up for debate, but I'm willing to bet by ~2015 you'll have a hard time finding milspec woodland BDUs.

But again, I can't imagine they will be any harder to find than the blue BDU's.  For that matter, it's not really that hard to find the old fatigues.  Sure, you're not going to get them surplus from the military anymore, but you can still find them.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 03, 2007, 06:20:37 PM
Quote from: justin_bailey on December 03, 2007, 06:11:16 PM
The woodland BDUs will eventually have to go, for all the same reasons the fatigues had to go by the early 90s.  What they will be replaced with is up for debate, but I'm willing to bet by ~2015 you'll have a hard time finding milspec woodland BDUs.

Key word is "mil-spec". Even the old jungle fatigues aren't the original materials. Once the military no longer uses them, there won't be any need to produce them in milspec.

Our DCC orders BDU's from the Hock, and you can tell at first glance that they aren't the real deal. Colors too dark, material is too heavy, stitching off on a lot of them. They just don't look right. And that's not going to work when it comes to uniformity. Looks like ragtag survivalist clothing than military.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: davedove on December 03, 2007, 06:29:31 PM
But how does that compare to the Blue BDU's available?  For instance, you can get the blue ones from BDU.com and they say they are sewn to military specification.  And you can get them in all different colors.

Remember, I'm thinking about the corporate uniforms here.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Tubacap on December 03, 2007, 06:30:45 PM
Potential solution to bottoms of the Golf shirt.  I know Khaki's are readily available, but has anyone considered black as a potential bottom?  I know there are a bunch of shades of black, but I think less than khaki or grey.

Just a thought.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on December 03, 2007, 07:01:17 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on December 03, 2007, 04:49:28 PM
What is your problem? No, we aren't going to ask USAF to adjust the height/weight standards BECAUSE they have repeatedly said "it is not an option". You don't ask for something when you know the answer is "No". I HAVE personally spoken with HQ CAP USAF on this.

If you read everyone else's posts, this committee is working QUITE well. I really think you should reconsider why you are a CAP member and whether or not you want to stay in the organization. You don't seem to like much about it at all and have nothing but criticism.

Wow.  So some criticism and I should leave.  It is easy to say "your doing a good job, blah blah blah"......it is more difficult to question the why, how, and reasons of change. 

Don't take my criticism of your "groups work" as a personal attack (it was not). In all fairness......you have repeatedly attacked me.  Play fair Colonel......and don't question a persons service before you question your own.

I commend you for taking on this task.  I will leave it at that.  I look forward to more pictures.  Good day.   
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: O-Rex on December 03, 2007, 07:13:03 PM
I never considered Khakis: nice choice.

If you need a precedent, khaki pants are a required item for OTS for wear with the personalized class polo for certain unformal functions.  The OCS/TBS guidance for Marines is similar, even civilian attire is "uniform."

If the greys are going away, khakis are on the mark: easier to find.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 03, 2007, 07:21:01 PM
Quote from: davedove on December 03, 2007, 06:29:31 PM
But how does that compare to the Blue BDU's available?  For instance, you can get the blue ones from BDU.com and they say they are sewn to military specification.  And you can get them in all different colors.

Remember, I'm thinking about the corporate uniforms here.

There is a call for mil-spec in blue. Police departments wear them, and they need something rugged. I don't see the woodland camo in mil-spec for too much longer as the demand for that camo is decreasing. Many places that wore them are going to some of the digital patterns.

I think blue BDU's will always be pretty much mil-spec, as they're still needed. The woodlands are dying off.

As for polos and khakis, sounds good to me. I might even consider that outfit if it looks presentable enough to me. The current polo seems to be 70's era material. Good source would be the 5.11 polo shirts. Got a few of those, and they wear like iron. Let me wear something like that with their pants too, and I've got plenty of pockets for all the excess stuff I seem to carry whenever I go anyplace.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Smokey on December 03, 2007, 07:49:46 PM
The 5.11 polos are a great material.  Many police deptartments wear them.  They are made to stand up under tough conditions as they are often worn as a alternative uniform for special units like bike teams.   They don't fade as quickly, wear very well, are comfortable and embroiderly shows up well.

As for pants with the polo/golf shirt....khaki, black or blue (same shade as shirt) works for me.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Gunner C on December 03, 2007, 09:15:55 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 03, 2007, 07:21:01 PM
Quote from: davedove on December 03, 2007, 06:29:31 PM
But how does that compare to the Blue BDU's available?  For instance, you can get the blue ones from BDU.com and they say they are sewn to military specification.  And you can get them in all different colors.

Remember, I'm thinking about the corporate uniforms here.

There is a call for mil-spec in blue. Police departments wear them, and they need something rugged. I don't see the woodland camo in mil-spec for too much longer as the demand for that camo is decreasing. Many places that wore them are going to some of the digital patterns.

I think blue BDU's will always be pretty much mil-spec, as they're still needed. The woodlands are dying off.

As for polos and khakis, sounds good to me. I might even consider that outfit if it looks presentable enough to me. The current polo seems to be 70's era material. Good source would be the 5.11 polo shirts. Got a few of those, and they wear like iron. Let me wear something like that with their pants too, and I've got plenty of pockets for all the excess stuff I seem to carry whenever I go anyplace.

There is a mil spec for the BBDUs.  The Coast Guard uses that uniform, with the major difference with the shirt being tucked in and the lower pockets on the jacket are omitted.

There's a move in the USCG for the shirt to be worn out of the pants.  I don't know if they are going to alter it to include the lower pockets on the jacket.

I'm thinking that uniform is going to be around a long time.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on December 03, 2007, 11:41:34 PM
Lt. Col. White, do your recent comments on the height-weight standards mean that the committee will not be considering any changes at all?  Earlier you had stated that you were exploring adding some sort of BMI-related or body fat percentage option to supplement the existing height-weight chart. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Pylon on December 04, 2007, 02:25:24 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 03, 2007, 11:41:34 PM
Lt. Col. White, do your recent comments on the height-weight standards mean that the committee will not be considering any changes at all?  Earlier you had stated that you were exploring adding some sort of BMI-related or body fat percentage option to supplement the existing height-weight chart. 

Who's going to put volunteer members through being taped and measured for BMI?  Who's going to train people to take those measurements?  How many people will we lose when we tell them they need to step into the back room to have their body fat measured?   ::)

Height/Weight is fairly easy to judge, at least in approximations.  You can tell who is toeing the line, and who is generally good to go.  Though our current method is an "honor system" - you know if a member who looks about 240 says "No!  I weigh 198!" without needing to ask said member to step on a scale.  BMI will practically require you to regularly tape and measure the body fat of all your senior members.  Not something we need to throw in the mix, and certainly not something that will simplify anything.

For simplicity's sake, our current system is great.  Everyone knows about how much they weigh; everybody knows their height.  We even already record it for peoples' CAPF101s.  Either you weigh under this number or you don't.  No confusion, less room for "scamming" the system, and no need to be pinching the belly's and fat paunches of any of our members, and taping their midsections.   Current system works fine for our purposes.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 04, 2007, 02:53:33 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 03, 2007, 11:41:34 PM
Lt. Col. White, do your recent comments on the height-weight standards mean that the committee will not be considering any changes at all?  Earlier you had stated that you were exploring adding some sort of BMI-related or body fat percentage option to supplement the existing height-weight chart. 

No, It meant that we could not ask USAF to back off the 10% standards as was being asked above.

We can look and see if there is another option acceptable and compliant to them but as Mike said, we will have to be able to prove it will be enforced and administered by competent personnel and depend on the feasibilty of this.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: O-Rex on December 04, 2007, 02:58:34 AM
Quote from: LtCol White on December 04, 2007, 02:53:33 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 03, 2007, 11:41:34 PM
Lt. Col. White, do your recent comments on the height-weight standards mean that the committee will not be considering any changes at all?  Earlier you had stated that you were exploring adding some sort of BMI-related or body fat percentage option to supplement the existing height-weight chart. 

No, It meant that we could not ask USAF to back off the 10% standards as was being asked above.

We can look and see if there is another option acceptable and compliant to them but as Mike said, we will have to be able to prove it will be enforced and administered by competent personnel and depend on the feasibilty of this.

Given the fact that the Corporate and USAF uniforms are being streamlined and could look very similar, why change the weight standard?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on December 04, 2007, 03:00:11 AM
Pylon, Body Mass Index is nothing more than a ratio based on your height and weight.  Plug it into an online calculator, and you're done.  No problem.  Now, if you wanted to get into body fat percentage, etc., that would require some attention to detail, but having to go that route would only be an option for somebody who is actually fit, probably looks good in the uniform, but doesn't meet the book standards.  I would not suggest that this be done for everyone.  
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on December 04, 2007, 04:01:06 AM
^ Agreed.  At least propose backing off the 10% over number.  Perhaps 15%.  Or better yet 10% for 18-25, 14% for 26-38, and 17% for 39++.  We are already on the honor system with the current 10%, why couldn't we continue that with a slight raise to 15%.  Face it......this has been an issue for (well since the AF said in the 90's) there needs to be a FAT limit for AF style.

This is most rightly so a Uniform issue that should not be thrown out because the AF has said No in the past.  Frankly.....the AF has said NO to EVERYTHING we have read on this thread in the past in some way or another.  Yet we are optimistic that they will say YES to a few items.

Give this a chance, because it may not have been expressed en-mass here, it is a concern and a topic of discussion for members.


Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on December 04, 2007, 04:47:02 AM
I would like there to be a specific and clear name for each uniform combination.  There are for some, but not for others.  For example, what is the name of the AF-style uniform with Short Sleeve Shirt with tie?  Short Sleeve Shirt without tie?  Why are the mens and womens named differently (shirt vs blouse)? 

Also, clear up this phrasing in 1-5:
QuoteA commander may require cadets to wear other optional uniform items only if the purchase is voluntary or if the uniform is supplied without expense to the cadet.
Makes it seem like you couldn't require BDUs for field work, etc. 

Remove references to CAP-MART in 1-8a.

Do we really need this clause in 2-1?  We're only supposed to be making essential stops anyway.  Also, if we have this, why does it only apply to flight suits and not other AF-style uniforms?
Quoted. Flight Crew members wearing the green Air Force flight suit may make only essential stops en route to and from the duty performance site. If a stop is essential, members must meet the proper standards of neatness, cleanliness, and military image.

Get rid of BDU baseball cap option.  Looks stupid and as we move towards ABU there probably will not be an equivalent anyway.  The notes on figures 2-26 and 2-28 indicate that you're supposed to put an organizational patch in the middle of it which conflicts with what we're doing on our other hats. 

Get rid of utility uniform.  Serves no useful purpose.  Either the BBDU or Blue Flight Suit can be worn for whatever you might wear the utility uniform for so it is just extra. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: O-Rex on December 04, 2007, 12:50:49 PM
I know this is a little 'off-the-path,' and probably more of a procurement issue with Vanguard, but whatever color nametape we go to, can we get rid of the 100%cotton webbing in favor of the poly-cotton fabric strips that the Realmilitary now uses?

Its the 21st Century, and fabric technology has gone a long way.  Nobody uses cotton webbing anymore: it shrinks, fades and generally looks like crap after a few washings.


Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: wuzafuzz on December 04, 2007, 01:12:09 PM
Thought I'd share what I think is a new idea for the uniform committee.

There have been lots of requests to lose the grey slides for rank insignia.  Why not go back to AF blue slides on shirts and hard rank on all coats / jackets, but wear a prominent CAP shoulder patch on each sleeve?  It would identify CAP members far more obviously than the grey slide with tiny CAP letters and it pays homage to our heritage.  Perhaps the Civil Defense style patch on both sleeves, or wear the CD patch on one sleeve with the wing patch on the opposite side.

I know the Air Force doesn't wear shoulder patches.  That's the point.  We would clearly stand apart while still looking sharp.  The US Naval Sea Cadets does this for their officers, even though the Navy doesn't.  It's worked well for them for at least 25 years.  Obviously we aren't the Sea Cadets, but the situation is similar.

This would accomplish several things:
1. Lose the somewhat unpopular grey slides, replacing them with AF blue slides.  Blue slides on shirts, hard rank on coats.  Applies to all Corporate and USAF service uniforms.
2. Better identify us as CAP members.  (We are proud to be CAP!)
3. Remind us and those who see us of our history.

As mentioned above, this is just an idea.  Constructive comments are most welcome!


Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: wuzafuzz on December 04, 2007, 01:27:30 PM
A few thoughts to follow up my last post.

Using blue AF slides and a CAP specific shoulder patch would also reduce the number of unique CAP items needed from vendors.  One unique shoulder patch versus a pile of grey shoulder slides for each rank (regular slides and velcro slides for jackets.)

A shoulder patch may require placing NCO rank a bit lower.  Not sure if that's a problem or if it would work like the Army does it with stripes below other patches.  I've never actually seen a CAP NCO and am unsure if this would be an issue.

The overall effect should be unique enough to avoid concerns about "USAF officer impersonators."

Just thinking out loud......
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on December 04, 2007, 03:00:42 PM
Quote from: wuzafuzz on December 04, 2007, 01:12:09 PM
Thought I'd share what I think is a new idea for the uniform committee.

There have been lots of requests to lose the grey slides for rank insignia.  Why not go back to AF blue slides on shirts and hard rank on all coats / jackets, but wear a prominent CAP shoulder patch on each sleeve?  It would identify CAP members far more obviously than the grey slide with tiny CAP letters and it pays homage to our heritage.  Perhaps the Civil Defense style patch on both sleeves, or wear the CD patch on one sleeve with the wing patch on the opposite side.

I know the Air Force doesn't wear shoulder patches.  That's the point.  We would clearly stand apart while still looking sharp.  The US Naval Sea Cadets does this for their officers, even though the Navy doesn't.  It's worked well for them for at least 25 years.  Obviously we aren't the Sea Cadets, but the situation is similar.

This would accomplish several things:
1. Lose the somewhat unpopular grey slides, replacing them with AF blue slides.  Blue slides on shirts, hard rank on coats.  Applies to all Corporate and USAF service uniforms.
2. Better identify us as CAP members.  (We are proud to be CAP!)
3. Remind us and those who see us of our history.

As mentioned above, this is just an idea.  Constructive comments are most welcome!




::) Oh, PLEASE!!!!!!

We JUST got rid of the wing patches on the blues!

I'd like to lose the stupid things off the BDU too, instead of leaving it up to the Wing King.

The idea is to make our uniform MORE consistent with the Air Force.

Not more consistent with the Boy Scouts.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 04, 2007, 04:00:13 PM
Quote from: wuzafuzz on December 04, 2007, 01:12:09 PM
Thought I'd share what I think is a new idea for the uniform committee.

There have been lots of requests to lose the grey slides for rank insignia.  Why not go back to AF blue slides on shirts and hard rank on all coats / jackets, but wear a prominent CAP shoulder patch on each sleeve?  It would identify CAP members far more obviously than the grey slide with tiny CAP letters and it pays homage to our heritage.  Perhaps the Civil Defense style patch on both sleeves, or wear the CD patch on one sleeve with the wing patch on the opposite side.

I know the Air Force doesn't wear shoulder patches.  That's the point.  We would clearly stand apart while still looking sharp.  The US Naval Sea Cadets does this for their officers, even though the Navy doesn't.  It's worked well for them for at least 25 years.  Obviously we aren't the Sea Cadets, but the situation is similar.

This would accomplish several things:
1. Lose the somewhat unpopular grey slides, replacing them with AF blue slides.  Blue slides on shirts, hard rank on coats.  Applies to all Corporate and USAF service uniforms.
2. Better identify us as CAP members.  (We are proud to be CAP!)
3. Remind us and those who see us of our history.

As mentioned above, this is just an idea.  Constructive comments are most welcome!




Please see the photos posted on page 19. Patches on service uniforms were removed by order of USAF so that is not an option.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Grumpy on December 04, 2007, 04:13:19 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 04, 2007, 03:00:42 PM
Quote from: wuzafuzz on December 04, 2007, 01:12:09 PM
Thought I'd share what I think is a new idea for the uniform committee.

There have been lots of requests to lose the grey slides for rank insignia.  Why not go back to AF blue slides on shirts and hard rank on all coats / jackets, but wear a prominent CAP shoulder patch on each sleeve?  It would identify CAP members far more obviously than the grey slide with tiny CAP letters and it pays homage to our heritage.  Perhaps the Civil Defense style patch on both sleeves, or wear the CD patch on one sleeve with the wing patch on the opposite side.

I know the Air Force doesn't wear shoulder patches.  That's the point.  We would clearly stand apart while still looking sharp.  The US Naval Sea Cadets does this for their officers, even though the Navy doesn't.  It's worked well for them for at least 25 years.  Obviously we aren't the Sea Cadets, but the situation is similar.

This would accomplish several things:
1. Lose the somewhat unpopular grey slides, replacing them with AF blue slides.  Blue slides on shirts, hard rank on coats.  Applies to all Corporate and USAF service uniforms.
2. Better identify us as CAP members.  (We are proud to be CAP!)
3. Remind us and those who see us of our history.

As mentioned above, this is just an idea.  Constructive comments are most welcome!




::) Oh, PLEASE!!!!!!

We JUST got rid of the wing patches on the blues!

I'd like to lose the stupid things off the BDU too, instead of leaving it up to the Wing King.

The idea is to make our uniform MORE consistent with the Air Force.

Not more consistent with the Boy Scouts.

Thanks for comparing the wing patches/shoulder patches to the Boy Scouts.  I'm sure my son who's in the 101st at Ft Campbell would appreciate it.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Gunner C on December 04, 2007, 04:21:21 PM
Quote

Thanks for comparing the wing patches/shoulder patches to the Boy Scouts.  I'm sure my son who's in the 101st at Ft Campbell would appreciate it.

I think I understand what he's saying.  Many CAP patches look lame.  I was a cadet in a wing when they got a new wing patch.  We thought it looked like a bowling team patch.  Army patches have heraldic/historic significance.  The VAST majority of CAP patches do not.  Many are just cartoons.  I'd like to get rid of most of them.

Air Force heraldry states that squadron patches are circles.  Group and above are shields.  Most wings do not conform to this.  The fewer wing patches we show, the more professional we look IMO.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: wuzafuzz on December 04, 2007, 04:26:52 PM
The messenger has been shot!   ;)

Eye rolling aside, some people want to be more consistent with the Air Force, some want unique uniforms, some don't care.  Arguably we aren't supposed to be so consistent we are indistinguishable.

I've worn uniforms for 25+ years and prefer to avoid what I think are goofy looking gadgets (grey slides on blue suits).  Patches can look professional while avoiding the color challenged slides.  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about what looks goofy.

The idea I presented would be a cost savings measure and is not a change simply for the sake of change.  It also addresses other concerns I've seen on this board time and time again.  Lt Col White asked for ideas and that's what he's getting.

Sometimes borrowing ideas from other organizations fits the bill.  

Incidentally, the U.S. Naval Sea Cadets are affiliated with the Navy League, not the Boy Scouts.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: wuzafuzz on December 04, 2007, 04:30:33 PM
Just saw Lt Col White's post re: shoulder patches.  AF wants them all gone.  Dead horse.

I agreee many wing patches are goofy and could stand a lot of improvement.

wuzafuzz out!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on December 04, 2007, 04:58:17 PM
I tried to go back through all 24 pages, but has anyone mentioned adding the enlisted "US" cutouts for those CAP NCO's to the jackets?

Also, propose the new ABU pattern Gortex jacket and pants, as the BDU version will eventually disappear.

Also, keep metal rank on the Army/Navy windbreaker that is worn with the CSU.  Metal rank will be cheaper than the slides, PLUS no one likes the rank slides on the outerwear anyway.  Especially where it rains or snows, they just get ruined, fade, shrink etc.  In fact, allow metal rank on the outerwear that can accept it.  I would prefer to spend 2.50 for metal than 5.50 for slides that need changed out every 4 months because of water damage.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ColonelJack on December 04, 2007, 05:44:20 PM
I like the idea of the enlisted US cutouts (wore 'em myself back in the dim distant past) but wouldn't adoption of those for CAP NCOs require a set of circled CAP cutouts for those NCOs who don't meet AF guidelines?  Not all former AF members keep their fit, trim waistlines, you know. 

I didn't.

Jack
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: MIKE on December 04, 2007, 06:50:44 PM
The CAP cutouts serve as a distinguishing distinctive mark to differentiate CAP SM NCO from USAF NCO for those not wearing epaulet sleeves (Which should be eliminated anyway BTW.)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 04, 2007, 07:01:29 PM
Just throwing it out there, see if anyone steps on it...

I would happily give up "U.S." lapel insignia if it got us metal rank back. A distinct nametag would probably be necessary, but I don't mind as long as it maintains a professional appearance. And since our NCO's probably won't be permitted to wear US brass, it would standardize us across the board.

For that matter, I wouldn't mind seeing the old "C.A.P.C." cutouts for cadets come back. Everyone wants a little history back, that would do it.

I like the brushed metal tags on coats, with the exception of the "Civil Air Patrol" above the name. It looks unbalanced. Put it below the name (similar to the old "Honor Guard" style used in the Air Force) and use the same setup for shirts/blouses as we currently wear.

I'm sure the Air Force wants colors to differentiate us, just have to pick one. I do think that we should be the same across the board, cadets and seniors in the same color tags and epaulets. And former cadets don't have to buy new tags, just new collar brass (which most unit supply sections have anyway).
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 04, 2007, 07:08:34 PM
Considering nametags on the ABU as well. Sage seems to pop up as a color a lot, but does anyone know of a manufacturer that even produces sage green nametapes?

I've seen foliage color ones, and a few different shades of green, but not sage. We want to reduce costs, but how are going to do that if we get stuck with only a single manufacturer that produces sage? It would be a special order for them, and they will charge us accordingly. We have much the same problem with "ultramarine blue" right now.

There is even grey available. It would be a long shot, but what if we actually requested that the Air Force use their subdued rank insignia on ABU's with grey nametapes that match the same grey as their rank insignia and embroidered badges? The worst they can tell us is "No". Those fabrics and nametapes are currently readily available.

Anyway, just a thought. Probably a complete "Hell no!" concept. Just a random brainstorm.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on December 04, 2007, 07:24:19 PM
I'm with Dan - we should use the same insignia across as many uniforms as possible.  Sage tapes would look silly on BBDUs, so the best option is a single color for both suits.

I would actually prefer grey, but with these proposals to eliminate grey epaulets and grey slacks, grey just won't be a CAP color any more.  I'd stick with navy blue (or ultramarine if they won't let us change)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BigMojo on December 04, 2007, 09:46:36 PM
On the much embattled topic of Golf Shirts and Slacks....

How 'bout this...

WHITE Golf Shirt, with the slacks from your AF Blues/Corp TPU's. Color variation solved and it's just a "more casual" version of the aviator/light blue shirt w/ no tie. Basically every has or will have need for the blue slacks, so this will save money in the long run.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 04, 2007, 09:50:53 PM
Quote from: BigMojo on December 04, 2007, 09:46:36 PM
On the much embattled topic of Golf Shirts and Slacks....

How 'bout this...

WHITE Golf Shirt, with the slacks from your AF Blues/Corp TPU's. Color variation solved and it's just a "more casual" version of the aviator/light blue shirt w/ no tie. Basically every has or will have need for the blue slacks, so this will save money in the long run.

White would easily get dirty, even if it's something as simple as spilled coffee during one of those missions.

Second, you don't mix blue uniform items with casual clothing items. Consider it taboo among military personnel, and in some cases well against some military services dress regs. And no, we can't justify it with "but we're not in the military!". It's a military uniform it falls under those services domain as to what is done with it.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jimmydeanno on December 04, 2007, 10:40:51 PM
Rules of fashion prohibit it too...you'd need at least a button up shirt to go with it, not a polo...

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on December 04, 2007, 10:59:40 PM
Besides our senior members need all the "slimming" advantages of a dark-colored golf shirt that they can get....
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 04, 2007, 11:12:47 PM
Ok guys, lets try and stay a bit more focused and back on track. We seem to be drifting a lot and we all get a bit frustrated when folks make comments that have already been covered at length in the previous pages.

Please remember that everyone's input is valued and given consideration for its merits and feasibility. We have a wide range of experience on here where many understand the uniform's history of changes and many who are so new they haven't even seen all the uniform combinations yet.

Today I read through the entire thread so far trying to pull all the feedback and suggestions so far into something that makes sense. I think I need to go to the eye doctor now.  In all this reading, I have noticed that sometimes we all get a bit frustrated because we care and feel quite strongly about our uniforms and wanting to carry on the tradition of pride and distinction. As you all know this is quite a daunting task for everyone involved and the members of the committe are committed to getting it right and wanting to get as many ideas from members here as we can. If I've seemed short with anyone, please don't take it personal, it wasn't my intention. In particular, Mikeylikey, perhaps I was a bit hard on you. Sorry about that.

That being said, lets all try and stay on track and if you must drift, drift on over to a new thread on your particular issue or see if there is already another thread where it has or is being discussed.

We're making great progress here guys and its all do to the input we are receiving from you the members. We have an opportunity to really fix our uniforms to continue promoting CAP for the outstanding organization that it is.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on December 05, 2007, 12:47:40 AM
^ Not a problem.....I am also to blame, I may have come off as a Jerk on a few instances, never my intention.  I apologize.

It's tough re-reading 24 pages of posts, I commend you.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on December 05, 2007, 01:42:14 AM
I think it would be a good idea to close this thread and open another one starting with your current vision of what the uniforms should be.  This would avoid "biting off on chaff" and allow focusing on a smaller subset of ideas.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 05, 2007, 01:52:35 AM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 05, 2007, 01:42:14 AM
I think it would be a good idea to close this thread and open another one starting with your current vision of what the uniforms should be.  This would avoid "biting off on chaff" and allow focusing on a smaller subset of ideas.

Actually its better to keep it all in one place. It makes it easier for all of us to put the ideas together if we know its all in the same thread.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: scooter on December 05, 2007, 03:10:29 AM
Been reviewing the comments over the current 25 pages. There is a lot of comment about the rank insignia, cloth, metal, etc. Here's a thought, just do away with rank on  all senior uniforms except the AF blues and white shirt combo. Save a lot of $. We don't wear rank on the polo and no one seems to have difficulty figuring out who is what. On flight suits, patches identify who/what you are, no rank necessary.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on December 05, 2007, 04:31:05 AM
QuoteWe don't wear rank on the polo and no one seems to have difficulty figuring out who is what.
Actually we do.  I don't like people wandering around mission base who I can't pretty easily identify. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jayleswo on December 05, 2007, 05:18:50 AM
Lt Col White,

Just wondered if you were also soliciting feedback on potential uniform changes (improvements) at http://www.cadetstuff.org/ in the Uniforms/Dress & Appearance topic of their Forum section. It doesn't seem what we have that much cadet participation here on cap-talk whereas you get quite a bit there.

John Aylesworth, Lt Col
Commander, PCR-CA-151
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on December 05, 2007, 05:25:46 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 05, 2007, 04:31:05 AM
QuoteWe don't wear rank on the polo and no one seems to have difficulty figuring out who is what.
Actually we do.  I don't like people wandering around mission base who I can't pretty easily identify. 

Ditto - I hate the shirts with no name on them...
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: arajca on December 05, 2007, 05:32:39 AM
Don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but do something about the first sergeant diamond. Yes or No.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Pylon on December 05, 2007, 01:37:29 PM
Quote from: arajca on December 05, 2007, 05:32:39 AM
Don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but do something about the first sergeant diamond. Yes or No.

Already under advisement and a suggested change.  Clearly NHQ intended for it to be authorized, hence having it made and attempting to authorize it by reg changes.  I'll propose proper inclusion of it in CAPM 39-1.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on December 05, 2007, 03:07:17 PM
Could I take a moment to review what we have so far?

1.  AF Blues:

- No change likely on weight requirements.
- Switch from gray to blue epaulet sleeves, with "CAP" identified.

2.  TPU:

- Switch from silver braid to same blue as on AF coat.
- Lose silver chinstrap from flying saucer cap.
- Switch from hard rank to blue epaulet sleeve, same as AF coat.
- Shirt to have same blue epaulet with "CAP."
- "CAP" lapel brass to remain.
- Allow neatly-trimmed beards, but NOT long hair.
- Not resolved:  wear of military ribbons and badges... Same rules as on AF coat?

3.  White and Grays:

- History.

4.  Flight Suits:

- Retain dual flight suits, sage green and dark blue.
- Sew-on bright rank for both shoulders.
- Sage green background for AF flight suit, dark blue for blue flight suit.
- Not resolved:  embroidered name badges?

5.  BDU's:

- Retain BDU for time being.
- Introduce ABU on a schedule driven by the AF logistical chain.
- No change to BDU during phase-out period.
- Retain blue BDU for the fats and fuzzies.
- Switch to dark blue nametapes and rank background for BBDU.
- Unresolved:  Dark blue or sage green background for ABU tapes and rank?

6.  Golf Shirt:

- Retain as a casual uniform.
- Switch to khaki trousers (Is this correct, or unresolved?)
- Establish a single authorized golf shirt.

7.  Blazer Uniform:

- Retain for IACE and as an alternate dress uniform.
- Switch to khaki trousers (Again, was this resolved?)

Does this summarize what has been discussed and decided, or do I have something wrong?

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Capt M. Sherrod on December 05, 2007, 03:11:39 PM
Looks about right to me.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 05, 2007, 03:34:25 PM
Yes right on target so far.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 05, 2007, 04:35:23 PM
Just a reminder on the uniform process. Everything we compile and suggest as the Committee will be submitted to NHQ for review and then it will be sent up through the CAP chain for Air Force review/approval.

Just wanted to make sure all were familiar with how this works.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Grumpy on December 05, 2007, 04:44:18 PM
Quote from: Pylon on December 05, 2007, 01:37:29 PM
Quote from: arajca on December 05, 2007, 05:32:39 AM
Don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but do something about the first sergeant diamond. Yes or No.

Already under advisement and a suggested change.  Clearly NHQ intended for it to be authorized, hence having it made and attempting to authorize it by reg changes.  I'll propose proper inclusion of it in CAPM 39-1.

I've never seen a CAP First Sergeant except for cadets.  Is this a senior rank (position) or cadet rank you're looking at?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 05, 2007, 04:46:03 PM
Quote from: Grumpy on December 05, 2007, 04:44:18 PM
Quote from: Pylon on December 05, 2007, 01:37:29 PM
Quote from: arajca on December 05, 2007, 05:32:39 AM
Don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but do something about the first sergeant diamond. Yes or No.

Already under advisement and a suggested change.  Clearly NHQ intended for it to be authorized, hence having it made and attempting to authorize it by reg changes.  I'll propose proper inclusion of it in CAPM 39-1.

I've never seen a CAP First Sergeant except for cadets.  Is this a senior rank (position) or cadet rank you're looking at?

Cadet rank
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 05, 2007, 05:14:43 PM
Considering the length of this thread, I don't remember if this has been covered or not. So here goes:

Cold Weather Gear!

We need it in many places. CAP is not a tropical only organization.

As to the gear, stuff like Gore-Tex, fleece, gloves, mittens, scarves, poly-pro and parkas (such as the N-2B and N-3B) need to be included, or at least referenced, in the uniform manual. Cold weather footgear should be mentioned too.

In Alaska, I wore poly-pro, muklucks, an N-3B, mittens and a stocking cap at times. Sometimes just going to meetings (you need it at 20 below). Wasn't in the manual, but I didn't care, and I still have all my fingers and toes because I dressed properly. If I'd only worn what was authorized in the manual for cold weather, I'd be dead.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on December 05, 2007, 05:27:10 PM
Just for the record, I want to come out against the following:

1) Sage or blue cloth grade based on uniform.  One set of grade/tapes is easier to stock than two, easier to explain to newcomers, and just more uniform than two sets.

2) Blue epaulet slides w/CAP for service and service dress uniforms.  I think this is going to look odd on the service dress jackets.  If they won't allow metal grade and CAP chrome on the service dress jackets, I'd rather stay with gray slides for all (AF and corp) uniforms.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on December 05, 2007, 06:22:13 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 05, 2007, 05:27:10 PM
Just for the record, I want to come out against the following:

1) Sage or blue cloth grade based on uniform.  One set of grade/tapes is easier to stock than two, easier to explain to newcomers, and just more uniform than two sets.

2) Blue epaulet slides w/CAP for service and service dress uniforms.  I think this is going to look odd on the service dress jackets.  If they won't allow metal grade and CAP chrome on the service dress jackets, I'd rather stay with gray slides for all (AF and corp) uniforms.

You like the color gray?

I think blue slides (if we have to have them at all) looks far better (as in making the jacket look LESS BUSY) than gray. 

Thanks Kach for putting that list together.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: O-Rex on December 05, 2007, 06:24:02 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 05, 2007, 05:27:10 PM
Just for the record, I want to come out against the following:

1) Sage or blue cloth grade based on uniform.  One set of grade/tapes is easier to stock than two, easier to explain to newcomers, and just more uniform than two sets.

2) Blue epaulet slides w/CAP for service and service dress uniforms.  I think this is going to look odd on the service dress jackets.  If they won't allow metal grade and CAP chrome on the service dress jackets, I'd rather stay with gray slides for all (AF and corp) uniforms.

nametapes-I think Navy blue would work for everybody: they are already stocking navy-blue rank for the blue utility uniform and flight suits.

blue-slides: it's a retro-80's thing: metal would be nice, but blue beats gray.  Even grays looked odd, but were better than the maroon berry-boards. Folks have been griping about getting back blue slides for years.

It's all in how you take it: I remember when the brushed metal nametags came out a couple of years back, and everybody, US and CAP alike hated them.  In reviewing the posts here, it looks like we got past it.

I think that the proposals on the table are a win-win for all, and moreover, if approved, a sort of recognition from USAF that we are trying to police ourselves and clean up our act: a sort of belated and full reversal of the berry boards, if-you-will.

It would be interesting to see what is USAF-blessed, what if any proposals will be midified and the time-frame for phase-in.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BillB on December 05, 2007, 06:40:53 PM
If you think CAP has to many uniform combinations, I was just out to Gainesville (FL) Airport. There were Six Army helicopters and one Navy chopper. Of 14 Army personnel, there were a total of 10 different uniform combinations. Two different styles of BDUs plus an ABU. Three different flight suits, four different flight jackets and three styles of boots. Only the Navy aircrew were all in the same uniform.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: FlyingTerp on December 05, 2007, 06:49:22 PM
^ - I've seen the exact same thing working with the RM. 

IMHO, our uniform issues are not that bad.  A lot of the time, its not what is being worn, but how its being worn and by whom (ill fitting, mismatched, wrong insignia, etc)  :-\.

That being said, I like a lot of the proposed changes.  However, my personal opinion is that 39-1 needs to be clarified and rewritten as a priority before we make any uniform changes.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on December 05, 2007, 07:05:14 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 05, 2007, 06:22:13 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 05, 2007, 05:27:10 PM
Just for the record, I want to come out against the following:

1) Sage or blue cloth grade based on uniform.  One set of grade/tapes is easier to stock than two, easier to explain to newcomers, and just more uniform than two sets.

2) Blue epaulet slides w/CAP for service and service dress uniforms.  I think this is going to look odd on the service dress jackets.  If they won't allow metal grade and CAP chrome on the service dress jackets, I'd rather stay with gray slides for all (AF and corp) uniforms.

You like the color gray?

I think blue slides (if we have to have them at all) looks far better (as in making the jacket look LESS BUSY) than gray. 

Thanks Kach for putting that list together.

Yes, I do like the gray slides - they look professional and mark us as CAP w/o being too jarring.

I would be perfectly happy to use gray boards and gray tapes/insignia - it would establish a link across all of the uniforms.  While people understand the gray slides on the service dress, putting the blue ones on will get "aren't they supposed to go on the shirts?" comments from the AF.

Being AF, I don't have this obsession with dressing just like "big brother blue."
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Stonewall on December 05, 2007, 07:20:44 PM
Sorry, Colonel, I haven't read the 26 pages of suggestions, topic drifts or arguments, just gonna throw in my $.02.

Blues/Service type uniforms

As much as I wish we could all wear the AF service dress uniform, I hate having two separate uniforms for members, the AF Service Dress and TPU.  If I didn't meet height/weight/grooming standards, I wouldn't want to be forced to wear a suit vs a uniform because we only had AF blues as an option.  That said, my suggestion is this.

NOTE: I've only seen the TPU a couple times in pictures, it's a double breasted thing, right?  If so, I think that looks like crapola.

Anyway, my suggestion:

1 Blues type uniform, call it a KBU (Kirt Bowden Uniform), I don't care.  

White shirt, just like AF blues shirt, but white (long and short sleeve)
Blue pants, AF style.
Blue coat, CAP style (TPU, KBU, but not identical to the AF, except for material)
Blue AF tie for LS or "class A" set-up

CAP cutouts
Metal rank on epaulets
Blue 3-line nametag on "class B" version
Silver-brushed type nametag on "class A" version
Ribbons (military, CAP, USCG Aux, civilian DOD, or combination there of)
Badges (military, CAP, or combination there of)

Nix Mess Dress!!!!!  Simply take off the nametag and add mini-medals with bow-tie.

Utility type uniform

My personal suggestion would be solid OD BDUs, not camouflage, with white on ultramarine (blue) background, no flags, no wing patches.  But I know that won't happen.  I think it gives the appearance of a military auxiliary that goes along with the cadet program and still gives us a good looking utility uniform.  Can be purchases with the same ease as the BBDUs.

With that out of the way, I say we pick one utility uniform and go with it.  As much as I personally dislike BBDUs, if it puts us in the same uniform, I say go for it.  But, it takes away from the militaresque of our program.

Rank on both collars
Allow for the wear of 3 badges (2 up top, 1 on pocket (or pocket flap)
No special patches to detract from uni-formity

Getting rid of a lot of ES patches, NCSA patches, American Flag and so on, would save a ton of money to individuals and the organization as a whole.

As a side note, I recently purchased a set of Tru-Spec Tactical Response Uniform (TRU).  Basically, it's the Army's ACU but in solid color.  I happened to buy mine in OD green.  Gott'em for work.  They would be awesome.  Everyone in one uniform and they're non-iron, look professional and durable.  But again, I'm sure this is just me dreaming.  Maybe I'll set them up with CAP stuff on to show as an example of how simple and professional they can look to your uniform committee.

Anyway, thanks for letting me express my ideas, albeit I'm sure they're too far out there for consideration.

Hooah and Semper Vi!

BTW, the TRU:

(http://www.actiongear.com/agcatalog/picsxl/AG_TRU12_L_2.jpg)

Cancel that on the TRU, just remembered they don't have regular front-breast pockets for nametags.  But they do sell a regular BDU style blouse.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BrianH76 on December 05, 2007, 07:48:27 PM
I've been lurking for a while and simply reading, but have finally decided to step off the sidelines and wade into this discussion.  I did promise myself that I would not make my first post about uniforms, but I suppose I'll eat that promise.  I guess what makes this different is that this uniform committee is a CAP-sanctioned process.

Some of the ideas I like; others I don't.  Since I have no way of ensuring that only my favorite changes make it into the new 39-1, I vote to leave things the way they are now.  The grey slides and blue nametapes look fine to me, but even if they didn't, it wouldn't be worth what I'd have to pay to change them. 

And if all these proposed changes make it into a new regulation, we're all going to be digging into our pockets to come into compliance.  I've already been caught up in one now-reversed uniform change in my one year of CAP service (the U.S. Civil Air Patrol tapes).  So please, leave the uniforms alone for a while.

v/r,

Brian C. Hughes, 2d Lt, CAP
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: O-Rex on December 05, 2007, 07:48:44 PM
Quote from: BillB on December 05, 2007, 06:40:53 PM
If you think CAP has to many uniform combinations, I was just out to Gainesville (FL) Airport. There were Six Army helicopters and one Navy chopper. Of 14 Army personnel, there were a total of 10 different uniform combinations. Two different styles of BDUs plus an ABU. Three different flight suits, four different flight jackets and three styles of boots. Only the Navy aircrew were all in the same uniform.

Remember that the Army itself is in a uniform transition period of their own, so yes, you are going to have a "fashion-show" for a while.

I remember 1984-85 when I was in an Army Aviation unit, and there was a similar transition, we had BDU's, Fatigues, VN-era Jungle Fatigues, one and two-piece flight suits: a real Circus.

At least there were no golf-shirts in the mix  ;)

While everyone is going to throw in their own two centavos, I pretty much like what I see from Lt Col White's photos: seems we're down to what flavor of sprinkles we are going to use.....
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Pylon on December 05, 2007, 08:23:49 PM
Quote from: BrianH76 on December 05, 2007, 07:48:27 PM
I've been lurking for a while and simply reading, but have finally decided to step off the sidelines and wade into this discussion.  I did promise myself that I would not make my first post about uniforms, but I suppose I'll eat that promise.  I guess what makes this different is that this uniform committee is a CAP-sanctioned process.

Some of the ideas I like; others I don't.  Since I have no way of ensuring that only my favorite changes make it into the new 39-1, I vote to leave things the way they are now.  The grey slides and blue nametapes look fine to me, but even if they didn't, it wouldn't be worth what I'd have to pay to change them. 

And if all these proposed changes make it into a new regulation, we're all going to be digging into our pockets to come into compliance.  I've already been caught up in one now-reversed uniform change in my one year of CAP service (the U.S. Civil Air Patrol tapes).  So please, leave the uniforms alone for a while.

v/r,

Brian C. Hughes, 2d Lt, CAP

Thank you, Brian, for your input. 

Cost to the member is one of the foremost thoughts on the minds of the committee when we consider any and all changes.  We understand that everybody here is a volunteer (we are too!) and has to pay out-of-pocket for uniforms.

We do have some issues with our uniforms which we'd like to resolve.  We want to find the most cost-effective and appropriate solutions, amicable to members, the NB and the AF, and make these changes in one batch and be done with uniform changes for quite a while.  We want everything to be thoroughly thought-through and put out to the membership for feedback before we add it to the list of things we'd like to implement. 

I appreciate your comments very much (and I hope you'll continue to post here at CAPTalk!  :) ).
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: SKYKING607 on December 05, 2007, 08:56:18 PM
My two cents worth:

Said in a previous posting to bring back the OD BDU or "utility" uniform.  I really miss my old "pickle" suit. 

Would like to see some firm language that allows members to wear leather/cordura boots.  Some Regions and Wings have "penned" addendums to REQUIRE all-leather lace up boots for flight crews.  In some locales it is difficult to find an economical pair of all-leather "issue" boots!

Thanks! 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: kilnerd on December 05, 2007, 09:00:09 PM
OK I haven't ready all 26 pages and I know my .02 isn't worth much, but here it is.

AF Style:

Standardize wear of insignia with AF (i.e. badges) for female and male uniforms, especially female uniforms since there have always been placement questions there (model rocketry) and specify this in the reg. The AF has a guide on this out on the AFPC website right now because of the new HAF badge.

Silver nametag on pull over sweater (once again standardize)

One Silver nametag is sufficient, we don't need two different ones, reduce this cost

Clarify the wear of ribbons on all blues uniforms for cadets, and allow short stacking on blue shirt again.

Align corporate uniform with these standards and eliminate as many wear differences as possible


BDU/BBDU Uniform:

Standardize a color for nametapes (the darker blue looks good and more modern) and IMHO it would look ok on the ABU

Since the AF has gotten rid of all the patches on the ABU start reducing the number on the BDU to follow suit in the near future  LETS KEEP THINGS SIMPLE

1) American flag patch - GONE!!
2) Wing Patch - moved to right pocket on BDU blouse, all patches formerly authorized for this location - GONE!!
3) Allow unit patch OR NCSA type patches on right pocket only, my qualm here - alot of units pay good money for a unit patch lets at least allow them to keep it until mandatory wear of the ABU
4) allow ES patch to stay until ABU becomes norm then it goes away.
5) possibly authorize a cloth commanders badge - keep wear in line with AF

Also, the wing and unit patches will not be worn on ABU - simplify

Flight suits

Pick a CAP Command Patch and keep it doesn't matter which one.


Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on December 05, 2007, 09:08:44 PM
^ Has anyone said get rid of the Wing Patch altogether?  It is just an expense anyway!  Reading the ABU uniform page at AF Portal (which I would share with anyone if they ask), there will be no patches on the ABU's except for occupational badges and flight badges.  We should follow suit and make our Uniforms match AF. 

Also, the AF has said no to colored ballcaps......we need a firm message from NHQ in 39-1 that says similar.  Don't give Wing Commanders and Region Commander the ability to mandate colored hats.  Lets stick to issue items to reduce costs.  Also get rid of colored ballcaps at Encampments and Special Activities.  Why make a member buy another hat they will only wear for a week?  Lets also stick with something on the color of undershirt.  Same idea......cost and uniformity.   

Also, lets take the Wing Commander and Region Commander out of the Uniform loop.  I say any changes or amends to 39-1 has to be approved by a uniform committee or NHQ.  They can push ideas up, but can't arbitrarily say "now everyone wears pink pistol belts.

Am I making sense, or nonsense........or has 25 pages of posts drained everyone.  Tough to scan through them all.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 05, 2007, 09:31:26 PM
Lose wing patches. We don't need them. Unit patches are morale builders, people choose their unit, they don't necessarily choose their wing. I'd prefer to keep a unit patch option.

Maintaining some of the specialty patches is fine, there need to be a few distinct differences between the AF and CAP (especially as far as the Air Force is concerned). We could stand to reduce the number of them though. For starters, we don't need anything on the sleeves at all. Pockets and above tapes are fine.

I don't mind looking similar to the Air Force, but we don't need to look like cheap clones.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: PhoenixRisen on December 05, 2007, 09:38:42 PM
I honestly don't have the time at the moment to go look back over 25 pages - so forgive me if it's already been brought up, but what about reinstating "short-stacking" for Cadets?

(For those of us that DON'T like wearing every, single ribbon we've got...)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Trung Si Ma on December 05, 2007, 09:56:13 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 05, 2007, 09:31:26 PM
...For starters, we don't need anything on the sleeves at all...

Does this mean that you support collar rank for the NCO's?  If so, I'll second.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 05, 2007, 10:19:18 PM
Quote from: Trung Si Ma on December 05, 2007, 09:56:13 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 05, 2007, 09:31:26 PM
...For starters, we don't need anything on the sleeves at all...

Does this mean that you support collar rank for the NCO's?  If so, I'll second.

I meant to indcate just patches, not rank insignia. Sorry.

Not a bad idea, but the Air Force spokesperson for the ABU said that one of the reasons that they didn't go with collar rank for all was because "it would require a change in the Air Force's rank insignia culture". If we tried it, they'd probably have kittens.

So to clarify, other than rank insignia stripes, there shouldn't be anything else on the sleeves.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JayT on December 05, 2007, 10:26:52 PM
Quote from: PhoenixCadet on December 05, 2007, 09:38:42 PM
I honestly don't have the time at the moment to go look back over 25 pages - so forgive me if it's already been brought up, but what about reinstating "short-stacking" for Cadets?

(For those of us that DON'T like wearing every, single ribbon we've got...)


Hear Hear!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Pylon on December 05, 2007, 10:35:12 PM
Quote from: PhoenixCadet on December 05, 2007, 09:38:42 PM
I honestly don't have the time at the moment to go look back over 25 pages - so forgive me if it's already been brought up, but what about reinstating "short-stacking" for Cadets?

(For those of us that DON'T like wearing every, single ribbon we've got...)

Since I'm going through all of CAPM 39-1 at the moment for sections/tables/figures that we'd like to address - which uniforms and sections specifically need to be addressed for the cadets ribbon shortstacking issue; I know I've heard this before?  Where would you like to see the "some" or "some or none" clauses inserted?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: scooter on December 05, 2007, 11:03:45 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 05, 2007, 04:31:05 AM
QuoteWe don't wear rank on the polo and no one seems to have difficulty figuring out who is what.
Actually we do.  I don't like people wandering around mission base who I can't pretty easily identify. 

You wear rank on the polo shirt with grey pants?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on December 05, 2007, 11:13:29 PM
I guess I missed the section where we decided it was cost effective to have members buy khaki pants to replace the gray pants they have now?  Whats the purpose of that?   
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jeders on December 05, 2007, 11:20:04 PM
Quote from: CCCO162 on December 05, 2007, 11:03:45 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 05, 2007, 04:31:05 AM
QuoteWe don't wear rank on the polo and no one seems to have difficulty figuring out who is what.
Actually we do.  I don't like people wandering around mission base who I can't pretty easily identify. 

You wear rank on the polo shirt with grey pants?
No, we have difficulty figuring out who is who when they wear a polo without there name embroidered on it.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 05, 2007, 11:13:29 PM
I guess I missed the section where we decided it was cost effective to have members buy khaki pants to replace the gray pants they have now?  Whats the purpose of that?   

Most, not all, but most people have khaki pants already for there own purposes.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 05, 2007, 11:22:42 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 05, 2007, 11:13:29 PM
I guess I missed the section where we decided it was cost effective to have members buy khaki pants to replace the gray pants they have now?  Whats the purpose of that?   

The reason for khaki over gray is that it is easier to find a more uniform shade of khaki than gray.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 05, 2007, 11:29:05 PM
As we make changes and just talk about uniforms, there is one very simple point to remember that USAF wants. They want us to follow/enforce the uniform regulations. All of us here posting feel very strongly about our uniforms and appearance, regardless of differeing opinions of who likes what.

It is IMPERATIVE that we do everything we can in our units and wings to educate on the proper wear. USAF would die a happy death if they woke up one morning and saw all of CAP wearing their uniforms properly, proudly, and abiding by all guidelines.

I would ask that we all take it on ourselves to take on the mission of getting compliance. Go forth and educate. The review and revision we are working on of 39-1 WILL make it much simpler to follow. Pylon needs your comments on the 39-1 thread so we can identify all the discrepencies. Please post your observations there so we can collect them and address them.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 05, 2007, 11:33:37 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 05, 2007, 05:14:43 PM
Considering the length of this thread, I don't remember if this has been covered or not. So here goes:

Cold Weather Gear!

We need it in many places. CAP is not a tropical only organization.

As to the gear, stuff like Gore-Tex, fleece, gloves, mittens, scarves, poly-pro and parkas (such as the N-2B and N-3B) need to be included, or at least referenced, in the uniform manual. Cold weather footgear should be mentioned too.

In Alaska, I wore poly-pro, muklucks, an N-3B, mittens and a stocking cap at times. Sometimes just going to meetings (you need it at 20 below). Wasn't in the manual, but I didn't care, and I still have all my fingers and toes because I dressed properly. If I'd only worn what was authorized in the manual for cold weather, I'd be dead.

As part of the 39-1 review we are going to look at everything in the USAF closet and see what items they have that are not currently authorized for CAP that would serve a benefit/purpose if CAP were authorized to wear them. This list will then be submitted up the chain for approval.  Pylon is from NYWG so he's very intuned with the cold weather concerns.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JCJ on December 05, 2007, 11:40:44 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on December 05, 2007, 04:35:23 PM
Just a reminder on the uniform process. Everything we compile and suggest as the Committee will be submitted to NHQ for review and then it will be sent up through the CAP chain for Air Force review/approval.

Just wanted to make sure all were familiar with how this works.

Will the proposed changes be considered by the National Board?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 05, 2007, 11:45:45 PM
Quote from: JCJ on December 05, 2007, 11:40:44 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on December 05, 2007, 04:35:23 PM
Just a reminder on the uniform process. Everything we compile and suggest as the Committee will be submitted to NHQ for review and then it will be sent up through the CAP chain for Air Force review/approval.

Just wanted to make sure all were familiar with how this works.

Will the proposed changes be considered by the National Board?

Yes, they will go to NHQ and the NB for review and then up to USAF from there. The committee is an official NHQ committee.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on December 06, 2007, 12:29:50 AM
Quote from: LtCol White on December 05, 2007, 11:22:42 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 05, 2007, 11:13:29 PM
I guess I missed the section where we decided it was cost effective to have members buy khaki pants to replace the gray pants they have now?  Whats the purpose of that?   

The reason for khaki over gray is that it is easier to find a more uniform shade of khaki than gray.
Based on what?  Unless you get very specific, you will still see quite a bit of variation in color and syle anyway.  Just within my closet I found four pairs of pants that everyone would agree were khaki and each one of them had a very distinct shade.  Unless you require that all pants be purchased from a single source in a single style, everyone will still complain about the differences.  So why not leave well enough alone. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: thp on December 06, 2007, 12:58:30 AM
Keep utility uniform/blue poly-cotton flight suit.
-Great for cadets during flights
-Inexpensive
-Height/Weight standards don't apply
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Stonewall on December 06, 2007, 01:18:02 AM
Quote from: LtCol White on December 05, 2007, 11:22:42 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 05, 2007, 11:13:29 PM
I guess I missed the section where we decided it was cost effective to have members buy khaki pants to replace the gray pants they have now?  Whats the purpose of that?   

The reason for khaki over gray is that it is easier to find a more uniform shade of khaki than gray.

I'm gonna throw this out there...sort of a wild card, but what about going with a khaki pant but having two options depending on the UOD? 

Example:  UOD BDUs (or whatever utility uniform we decide).  Members like myself who wish to wear a polo combo can wear khaki fatigue style pants.  But on a "blues night", khaki slacks would be required.

Again, a wild card.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: PhoenixRisen on December 06, 2007, 01:26:21 AM
Quote from: thp on December 06, 2007, 12:58:30 AM
-Great for cadets during flights

Why wouldn't a Cadet just wear BDU's during a flight in they didn't have a flight suit?  The only difference really is the color...  (Between the BDU's and BBDU's, I mean.)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: MIKE on December 06, 2007, 01:29:59 AM
The Utility Uniform is not the Field Uniform.  Go look it up.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: PhoenixRisen on December 06, 2007, 01:47:29 AM
Quote from: MIKE on December 06, 2007, 01:29:59 AM
The Utility Uniform is not the Field Uniform.  Go look it up.

Oops - read that too fast.  I personally don't hear too much of the blue utility uniform - so I didn't think of that when I initially heard "blue".

My question still stands though - why purchase a seperate uniform (no matter the cost) when a Cadet can simply wear BDU's like the majority of 'em all?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: thp on December 06, 2007, 02:00:21 AM
It is up to the member. You can get a utility uniform for about $40. Meanwhile a field uniforms/BDUs are about $70. Also nomex is about $265.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: PhoenixRisen on December 06, 2007, 02:17:36 AM
Quote from: thp on December 06, 2007, 02:00:21 AM
It is up to the member. You can get a utility uniform for about $40. Meanwhile a field uniforms/BDUs are about $70. Also nomex is about $265.

What I'm trying to say here is... You said the blue utility uniform is not a STANDARD uniform for Cadets, whereas the Battle Dress Uniform is.  Almost ALL Cadets (the heavy majority) have BDU's.  Not too many have the blue utility uniform.

See what I'm trying to say?

You're bringing up a cost matter, when, really, the uniform you're trying to say is cheaper isn't a necessity.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: thp on December 06, 2007, 02:24:05 AM
I understand, I'm just saying, if they want it go for it. But it could be used by senior members who don't fit the height/weight standards, and can't afford nomex.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on December 06, 2007, 02:26:42 AM
thp, are you talking about having cadets wear the Blue BDUs or the blue utility uniform?  They are two different things and that is why everyone is confused. 

Either way, the question stands as to why they would need either.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: PhoenixRisen on December 06, 2007, 02:27:15 AM
Quote from: thp on December 06, 2007, 02:24:05 AM
I understand, I'm just saying, if they want it go for it. But it could be used by senior members who don't fit the height/weight standards, and can't afford nomex.

Roger.  I understand that - I just didn't get that from your original post.

:)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: NEBoom on December 06, 2007, 02:51:15 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 05, 2007, 03:07:17 PM
Could I take a moment to review what we have so far?
<with snippage>
1.  AF Blues:

- Switch from gray to blue epaulet sleeves, with "CAP" identified.

2.  TPU:

- Switch from hard rank to blue epaulet sleeve, same as AF coat.
- Shirt to have same blue epaulet with "CAP."





A question.  I understand that if the AF says no to the blue shoulder marks, "plan B" is to offer to switch from the silver nameplate to the blue three-line (or maybe two line) nameplate on the service coat.  If the AF still says no to the blue shoulder marks, what would "plan C" be then?

As I mentioned earlier, I think it would be great to get to go back to blue epaulets, but I'm still feeling skeptical that the AF will approve it...   :(  Would probably be wise to have a fall-back position.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on December 06, 2007, 02:58:59 AM
Plan C......no change most likely.  Just a guess

Oh ya......get rid of yellow command scarves.  Who wears those anyway?  And the Regimental tie.  Pick a less obtrusive (<----right word??) design for the blazer combo.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: NEBoom on December 06, 2007, 03:05:46 AM
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 05, 2007, 09:08:44 PM
Reading the ABU uniform page at AF Portal (which I would share with anyone if they ask), there will be no patches on the ABU's except for occupational badges and flight badges.  We should follow suit and make our Uniforms match AF. 

<snip>


I want to second this.  Let's quit patches "cold turkey" when we switch to the ABU.  I'd say let's allow some, like a unit (or even wing) emblem, but past history shows that if we allow any, we'll eventually end up with patches all over the uniform again.  Just MHO.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Stonewall on December 06, 2007, 03:10:10 AM
You know me, or maybe you don't, but am all for getting rid of patches.  I've been saying this for like, well, 20 years.  Except WIWAC for a while and I had a subdued wing patch made  :)

Yes, I think I've seen this mentioned more than a few times.

Benefits to no patches:

*Savings, as in the $green stuff$ (our number 1 mission, right)
*Fewer opportunities to mess up sewing jobs thus making us look less inept
*Less clutter
*More professional appearce, the whole less is more thing working for us
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BillB on December 06, 2007, 03:22:04 AM
Lets see what new uniforms I'm going to have to buy.
Khaki fatigue uniforms $70
khaki pants $15
blue flight suit,  $120
Blue slides $8
white shirts $21
blue shirts $21
new cutouts $3
cloth grade insignia (sage) $1.50
cloth grade insignia (blue) $1.50
Blue Civil Air Patrol for BDU or ABU
Grey Civil Air Patrol for BDU or ABU
Blue name tape
Grey name tape

Anyone see the problem here? People are coming up with all kinds of NEW uniforms with all kinds of patches, insignia etc. May I ask what problems these solve? The big problem is CAP already has two many uniform variations listed in a 39-1, poorly written and was out of date before it was even published.  The Uniform Committee concept of a corporate uniform to match the Air Force uniform is a good idea. It will eliminate several uniforms or uniform variations. Make everyone go to the BBDU for a field uniform. Bad idea because you'll still have cadets, over a third of the membership in woodland BDUs. And you'll still ghave cadets in USAF blues, regardless of the multitude of uniforms seniors wear. So keep in mind these new uniforms you're suggesting will not match up with cadet uniforms, and how many seniors can afford to go out and buy the new uniforms that have been suggested?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on December 06, 2007, 03:32:19 AM
Quote from: Stonewall on December 06, 2007, 03:10:10 AM
You know me, or maybe you don't, but am all for getting rid of patches.  I've been saying this for like, well, 20 years.  Except WIWAC for a while and I had a subdued wing patch made  :)

Yes, I think I've seen this mentioned more than a few times.

Benefits to no patches:

*Savings, as in the $green stuff$ (our number 1 mission, right)
*Fewer opportunities to mess up sewing jobs thus making us look less inept
*Less clutter
*More professional appearce, the whole less is more thing working for us

Agreed!  Patches are not an AF thing.  They have said "We are not the Army".  If we are going to wear their uniform, lets do it the way they do it regarding patches.  I saw a HAWK MTN Ranger walking around like a freaking neon billboard with everything on his uniform.  THEN when NHQ says move this patch here and that patch there, the Wing Kings say "No wear your Hawk MTN patch in place of the wing patch but in this position, and if you don't have one wear the wing patch there".  It gets insane how different we all look because no one can follow guidance from NHQ.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Stonewall on December 06, 2007, 03:35:34 AM
No matter what, in a major change, which may or may not occur, the masses may have to fork out some cash initially.  But I think, and I may be wrong here, the ultimate goal is to make friggin decision for once, and come up with a uniform standard and that's that.  

People are simply suggesting things which may be best suited for them, not the masses.  So of course, there will be a multitude of uniform variations seen in this discussion, but hopefully in the end, the powers that be will look at most of what we've suggested and fix what truly is broken.  My hope, regardless of what uniform changes occur, is that we get rid of at least 1/3 of the uniforms we have and the accouterments to go with them.

1 service dress uniform for all, that converts easily and cheaply to a "formal garb"
1 field/utility uniform for field work
1 flight uniform

As for cadets, I say they get the same field/utility uniform as seniors, but let them keep the AF blues option.  YMMV and probably does.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on December 06, 2007, 04:34:38 AM
Quote from: Stonewall on December 06, 2007, 03:35:34 AM
1 service dress uniform for all, that converts easily and cheaply to a "formal garb"
1 field/utility uniform for field work
1 flight uniform

I like the idea, but the only way the above happens is to abandon the USAF-Style uniforms for senior members, which I don't' see happening.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Stonewall on December 06, 2007, 05:23:41 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 06, 2007, 04:34:38 AM
Quote from: Stonewall on December 06, 2007, 03:35:34 AM
1 service dress uniform for all, that converts easily and cheaply to a "formal garb"
1 field/utility uniform for field work
1 flight uniform

I like the idea, but the only way the above happens is to abandon the USAF-Style uniforms for senior members, which I don't' see happening.

Don't see it happening either, nor do I want it to happen.  But at this point in time, I'm so frustrated with the lack of uniformity, that I'd throw my towel in and accept a non-AF uniform that looked cool and professional if we could all just look the same.  And you know me, I'm pro-military!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 06, 2007, 05:54:39 AM
When it comes to the ABU, it's a clean slate for us. There's no current configuration for it. So money to make changes aren't an issue. It's not any different than buying a new uniform because your old one wore out.

The mandatory stuff is name/branch tapes, and rank insignia.

The only question left is what else do we want to put on it. And yes, other than the above, it is all wants.

How about these options?

A couple of badges above the branch tape. Maybe allow a third one centered on the left pocket (and I don't mean the pocket flap) like we've seen in a few Air Force photos. Show off the skills. As many or as little as you like, not to exceed three.

What else? A few people would like a commanders badge for utilities (and yes, I mean BDU's of the various colors). Kinda makes sense. A person doesn't shed their commander status just because they take off their blues or equivalent uniform. Do it like the Air Force, no real reason to do anything else.

Now, we got loads of patches and all kinds of places we've been putting them. Seems like we could use a unit patch (so people know who to complain to about you). Put it on the right pocket since that's where we put it now. Nothing new for the old timers.

Allow one additional patch (of the members choice) on the left pocket. This would include the specialty track patches, maybe the ES patch (which really needs to be reduced in sized), some of the SAR type schools (like Hawk Mountain), and other various and sundry things. Unless someone decides to put one of the aforementioned badges there. Either way, let the individual have one thing unique to them to put there.

We really don't need much else. Basic, simple and if you minimize patches, folks won't be running out to buy loads of them since they can't wear them all at once anyway.

And overall, it should literally be written in stone. Wing and reqion CCs supplementing 39-1 should require approval from a National Uniform board, with an approved copy maintained at NHQ. This would probably eliminate extraneous berets, wierd Honor Guard uniforms, and some seriously screwball uniform concepts. Some folks need to be kept honest.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BrianH76 on December 06, 2007, 10:41:01 AM
If standardization between the AF-style uniform and the Corporate style uniform is really the overriding concern of folks, then there is a quick and easy solution that is virtually cost-free to all members.  Simply mandate the gray epaulet slides and gray nametag from the AF-style be work on the Corporate style uniform.  Just about every CAP member already has these items, so the cost would be very minor.  The AF may even be willing to consider allowing the U.S. lapel insignia, plain metal nametag, and blue sleeve braid if we do.  Other than a white shirt and an extra row of buttons, there would be no difference between the two uniforms.  Trying to adopt a new color of epaulet slides (which the AF is virtually certain to turn down; CAP-USAF/CC said there was "very little chance" of this happening), would mean all CAP members would have to buy new rank slides.

Some of the suggestions here make some sense.  Standardizing insignia placement between AF-style and corporate uniforms, adopting cold weather gear, and limiting cadet ribbons are ideas that are easy to implement, and of optional or no cost to the member.  Others, like khaki pants for the polo shirt option, make no sense and seem like change for change's sake (at least blue and gray has some status as AF colors). 

Again, I vote we leave the basics of the combinations alone and focus on updating CAPM 39-1.  Some of the suggestions here recommend making changes to or abolishing uniforms that are popular with many members.  We've had far too many uniform changes in the last few years, and there is no guarantee that this uniform committee process will not be reversed in a few years when someone with different preferences comes along.

v/r,

Brian C. Hughes, 2d Lt, CAP
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on December 06, 2007, 02:10:30 PM
I'm a big fan of the utility uniform - it's one that CAP really got right.

It's cheap.

We got all our pilots into it instead of the golf shirt.  Much more "military", blends better with other CAP uniforms, and meets all their needs.

Some folks prefer wearing shoes to boots when flying for better rudder control. And why you CAN wear shoes with BBDUS, it requires hemming and still looks kinda dorky.  You can wear shoes with the utility uniform.

A third of our pilots have gone on to invest in a blue nomex flight  suit later.  The utility uniform got 'em in cheap, and they upgraded later. 

For members who aren't groundpounders, the utility uniform pretty much meets all their needs.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on December 06, 2007, 02:23:42 PM
The other issue, again is outerwear.  If you bury a golf shirt or field uniform under a red and black checked hunter's coat - it ain't a uniform any more.  You might as well just wear civilian clothes.

Remember, uniforms don't show if you put them under civilian coats.

For cadets - I think we need a formal waiver to allow them not to have to have field jackets and overcoats.  I think USAF might look favorably on it, as it lowers the cost of membership for these future potential recruits.

For seniors - we ought to look at mandating low cost outerwear with corporate uniforms.  Like a blue/black coaches-style windbreaker or something.  that would be long enough to cover the BBDU, and also be used with the other suits.  Just put a patch (or perhaps a leather flightsuit tag) on it and voila - lost cost uniformity.

Those that have the money could still buy black A-2's, or army windbreakers or whatever.  But this would provide a low cost option to get us all looking alike.

(also, mandate headgear for corporate uniforms - don't make it optional.  It would bring the corporate suits more in line with the USAF ones)



Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: tribalelder on December 06, 2007, 02:40:41 PM
I meet fittest and grooming, but except for 2b proceedings and annual awards events, I avoid wearing blues anymore.

Blue utility uniform- While I'm a BBDU fan(mostly over shoes vs boots), I can see where the utility uniform makes a lot of sense-- like the smurfsuit of old.  Civilian outerwear means we already own outerwear appropriate for the weather in our respective areas.  Shoes mean lower costs and not packing extra shoes/boots to go from home to work direct to a meeting.  While I disliked the jumpsuit color and wished it was available in long sleeves, it was appropriate for everything but awards nights. When you needed long sleeves, put on an orange windbreaker.

We have a great uniform manual--for a cadet summer encampment parade ground.  My biggest squawk with the USAF uniforms are weather-related.  The winter outerwear (stocking cap and overshoes and parkas) provisions are gone from CAPM39-1.  
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: tribalelder on December 06, 2007, 02:48:23 PM
Dragoon's comment on windbreakers-

GREAT idea-instant uniform(ity).  Blue or black would work well, though I'd vote for red, orange or hi-viz green, with reflectorized CAP front and back.  (A little less like a police 'raid jacket')

The same hi-viz windbreaker could substitute for the GT orange vest, and at least the sleeves would be visible under the LBV, camelback/pack/field suspenders. Size it 'one up' and you'd wear warm civilian layers of clothing under it.

The leather name patch is also a great idea.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on December 06, 2007, 04:22:11 PM
The reasons I recommended blue/black vs a high vis color  are for uniformity across purposes, saving money..

We already allow blue flight jackets with most corporate utility suits.  We allow black leather flight jackets with corporate flight gear and with white/grey and TPU combinations.  We allow black Army style outerwear with the TPU.

If we authorized, say a cheap black windbreaker, in a hip length (like coaches wear) it could be worn with BBDUs, utilities, flight suits, golf shirts, white and greys, and even TPUs.  So, one jacket covers all.  Or at least most.

An orange jacket, while useful in some situations, would not blend well with the other authorized outerwear, and would be really out of place with anything other than field/flight gear.

And with a little push, I'll be we could get USAF to buy off on it for cadets with green BDUs (though not for seniors).

The public tends to see us with our jackets on, at least in the upper half of the country. What we wear underneath really doesn't matter as much as the jacket does..
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on December 06, 2007, 04:26:23 PM
As an afterthought, we could just mandate the corporate suites be worn with any conservative, commercially available  black outer garment with no civilian patches or lables, and just affix some kind of CAP ID to it (like,ssay, the leather nametag and command patch).  That way, folks could buy whatever fits their local climate, but we'd still be uniform - everyone in black with the same patches.

Folks way up north would go with parkas.  Folks elsewhere would go with windbreakers.  It would be cheap, and provide some level of uniformity. Not as much as a standard item, but a heck of alot better than what we have now.

Plus, as an added cost savings, if members affixed the patches with velcro, they could reuse the garment for non-CAP purposes.  More savings.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JayT on December 06, 2007, 04:57:51 PM
You mean like............the leather jacket?

Or the blue flight jacket?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on December 06, 2007, 05:03:08 PM
Quote from: JThemann on December 06, 2007, 04:57:51 PM
You mean like............the leather jacket?

Or the blue flight jacket?

No, because you can't wear them with all of the corp suits. 

They also aren't flexible - with a BBDU length windbreaker you can wear it with all the corps w/o it looking funny.  Also, you could put layers underneath it so you can handle colder weather w/o breaking uniformity.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Pylon on December 06, 2007, 05:25:00 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on December 06, 2007, 02:23:42 PM
For cadets - I think we need a formal waiver to allow them not to have to have field jackets and overcoats.  I think USAF might look favorably on it, as it lowers the cost of membership for these future potential recruits.

I've been able to put every single cadet in my unit in an M-65 field jacket at $0 cost to the members.  Our unit also charges no dues to the members. 

I don't think we should be encouraging a rag-tag-looking bunch of cadets in various civilian coats and jackets to wander around AF facilities or in public for that matter.  Safety first, and all, of course  ::)  but if you put even just a small bit of effort into it, putting your cadets in proper gear for the conditions, at little to no cost to the cadet, is not impossible.  (Oh, and it looks so much better!)

An example from a year or two ago of one of our flights:
http://ny408.org/News/NY408_C130_4.jpg
http://ny408.org/photos/LC130photos/P3150005.jpg
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JayT on December 06, 2007, 05:36:49 PM
How do you do it?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on December 06, 2007, 05:43:32 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 06, 2007, 05:03:08 PM
Quote from: JThemann on December 06, 2007, 04:57:51 PM
You mean like............the leather jacket?

Or the blue flight jacket?

No, because you can't wear them with all of the corp suits. 

They also aren't flexible - with a BBDU length windbreaker you can wear it with all the corps w/o it looking funny.  Also, you could put layers underneath it so you can handle colder weather w/o breaking uniformity.

Exactly.  The blue flight jacket is probably the best so far, as it's pretty cheap and will work with golf shirt, BBDU, white and grey, and could work with the TPU shirt if the regs allowed.  But it won't work with BBDU.  Hence the idea of of a hip-length coat that WILL work with the BBDU.

And while blue is cool, if we're gonna go with black outergarments with the TPU, might as well go with black windbreakers.  And black flight jackets, to match the leather one.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on December 06, 2007, 05:46:07 PM
Nice, but of limited use, because:

1) you can layer under the BDU if you need to without looking odd, and

2) we need a service uniform option - BDU's are currently an optional uniform for Cadets.

Personally, I think we should allow M-65's for all Cadet uniforms except Service Dress.  Sure, it looks British but it would be an inexpensive way to achieve outerwear uniformity.

The AF, BTW, already has a universal outerwear option - the all weather coat.  It can be worn with service, Airmen Battle or Battle Dress Uniforms.  It's kind of WWII retro, but the real problem is the expense.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on December 06, 2007, 05:48:32 PM
Quote from: Pylon on December 06, 2007, 05:25:00 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on December 06, 2007, 02:23:42 PM
For cadets - I think we need a formal waiver to allow them not to have to have field jackets and overcoats.  I think USAF might look favorably on it, as it lowers the cost of membership for these future potential recruits.

I've been able to put every single cadet in my unit in an M-65 field jacket at $0 cost to the members.  Our unit also charges no dues to the members. 

I don't think we should be encouraging a rag-tag-looking bunch of cadets in various civilian coats and jackets to wander around AF facilities or in public for that matter.  Safety first, and all, of course  ::)  but if you put even just a small bit of effort into it, putting your cadets in proper gear for the conditions, at little to no cost to the cadet, is not impossible.  (Oh, and it looks so much better!)

An example from a year or two ago of one of our flights:
http://ny408.org/News/NY408_C130_4.jpg
http://ny408.org/photos/LC130photos/P3150005.jpg

I also am interested in how you do it, and if you can assure us that your "stuff for free" approach can be used nationwide.  My guess is that you've accomplished something spectacular, but we won't be able to expect everyone (or even most people) to do the same.

By and large, today our cadets ARE "a rag-tag-looking bunch of cadets in various civilian coats and jackets."  So, it looks like most guys haven't been able to pull off what you've pulled off.

Sooo...if we're gonna be honest and truthful, we've only got three choices.

1.  Make it legal to do what people are doing now.
2.  Enforce 39-1 and make all cadets buy field jackets and overcoats (and just let 'em freeze if they can't afford it).
or
3.  Authorized some sort of cheap uniform outergarment (like the windbreaker idea).

I vote for 3.  If not, then 1.  Because 2 just ain't gonna fly.  And letting folks break the regs as we do today is not sending the right lesson to our cadets or USAF.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Pylon on December 06, 2007, 05:55:48 PM
Quote from: JThemann on December 06, 2007, 05:36:49 PM
How do you do it?

It's not a factor of "We can't afford all this!!!"   We can, but by and large we don't try hard enough to find a solution.  It's easier to make up an easier route, even if that doesn't present as professional of an image and we ought to be.

There are dozens of ways squadrons can accomplish this, including fundraising, DRMO, relationships with local Army, AF, AFR, and ANG units, etc.  This is how we did it, in a squadron that charges no dues to members and comes from a largely economically depressed area.  If we can do it simply and quickly, and still focus on the mission, then just about any squadron ought to be able to do this.

We used money from fundraisers to buy about 20 - 25 M-65 field jackets in varying sizes from eBay (that's where we found the best prices).  By setting a maximum price we'd pay of something like $12 or $15, and bidding consistently we were able to acquire a closet full of field jackets.   I also solicited on CAPTalk for members selling field jackets in the same price range.

We marked them with squadron name and serial numbers, and sewed Civil Air Patrol branch tapes on.  We sewed a velcro strip over the other pocket for the nametape.  (We later had to sew on flags when they became mandatory, but at $0.80/piece, it didn't break the bank).  The jackets were now squadron property.

When new cadets join our squadron, they receive several nametapes as part of their initial kit.  One they size and affix to a strip of velcro.  They get issued a field jacket when we issue them their BDUs, boots, and other gear and they simply slap their velcro'ed nametape on and pin on their grade insignia.  If they need a different size, leave the unit, or whatever - they just swap out the velcro nametape.

We have "CADET" nametags and nametapes on hand so even the newest members can be in complete 39-1 compliance while awaiting their customized pieces to arrive.

The whole process of buying, sewing and acquiring took only a couple of days spaced out over a month or so.  It didn't use even 20% of our fundraised money from that year, so it wasn't a detriment to the activities and other things we do.   It was not complicated, and now our squadron has about 25 field jackets.  We'll have them indefinitely and can use them over and over again, winter after winter.   Maybe in spring or summer when things settle down, we'll do the same process (minus all the sewing!) for lightweight blues jackets.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on December 06, 2007, 05:59:13 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on December 06, 2007, 05:48:32 PM
I also am interested in how you do it, and if you can assure us that your "stuff for free" approach can be used nationwide.  My guess is that you've accomplished something spectacular, but we won't be able to expect everyone (or even most people) to do the same.


I'll help, because we do it, to...

DRMO, eBay, Surplus stores (there's a start).

As at least 4 services cycle from woodland camo to "other", we're swimming in uniforms, and as everyone, including CAP, started moving to Goretex, the M65's have started getting plentiful on the secondary market as well.

DRMO requires a little effort and coordination with you Wing LG, but its well worth it.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on December 06, 2007, 06:10:20 PM
How do you handle service overcoats?  Does every single cadet get one of these for free
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on December 06, 2007, 06:12:27 PM
Quote from: Pylon on December 06, 2007, 05:55:48 PM
Quote from: JThemann on December 06, 2007, 05:36:49 PM
How do you do it?

It's not a factor of "We can't afford all this!!!"   We can, but by and large we don't try hard enough to find a solution.  It's easier to make up an easier route, even if that doesn't present as professional of an image and we ought to be.

There are dozens of ways squadrons can accomplish this, including fundraising, DRMO, relationships with local Army, AF, AFR, and ANG units, etc.  This is how we did it, in a squadron that charges no dues to members and comes from a largely economically depressed area.  If we can do it simply and quickly, and still focus on the mission, then just about any squadron ought to be able to do this.

We used money from fundraisers to buy about 20 - 25 M-65 field jackets in varying sizes from eBay (that's where we found the best prices).  By setting a maximum price we'd pay of something like $12 or $15, and bidding consistently we were able to acquire a closet full of field jackets.   I also solicited on CAPTalk for members selling field jackets in the same price range.

We marked them with squadron name and serial numbers, and sewed Civil Air Patrol branch tapes on.  We sewed a velcro strip over the other pocket for the nametape.  (We later had to sew on flags when they became mandatory, but at $0.80/piece, it didn't break the bank).  The jackets were now squadron property.

When new cadets join our squadron, they receive several nametapes as part of their initial kit.  One they size and affix to a strip of velcro.  They get issued a field jacket when we issue them their BDUs, boots, and other gear and they simply slap their velcro'ed nametape on and pin on their grade insignia.  If they need a different size, leave the unit, or whatever - they just swap out the velcro nametape.

We have "CADET" nametags and nametapes on hand so even the newest members can be in complete 39-1 compliance while awaiting their customized pieces to arrive.

The whole process of buying, sewing and acquiring took only a couple of days spaced out over a month or so.  It didn't use even 20% of our fundraised money from that year, so it wasn't a detriment to the activities and other things we do.   It was not complicated, and now our squadron has about 25 field jackets.  We'll have them indefinitely and can use them over and over again, winter after winter.   Maybe in spring or summer when things settle down, we'll do the same process (minus all the sewing!) for lightweight blues jackets.

Would you be willing to mandate this in the regs.  I.e. "Squadron commanders will ensure that all cadets recieve a BDU field jacket free of charge.  No other outwear will be authorized."

I've got no problem with this - nor in relieving any squadron CC who doesn't comply.  But I'm a hardass.

My guess is that this would go over like a lead balloon. Folks would either ignore it (like they do today) or just quit.   But unless you mandate it, and hold someone responsible, you can't expect it to happen.


What you have done is truly exceptional - and my hat is off to you. 

But it isn't the norm.  Many units have no relationship with nearby military units, no access to DRMO, and aren't made up of members willing to do the amount of fundraising neccessary.  Nor adequate storage space to store squadron-owned uniforms.

We can either accept that most cadets will wear civilian outerwear illegally (like today) or figure out an honest compromise.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: MIKE on December 06, 2007, 07:15:33 PM
All-weather coats would be better since they are more water repellent than an M-65, can be worn with service uniforms and the BDU, and only require metal insignia or epaulet sleeves.  No tapes or patches to sew on anymore.  Would be fine "in garrison."  If you are gonna actively be in the field, then you are probably gonna want a "Field" jacket or ECWCS parka.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on December 06, 2007, 07:27:43 PM
Quote from: MIKE on December 06, 2007, 07:15:33 PM
All-weather coats would be better since they are more water repellent than an M-65, can be worn with service uniforms and the BDU, and only require metal insignia or epaulet sleeves.  No tapes or patches to sew on anymore.  Would be fine "in garrison."  If you are gonna actively be in the field, then you are probably gonna want a "Field" jacket or ECWCS parka.

The problem is all-weather coats are $80 new and not as available on the thrift store market (since only the AF uses blue ones).
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on December 06, 2007, 10:11:27 PM
MCSS just dropped the prices on the BDU pattern Gortex jackets.  They are around $97.45 now.  I say give it a year and Gortex in that pattern will show up at DRMO and surplus like crazy when the ABU pattern gortex hits all AF units.  I am comfortable in gortex, but I am only in PA.....not as far north as Pylon, or others so I am not sure if they will work out. 

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on December 06, 2007, 10:30:09 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on December 06, 2007, 06:12:27 PM
But it isn't the norm.  Many units have no relationship with nearby military units, no access to DRMO...

>All< units have access to DRMO. Talk up the chain to you Wing LG. 

I'm not saying there's a DRMO depot in every back yard, but I would bet most have one within a reasonable driving distance.

What's reasonable?  Several hours if they have what you need, like say, modern computers with flat screens, notebooks, and uniform items.

As to the rest, I wouldn't be in favor of any kind of unfunded mandate to make units provide uniform items, but eBay and Surplus outlets are open to anyone.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JayT on December 06, 2007, 10:33:34 PM
I honestly can't believe some of you guys want to create ANOTHER jacket for the corporate uniform.

Get real.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BrianH76 on December 07, 2007, 12:14:04 AM
Is the NHQ Uniform Committee going to be a standing committee, or an ad hoc committee that will disband when this process is complete?  Will there be a future way for members to recommend uniform changes and comment on proposed uniform changes?  How does the committee plan to communicate to the membership regarding any possible changes to the uniform made during this process and receive feedback from the entire membership.  This forum is great, but there are tens of thousands of CAP members, and they likely all don't visit here.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 07, 2007, 01:15:32 AM
Quote from: BrianH76 on December 07, 2007, 12:14:04 AM
Is the NHQ Uniform Committee going to be a standing committee, or an ad hoc committee that will disband when this process is complete?  Will there be a future way for members to recommend uniform changes and comment on proposed uniform changes?  How does the committee plan to communicate to the membership regarding any possible changes to the uniform made during this process and receive feedback from the entire membership.  This forum is great, but there are tens of thousands of CAP members, and they likely all don't visit here.

All of his will be up to NHQ. We are willing to serve on the committee as long as we are welcome to do so. There are plans in the works to communicate wider to the membership so stay tuned for that. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Al Sayre on December 07, 2007, 01:59:32 AM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 06, 2007, 07:27:43 PM
Quote from: MIKE on December 06, 2007, 07:15:33 PM
All-weather coats would be better since they are more water repellent than an M-65, can be worn with service uniforms and the BDU, and only require metal insignia or epaulet sleeves.  No tapes or patches to sew on anymore.  Would be fine "in garrison."  If you are gonna actively be in the field, then you are probably gonna want a "Field" jacket or ECWCS parka.

The problem is all-weather coats are $80 new and not as available on the thrift store market (since only the AF uses blue ones).

There are quite a few available on the web for around $20.00-$30.00  Wardens Supply is where I got mine.  http://www.wardenssupplyco.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_25&products_id=399
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: MIKE on December 07, 2007, 02:07:48 AM
^ Those ain't AF All-weather coats.  They're black for one thing.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on December 07, 2007, 04:51:46 AM
Quote from: MIKE on December 07, 2007, 02:07:48 AM
^ Those ain't AF All-weather coats.  They're black for one thing.

They're Army and they're old style.  The single breasted jacket gave way to the double breasted trench coat style about 15 years ago.  I think the Army went to double breasted about the same time.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Al Sayre on December 07, 2007, 12:08:47 PM
D'oh I didn't read the description... Just saw "All Weather Coat's" and assumed they were the same one's I bought last year.  I got 3 USAF ones from them last year for $20.00 each for my family.  Warden's still has some pretty good deals, but you need to check their site regularly since they generally don't last long. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on December 07, 2007, 02:06:45 PM
Quote from: JThemann on December 06, 2007, 10:33:34 PM
I honestly can't believe some of you guys want to create ANOTHER jacket for the corporate uniform.

Get real.

It's incredibly real.  The idea is to save cost and increase uniformity, remember?  Right now there is NO legal uniform coat for the BBDU at all - your only choice is civilian outerwear which completley negates the advantages of having a uniform in the first place.

If you had a single coat that cost less the $35 (with patches), that could be worn with the TPU shirt, white and greys, Blue Field and Utility, and Golf shirt, you'd be saving serious cash AND making us actually look more uniform.

Seems like a no brainer to me.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jimmydeanno on December 07, 2007, 02:12:50 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on December 07, 2007, 02:06:45 PM
Quote from: JThemann on December 06, 2007, 10:33:34 PM
I honestly can't believe some of you guys want to create ANOTHER jacket for the corporate uniform.

Get real.

It's incredibly real.  The idea is to save cost and increase uniformity, remember?  Right now there is NO legal uniform coat for the BBDU at all - your only choice is civilian outerwear which completley negates the advantages of having a uniform in the first place.

If you had a single coat that cost less the $35 (with patches), that could be worn with the TPU shirt, white and greys, Blue Field and Utility, and Golf shirt, you'd be saving serious cash AND making us actually look more uniform.

Seems like a no brainer to me.

There is a jacket authorized for the BBDU
Quote from: CAPM 39-1 table 4-7, outerwear
A dark blue field jacket is available and authorized for wear. If worn, the same accouterments worn on the field uniform shirt will be worn.

It is the same style as the M-65 field jacket.  It looks good and it is already authorized.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BrianH76 on December 07, 2007, 02:40:05 PM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on December 07, 2007, 02:12:50 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on December 07, 2007, 02:06:45 PM
Quote from: JThemann on December 06, 2007, 10:33:34 PM
I honestly can't believe some of you guys want to create ANOTHER jacket for the corporate uniform.

Get real.

It's incredibly real.  The idea is to save cost and increase uniformity, remember?  Right now there is NO legal uniform coat for the BBDU at all - your only choice is civilian outerwear which completley negates the advantages of having a uniform in the first place.

If you had a single coat that cost less the $35 (with patches), that could be worn with the TPU shirt, white and greys, Blue Field and Utility, and Golf shirt, you'd be saving serious cash AND making us actually look more uniform.

Seems like a no brainer to me.

There is a jacket authorized for the BBDU
Quote from: CAPM 39-1 table 4-7, outerwear
A dark blue field jacket is available and authorized for wear. If worn, the same accouterments worn on the field uniform shirt will be worn.

It is the same style as the M-65 field jacket.  It looks good and it is already authorized.

If you're looking for a universal coat to be worn with the corporate uniform, the black overcoat would be a good idea.  It could be worn with everything from Corporate Service Dress to the BBDU's, similar to current regs for the AF double breasted coat (it can be worn with everything from mess dress to BDU's).  I don't know how practical it would be for SAR missions and field work, but it would be a universal coat for all uniforms. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on December 07, 2007, 03:17:01 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 05, 2007, 03:07:17 PM
Could I take a moment to review what we have so far?

1.  AF Blues:

- No change likely on weight requirements.
- Switch from gray to blue epaulet sleeves, with "CAP" identified.

2.  TPU:

- Switch from silver braid to same blue as on AF coat.
- Lose silver chinstrap from flying saucer cap.
- Switch from hard rank to blue epaulet sleeve, same as AF coat.
- Shirt to have same blue epaulet with "CAP."
- "CAP" lapel brass to remain.
- Allow neatly-trimmed beards, but NOT long hair.
- Not resolved:  wear of military ribbons and badges... Same rules as on AF coat?

3.  White and Grays:

- History.

4.  Flight Suits:

- Retain dual flight suits, sage green and dark blue.
- Sew-on bright rank for both shoulders.
- Sage green background for AF flight suit, dark blue for blue flight suit.
- Not resolved:  embroidered name badges?

5.  BDU's:

- Retain BDU for time being.
- Introduce ABU on a schedule driven by the AF logistical chain.
- No change to BDU during phase-out period.
- Retain blue BDU for the fats and fuzzies.
- Switch to dark blue nametapes and rank background for BBDU.
- Unresolved:  Dark blue or sage green background for ABU tapes and rank?

6.  Golf Shirt:

- Retain as a casual uniform.
- Switch to khaki trousers (Is this correct, or unresolved?)
- Establish a single authorized golf shirt.

7.  Blazer Uniform:

- Retain for IACE and as an alternate dress uniform.
- Switch to khaki trousers (Again, was this resolved?)

Does this summarize what has been discussed and decided, or do I have something wrong?



So we all don't have to read back to page 24 to catch up. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on December 07, 2007, 04:05:41 PM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on December 07, 2007, 02:12:50 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on December 07, 2007, 02:06:45 PM
Quote from: JThemann on December 06, 2007, 10:33:34 PM
I honestly can't believe some of you guys want to create ANOTHER jacket for the corporate uniform.

Get real.

It's incredibly real.  The idea is to save cost and increase uniformity, remember?  Right now there is NO legal uniform coat for the BBDU at all - your only choice is civilian outerwear which completley negates the advantages of having a uniform in the first place.

If you had a single coat that cost less the $35 (with patches), that could be worn with the TPU shirt, white and greys, Blue Field and Utility, and Golf shirt, you'd be saving serious cash AND making us actually look more uniform.

Seems like a no brainer to me.

There is a jacket authorized for the BBDU
Quote from: CAPM 39-1 table 4-7, outerwear
A dark blue field jacket is available and authorized for wear. If worn, the same accouterments worn on the field uniform shirt will be worn.

It is the same style as the M-65 field jacket.  It looks good and it is already authorized.

I missed that - good catch.  OK, so if I wear corporate suits and I want to be "in uniform" when it's cold, I need

1.  A blue flight jacket (about $45 without patches) for the flight wear and golf shirt
2.  A black army windbreaker (about $80 without grade insignia) for the TPU shirt
3.  A blue M-65 (about $55 without patches)

Total cost - around $180 plus 25 or so for insignia.  Let's call it $200  (This cost is why we don't mandate outergear - we're afraid of the revolt if we make people spend that much).

Or. we could mandate at least a  black windbreaker with insignia for about $45 that's wearable with everything.  All those cool flight jackets and field coats could still be authorized for wear, but at least we'd have a low cost jacket we could mandate to improve our corporate appearance.

If anyone remembers the old ultramarine blue windbreaker the bookstore sold, many folks adopted that as the unofficial "CAP multi uniform coat."  We could do something similar and make it official, at least for corporate suits.


Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jimmydeanno on December 07, 2007, 04:16:47 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on December 07, 2007, 04:05:41 PM
If anyone remembers the old ultramarine blue windbreaker the bookstore sold, many folks adopted that as the unofficial "CAP multi uniform coat."  We could do something similar and make it official, at least for corporate suits.

This one?
(http://www.vanguardmil.com/store/images/medium/CAP5100_MED.jpg)

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on December 07, 2007, 04:25:03 PM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on December 07, 2007, 04:16:47 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on December 07, 2007, 04:05:41 PM
If anyone remembers the old ultramarine blue windbreaker the bookstore sold, many folks adopted that as the unofficial "CAP multi uniform coat."  We could do something similar and make it official, at least for corporate suits.

This one?
(http://www.vanguardmil.com/store/images/medium/CAP5100_MED.jpg)



Exactly.  Just make it a little longer (to cover the BDU shirt tails) and make it black or blue (probably black, to match the leather A2 and the TPU overgarments).  Don't make it specifically a CAP item with the seal on it - just have folks sew/velcro the leather nametag and command patch. You can get coaches style windbreakers (with traditional collar vs knit collar) for around $30.

Then you've got a uniform

1. Everyone looks the same.
2. It would let the public know the wearer is in CAP
3. It woudl display name and grade.

Pretty much checks all the blocks.  And it could be cheap.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BrianH76 on December 07, 2007, 06:08:30 PM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on December 07, 2007, 04:16:47 PM
This one?
(http://www.vanguardmil.com/store/images/medium/CAP5100_MED.jpg)

The idea of an all-purpose coat for the corporate and CAP distinctive uniforms is an excellent idea.  This jacket costs $40 at Vanguard.  Judging from the close-up, it's about $30 overpriced and couldn't be worn at any temp colder than the mid 60s. 

How about the blue M-65 field jacket?  Without the patches, it would look good enough with the blues, but be rugged enough for field work in the BBDUs.  Plus, it would actually keep you warm, especially with the optional liner.  Maybe a leather flightcrew patch for ID?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on December 07, 2007, 06:29:41 PM
A cheap outer shell still allows for layering underneath.  Plus, if you went with a standard commercial design, folks who wanted to could buy thicker ones.  And by using black rather than blue, you'd have little shade variation amongst manufacturers.

The blue M-65 is another good idea.  It's a little pricier, and really doesn't go well with the TPU shirt (it's kind of a field item).  But it's fine the blue flight suit - when you have it on, you look just like you're in BBDUs.  It would be fine with the golf shirt as well.  Plus, I've already got one. ;D   And by limiting the insignia to a leather nametag and command patch (shades of McPeake!) you shave $10 or so off the total cost.

Either would work.  But in the interest of affordability, I think a nylon shell is the better deal for a mandatory, minimum uniform outer garment.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on December 07, 2007, 06:39:03 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on December 07, 2007, 04:05:41 PM
Total cost - around $180 plus 25 or so for insignia.  Let's call it $200  (This cost is why we don't mandate outergear - we're afraid of the revolt if we make people spend that much).

Or. we could mandate at least a  black windbreaker with insignia for about $45 that's wearable with everything.  All those cool flight jackets and field coats could still be authorized for wear, but at least we'd have a low cost jacket we could mandate to improve our corporate appearance.

If anyone remembers the old ultramarine blue windbreaker the bookstore sold, many folks adopted that as the unofficial "CAP multi uniform coat."  We could do something similar and make it official, at least for corporate suits.

Or you could just not wear a uniform that has a prescribed jacket and wear whatever you want....
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BrianH76 on December 07, 2007, 06:40:39 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on December 07, 2007, 06:29:41 PM
A cheap outer shell still allows for layering underneath.  Plus, if you went with a standard commercial design, folks who wanted to could buy thicker ones.  And by using black rather than blue, you'd have little shade variation amongst manufacturers.

The blue M-65 is another good idea.  It's a little pricier, and really doesn't go well with the TPU shirt (it's kind of a field item).  But it's fine the blue flight suit - when you have it on, you look just like you're in BBDUs.  It would be fine with the golf shirt as well.  Plus, I've already got one. ;D   And by limiting the insignia to a leather nametag and command patch (shades of McPeake!) you shave $10 or so off the total cost.

Either would work.  But in the interest of affordability, I think a nylon shell is the better deal for a mandatory, minimum uniform outer garment.


I think the suggestion is good, but the jacket looks really cheap.  I don't know that it would project the best image for CAP.  The blue field jacket is a "top of my head" suggestion, and the first decent idea I thought of.  It's already authorized, easily procurable, and not too expensive.  I've seen it worn with service-type uniforms and it looks fairly decent.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on December 07, 2007, 06:41:20 PM
Quote from: BrianH76 on December 07, 2007, 06:08:30 PM
How about the blue M-65 field jacket?  Without the patches, it would look good enough with the blues, but be rugged enough for field work in the BBDUs.  Plus, it would actually keep you warm, especially with the optional liner.  Maybe a leather flightcrew patch for ID?

The M65 with velcro insignia would be an excellent choice - could be worn over any Distinctive uniform, and just put the patches on when its on the BBDU - I think I might do just that.

I also know a few people who bought black M65's and just have no insignia - properly cared for the actually look pretty nice and are could to most sub-arctic temps.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on December 07, 2007, 08:49:52 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 07, 2007, 06:39:03 PM
Or you could just not wear a uniform that has a prescribed jacket and wear whatever you want....

Exactly. But that kind of eliminates the whole concept of "uniform" doesn't it.

Nahh, if the goal is to look uniform, the key is what folks can see.  Not what's underneath.  And it would help to find a way to do it without breaking the bank.

In the same way that the golf shirt is kind of the "minimum uniform" for new members because it's cheap, it would help to have a "minimum jacket."  Folks can still trade up.  But the Green Bay Packers coat has got to go!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: billford1 on December 08, 2007, 10:25:21 PM
For the Golf Shirt uniform I think it's fine like it is. If the gray slacks aren't all the same shade that should be a lesser consideration. Khaki slacks would add yet a new look to the mix. How long would the phase out of gray slacks last? Adding another purchase requirement for Khakis would be a hard sell for some in the senior crowd who want to continue to contribute their work to CAP without additional burden. Many of the golf shirt crowd are dealing with financial hardships already. The noticeable part of this uniform is the golf shirt itself. Besides if khakis are applied also to the Blazer uniform I think you'd have even more resistance to the khaki changeover.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on December 08, 2007, 11:36:21 PM
No one has yet answered my point about there being just as many shades of "khaki" as there are of gray. 

Seems to me that the uniform committee is already going after a whole lot of fairly important changes and that the pants worn with the golf shirt are a fairly minor issue. 

In my non-CAP regulation setting experience when you're asking for big things, try to limit your proposal to just those big things.  The more minor things you try to lump in the proposal the bigger chance that the people you're proposing it too will just toss the whole thing out as being too complicated.  That, or one of them will get fixated on one of the minor recommendations and it will throw the whole thing off track. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 08, 2007, 11:57:25 PM
The khaki pants isn't a USAF issue. Strictly a CAP one. While there are various shades of khaki out there, they are closer to eachother than shades of gray. When you tell someone khaki, MOST are thinking of the same shade.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on December 09, 2007, 01:24:43 AM
Never said it was an AF issue.  You have to convince an awful lot of CAP people to vote for it.  As I said, I've got at least 4 shades of khaki pants in my closet right now that look as different as any 4 pairs of gray pants you're likely to see at a CAP meeting.

To me this falls into the "change for the sake of change" category.  Leave well enough alone. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: dogden on December 09, 2007, 03:02:10 AM
I like the idea of the khaki pants, I have seen quite a few folks in my area wearing grey denim. I see less khaki denim in the stores than grey so that would limit the problems around here with the denim. If you say khaki pants most people know you mean slacks not denim anyways.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JC004 on December 09, 2007, 04:46:15 AM
30 pages?!   :o
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on December 09, 2007, 08:25:27 AM
Quote from: JC004 on December 09, 2007, 04:46:15 AM
30 pages?!   :o

And still going!  ;D
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on December 09, 2007, 01:02:47 PM
It don't surprise me.

This is ONE opportunity to have your voice heard in the otherwise-soundproofed halls of Maxwell.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on December 09, 2007, 01:24:43 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 09, 2007, 01:02:47 PM
It don't surprise me.

This is ONE opportunity to have your voice heard in the otherwise-soundproofed halls of Maxwell.

Nahhh... that should be 'Max-hell'! ;D
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RogueLeader on December 09, 2007, 04:21:43 PM
topic anybody. . . .

I like the idea of going to khaki.  Even if i don't plan on wearing them anytime soon.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DrJbdm on December 09, 2007, 05:35:50 PM
Khaki presents a much cleaner, more professional image with a polo shirt then gray does.  Most Law Enforcement Agencies that have a polo shirt authorized for wear will mandate khaki pants and I have yet to see a problem of different shades. I have been to MANY MANY in-service classes and have seen khakis worn with lots of Dept polo shirts and have never seen an issue. it looks very professional, beats the Gray pants thing hands down.


   Some times, a professional image is more important then trying to go on the cheap. It's more important that we look good then try to save money by going to a cheaper, less professional looking item. Image is everything, it's all we have.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on December 09, 2007, 05:38:18 PM
I'd bet that those police departments probably require that the pants be purchased from a specific supplier, hence they all look the same.  That is not what we're talking about here. 

Khaki pants and the white aviatior shirt too?  I'm no fashion guru, but that would look sort of stupid.  Or are we going to keep gray pants with them?   
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: cnitas on December 09, 2007, 05:46:14 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 09, 2007, 05:38:18 PM
Khaki pants and the white aviatior shirt too?  I'm no fashion guru, but that would look sort of stupid.  Or are we going to keep gray pants with them?   

I think the idea is to eliminate the grays and make blue-white aviator the single corp uniform, and then allow polo with khakis for instances where a 'civillian' uniform is desired.

At least that is how I would do it...
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on December 09, 2007, 07:02:41 PM
If CAP could come up with a specification for a particular khaki trouser type (say, flat front, straight leg, cotton/poplin blend, for example) and either authorized it for sale through Vanguard or other suppliers you'd get some uniformity there. The shade may vary slightly between batches but that's a given with khaki trousers.

What about Navy-style wash khaki trousers? (Not CNT - Certified Navy Twill, since that's polyester.) Would the Squiddies have kitties if we borrowed their khaki trousers?  ;D
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on December 09, 2007, 07:38:29 PM
That is exactly what needs to be done.  I personally don't care whether they are khaki or gray, but I just find the assumption that requiring people to switch to just "khaki" will significantly reduce the number of color variations we would see with these uniforms to be ludicrous.  Either require a specific brand, color, and style (and not allow any others to be worn) or don't even bother. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 09, 2007, 07:38:57 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 09, 2007, 05:38:18 PM
I'd bet that those police departments probably require that the pants be purchased from a specific supplier, hence they all look the same.  That is not what we're talking about here. 

Khaki pants and the white aviatior shirt too?  I'm no fashion guru, but that would look sort of stupid.  Or are we going to keep gray pants with them?   

As a police officer, we wear the polo/khaki combos a lot. There is no mandate on the pants. Everyone is told khaki and everyone comes up with the right thing. Amazing how that works.

The White/Gray combo would be eliminated completely
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on December 09, 2007, 07:45:59 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on December 09, 2007, 07:38:57 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 09, 2007, 05:38:18 PM
I'd bet that those police departments probably require that the pants be purchased from a specific supplier, hence they all look the same.  That is not what we're talking about here. 

Khaki pants and the white aviatior shirt too?  I'm no fashion guru, but that would look sort of stupid.  Or are we going to keep gray pants with them?   

As a police officer, we wear the polo/khaki combos a lot. There is no mandate on the pants. Everyone is told khaki and everyone comes up with the right thing. Amazing how that works.

The White/Gray combo would be eliminated completely

YES!  Khaki at last! 

My favorite color is khaki, I do suggest that you allow khaki cargo pants.  They could serve a purpose.  But if no, no big deal. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on December 09, 2007, 08:54:44 PM
I'm not sure if you guys know this, but Big Mother Blue also has a dark blue polo shirt with khaki pants as a casual uniform.

Mostly it is worn by recruiters.

I don't think we would need to get permission of the AF to use it, though, since we had a polo shirt uniform long before they did.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on December 09, 2007, 11:19:03 PM
Two things....

1) The wht/gray on OD/sage tapes/grade turned out great. I'd add those OD back full-clr cloth grade for the grn flt suit. Transition: can just be an option & stop making the plastic encased, so will migrate on its own.

2) I got a real big problem with the golf shirt combo... hear me out on this.

As a civilian, I wear a polo/khakis all the time. It'd be perfectly fine in a civilian office on casual Friday. What I'm NOT okay with is using it as an all-purpose "uniform."

I do understand LE/FD/EMTs/etc have polo combos. They wear those for in-house training, or when in the field it's worn either with tac gear (pistol belt, EMT pants, etc) or at least they'll be rolling up in a big honkin fire truck/police car/ambulance. They don't have to work as hard to look official/professional/competent, because they ARE official/professional/competent, AND everything else about them (car/gear/fitness/etc) present an image that fits the mold.

CAP... we're going to be rolling up in a non-descript van/POV or flying an ordinary looking Cessna. We're going to be in a variety of uniforms (even if we boil this down a bit). And, here's the big one... we're going to have very old folks, kids, very out of shape people, folks with pony tails/beards/whatever, some very smart and some very dumb folks. CAP doesn't really have membership standards to speak of, and doesn't have intense training that knocks out people that can't hack it. In contrast to the emergency responders above, everything about else us excluding the uniform does NOT fit the mold.

So here's me over here running a mission.... I got this lady freakin out in the next room about her lost husband talking about calling her congressman cause all the govt is willing to do is send the keystone cops over here.

Here's me showing up at a joint agency or military function looking like it's open-house/family day back at the unit.

Here's me coming to a Gp/Wg training event/school looking like I'm here to hang out & catch the game instead of undergo an epiphany of professional & leadership/mgmt education, and more than likely behaving like the cloths I'm wearing.

What we need to do in CAP is present a facade of absolutely unquestionable (by our target audiences or anyone else) officialdom, professionalism, and competence. I need our "customers" (target audience) to look at my crew and feel a trust that causes them to call me for missions, and then to have complete faith that I can get the job done as well or better than any other agency in the country. I don't need to have a 20min conversation with a cop at 3am about why I need to access this property.


What I'm saying is simply much stricter wear rules about when the polo combo is appropriate, and if we can't agree on or stick to those, then do away with it all together.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DrJbdm on December 10, 2007, 05:25:36 AM
 I agree with everything you had to say Dennis,  seems some people in CAP or maybe just CAP leadership in general just can not get behind the concept that Perception is reality! Our Image is everthing! it's all we have, we have nothing else.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on December 10, 2007, 08:33:45 AM
I don't know that you can fault anyone exactly. It really boils down to membership standards. We're at odds as an organization about being as inclusive as humanly possible, but then want to be looked at/treated/tasked as professional emer respdrs/air force/SaR teams/etc. The two things simply cannot co-exist. That's a huge and seperate internal issue.

In lieu of that, I think if we can look and somewhat act the part, then things will fall better into place. At that point, it'll be much more obvious that the real limiting factor is our people, and we'll know what we have to do if we want to really be a player and make a difference in the world. Now, maybe that's true & maybe it's not, but at very least it takes a major distraction off the table.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on December 10, 2007, 02:53:35 PM
1.  I've got 3 different shades of khaki in my closet right now.

2.  If the goal is to allow dockers, it is much easier to find khaki dockers than grey ones.

3.  The golf shirt is problematic because it doesn't have a USAF equivalent.  Everything you can do in the golf shirt, you can do in some other uniform.   It's kind of the "I want to be in CAP but I want to avoid the whole military thing" uniform.  I personally would like to see it banned from flying and operational missions, and relegated to wearing only at times when casual civilian clothing would be authorized.

4.  Barring that, if it's gonna be uniform, it needs to be tightened up.  Only one style of pants (make a decision on things like cargo pockets, pleats, etc).  Consider adding grade - what kind of uniform doesn't display grade?  It could be emboidered as part of your name.  At least put in a specific list of when it's appropriate and when it's not.

5.  And (back on my high horse) prescribe outer wear.  If it's hidden under a denim jacket or college parka, it's not serving any purpose as a uniform at all.


Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on December 10, 2007, 04:00:44 PM
Worrying about (literally) shades of gray is biting off on a flare.  Anyone who's looked at a group of people in uniform is going to see differences in coloration. 

Your average set of BDU's will fade two or three shades before becoming out of tolerance - and some will wear them beyond that.  WWII GI's wore uniforms that ran the ran the whole khaki or olive spectrum.

There should be a few ground rules (cargo pockets or not, etc) but otherwise I wouldn't sweat it.

The question shouldn't be if the grays look alike, but if they can be made more like the other uniforms worn at events, or excluded from those events.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Stonewall on December 10, 2007, 04:43:49 PM
I agree with DNall above.  Even though I've posted several times about the standardization of the polo/khaki combo, it's only a desire to standardize it if it does in fact continue to be a "uniform option".  I'd rather not have it as an option, except maybe to patron members or whatever those catagories are.

Again, if the polo combo is to be optional, I want that option standardized.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Trung Si Ma on December 10, 2007, 04:44:30 PM
I notice the great disdain that members of this board seem to hold for the corporate uniforms in general and the golf shirt in particular.  It seems that if you decide to wear a corporate uniform, it is a consensus opinion that you are "fat or fuzzy" and if you wear a golf shirt you are, somehow, "unprofessional" or a "keystone cop".  Funny, 39-1, para 4-1 doesn't say you have to be fat or fuzzy to wear a corporate uniform.

It seems to me that there are about 20 – 30 golf shirt hating regulars on this board that are quite vocal in their denouncement of this uniform.  That's what – less than .01% of all of CAP-dom?  Every time I go to a CAP event as I travel around the country it seems that there are more people than that IN the golf shirt.

I spent 20+ years in the Army and have been in CAP since 1969 and I am not going to wear a military style uniform.  That doesn't seem to hinder my ability to interact with cadets nor their desire to attend the classes that I teach or to come to me for counseling and advice.  It also doesn't seem to bother my wing commander, nor prevent him from tasking me to do investigations or help other units.

I'm also not going to spend the money chasing every new uniform pronouncement that comes from higher headquarters.  Particularly when it will change again shortly – and probably back to the way it was originally within two or three cycles.  The only thing that has changed or will change on my golf shirt uniform is if I decide to change from basic pilot wings to senior pilot wings at some point.

I've talked to members who say that they'll quit CAP if you take away their uniform or the military style grade and title that they've "earned".  Seen some of them post on this very board and they are welcome to their opinion.  Their opinionisn't changing mine.

Wonder how many of us will be lost if you try and force us into a uniform?  This pilot would start flying young eagles instead of CAP cadets.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: davedove on December 10, 2007, 04:47:46 PM
Quote from: Trung Si Ma on December 10, 2007, 04:44:30 PM
I notice the great disdain that members of this board seem to hold for the corporate uniforms in general and the golf shirt in particular.  It seems that if you decide to wear a corporate uniform, it is a consensus opinion that you are "fat or fuzzy" and if you wear a golf shirt you are, somehow, "unprofessional" or a "keystone cop".  Funny, 39-1, para 4-1 doesn't say you have to be fat or fuzzy to wear a corporate uniform.

That's a very good point.  Whether or not some folks want to believe it, there are some people who are neither "fat" nor "fuzzy" who CHOOSE to wear the corporate uniforms.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on December 10, 2007, 05:16:33 PM
I'm one of them.  20+ years in the Army, and still going.  I wear BBDUs and utility uniforms almost exclusively for all kinds of reasons.

The golf shirt is the odd duck because it's so different.  Which kind of gets in the way of the concept of the "uniform."  It's not uniform unless everyone wears it. Or at the very least, it ought to blend well with the other uniforms word for the same purpose at the same activity.

I'm into uniformity.  I think it helps an organization in so many ways.  I really don't care WHAT the uniform is - but it should be standard.  We could easily put all CAP members in golf shirts and be done with it.  In some ways, I think that would actually improve things.

But given our USAF connection, it's probably best to stick to USAF suits and corporate equivalents that blend in well.  There is no USAF counterpart to the golf shirt.  Not in their uniform manual.  Sure, some recruiters wear some variation, and I've seen various unofficial "squadron shirts" - but if you go to a USAF base,  you won't see airmen in golf shirts working next to the airmen in BDUs.

We only need corporate suits because of the weight and grooming rules.  So....we only need corporate suits that to complement the USAF suits on a one for one basis. 

But you're right that some folks would be gone if we killed the golf shirt.  Probably fewer than those that threaten to leave - just like the folks who claimed they'd quite over the maroon epaulets but hung around anyway.

I wouldn't be worried about competing with the Young Eagles - you have have a plane to fly.  Not a large percentage of our members are in that situation.  As long as we've got planes, they'll line up to fly 'em.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: 0 on December 10, 2007, 06:08:42 PM
The one good thing about keeping the golf shirt combination is for mission base staff on an ES Mission in the summer time and for the Aircrews in the summer.  They are much more comfortable and easier to work in than a flight suit is during the summer.  Wearing nomex in an airplane in July and August not always the most comfortable.  And that's for someone who lives in New England I can't even begin to imagine what it's like for everyone in more temperate climates.  As far as mission base staff goes, the golf shirt combination in a way looks more working business like.  Which is good if you have to bring other people through mission base.  It's also good for a mission base staff that is part of a joint command staff on a mission.  Most of the orginization we work with usually dress in something similiar to that. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 10, 2007, 07:30:26 PM
Quote from: Trung Si Ma on December 10, 2007, 04:44:30 PM
I notice the great disdain that members of this board seem to hold for the corporate uniforms in general and the golf shirt in particular.  It seems that if you decide to wear a corporate uniform, it is a consensus opinion that you are "fat or fuzzy" and if you wear a golf shirt you are, somehow, "unprofessional" or a "keystone cop".  Funny, 39-1, para 4-1 doesn't say you have to be fat or fuzzy to wear a corporate uniform.

It seems to me that there are about 20 – 30 golf shirt hating regulars on this board that are quite vocal in their denouncement of this uniform.  That's what – less than .01% of all of CAP-dom?  Every time I go to a CAP event as I travel around the country it seems that there are more people than that IN the golf shirt.

I spent 20+ years in the Army and have been in CAP since 1969 and I am not going to wear a military style uniform.  That doesn't seem to hinder my ability to interact with cadets nor their desire to attend the classes that I teach or to come to me for counseling and advice.  It also doesn't seem to bother my wing commander, nor prevent him from tasking me to do investigations or help other units.

I'm also not going to spend the money chasing every new uniform pronouncement that comes from higher headquarters.  Particularly when it will change again shortly – and probably back to the way it was originally within two or three cycles.  The only thing that has changed or will change on my golf shirt uniform is if I decide to change from basic pilot wings to senior pilot wings at some point.

I've talked to members who say that they'll quit CAP if you take away their uniform or the military style grade and title that they've "earned".  Seen some of them post on this very board and they are welcome to their opinion.  Their opinionisn't changing mine.

Wonder how many of us will be lost if you try and force us into a uniform?  This pilot would start flying young eagles instead of CAP cadets.


I can assure you that the uniform committee has no disdain for the corp combos. We have a desire to upgrade the look to increase the professional appearance of them and align the service uniforms better so they resemble the same organization. Personally, I dont care what which combo a member chooses to wear as long as it presents a professional image and is appropriate to the activity/duty.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: 0 on December 10, 2007, 07:41:48 PM
Col. White I'm not sure if this has been sugested yet.  But if I read your meaning corectly to make our service uniforms more in line with the AF for the blues I have an idea that could work.  No more grey slides metal grade.  On the epulets of the service dress we also pin on the CAP metal cutouts just like is done on the Corprate unforms windbreaker.  And for the blues shirts we wear the AF officer slides with CAP cutouts pined on to them. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on December 10, 2007, 07:51:08 PM
Quote from: NERMA002 Safety on December 10, 2007, 06:08:42 PM
The one good thing about keeping the golf shirt combination is for mission base staff on an ES Mission in the summer time and for the Aircrews in the summer.  They are much more comfortable and easier to work in than a flight suit is during the summer.  Wearing nomex in an airplane in July and August not always the most comfortable.  And that's for someone who lives in New England I can't even begin to imagine what it's like for everyone in more temperate climates.  As far as mission base staff goes, the golf shirt combination in a way looks more working business like.  Which is good if you have to bring other people through mission base.  It's also good for a mission base staff that is part of a joint command staff on a mission.  Most of the orginization we work with usually dress in something similiar to that. 

Your first point (heat) is a good one.  But it's always a matter of degree - if a golf shirt and slacks is OK, why not a golf shirt and shorts?  That's even cooler.....and flip flops are even cooler than shoes.....

The comment about the golf shirt looking good in certain situations sounds reasonable.  No doubt, a mission staff all dressed in golf shirts would look very professional.  But we all know that's not what happens.  After all, what good does your golf shirt do CAP when the guy next to you is in BDUs, and the next guy is wearing a blue flight suit?  The value of a uniform for PR depends on what everyone is wearing - not just any single member.

If someone wanted to MANDATE the golf shirt for wear in certain situations, that would be different.  Since that would go over like a lead ballon, perhaps going with BDUs/BBDUS is better.  You can always take the shirt off when it's really hot, and then at least everyone is in the same style of uniform - just two different colors.  Fewer uniform choices = more uniformity.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Smokey on December 10, 2007, 08:04:33 PM
We do have a problem with professionalism when it comes to our appearance in uniform.

At a few SAREXs, missions and activities I've seen the following:

An IC (Lt Col) wearing the golf shirt/grey slacks with white socks, brown shoes, a multi colored sweater and a golf cap.

Golf shirt/grey stained work style pants, black belt with cowboy buckle, and black cowboy boots and the person was unshaven.

White aviator shirt, blue AF slides, grey slacks, white socks.

A scanner wearing the green flight suit (with grade insignia) with a beard and long hair.

This is not to mentions those who wear a green zoom bag that is about 5 sizes too small making them look like an overstuffed sausage, those who wear dirty or tattered uniforms, the long hair while wearing AF blues, are in need of at least a Saturday night bath, etc.

F-troop looked more professional.

Some of these same folks whine about no respect, no confidence in our abilities by the AF and others, etc.

This applies to every type of uniform. If you can't wear a clean, proper and serviceable uniform properly, how competent are you otherwise. I mean , if you have problems dressing yourself.....

Bottom line.......DOES YOUR APPEARANCE COMMAND RESPECT ??

If not....we really don't need you screwing it up for the rest  of us.


P.S. And yes I have spoken to some of these folks about their appearance.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Pylon on December 10, 2007, 08:06:44 PM
Quote from: Smokey on December 10, 2007, 08:04:33 PM
We do have a problem with professionalism when it comes to our appearance in uniform.

At a few SAREXs, missions and activities I've seen the following:

An IC (Lt Col) wearing the golf shirt/grey slacks with white socks, brown shoes, a multi colored sweater and a golf cap.

Golf shirt/grey stained work style pants, black belt with cowboy buckle, and black cowboy boots and the person was unshaven.

White aviator shirt, blue AF slides, grey slacks, white socks.

A scanner wearing the green flight suit (with grade insignia) with a beard and long hair.

This is not to mentions those who wear a green zoom bag that is about 5 sizes too small making them look like an overstuffed sausage, those who wear dirty or tattered uniforms, the long hair while wearing AF blues, are in need of at least a Saturday night bath, etc.

F-troop looked more professional.

Some of these same folks whine about no respect, no confidence in our abilities by the AF and others, etc.

This applies to every type of uniform. If you can't wear a clean, proper and serviceable uniform properly, how competent are you otherwise. I mean , if you have problems dressing yourself.....

Bottom line.......DOES YOUR APPEARANCE COMMAND RESPECT ??

If not....we really don't need you screwing it up for the rest  of us.


P.S. And yes I have spoken to some of these folks about their appearance.

This committee can't do anything about fixing that.  Why?  Because all those unprofessional behaviors are already prohibited by CAPM 39-1.  Those are all issues of enforcement by lower-than-NHQ echelons.  I don't think compliance can be any more mandated in print than it already is.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: afgeo4 on December 10, 2007, 08:10:04 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on December 10, 2007, 07:51:08 PM
Quote from: NERMA002 Safety on December 10, 2007, 06:08:42 PM
The one good thing about keeping the golf shirt combination is for mission base staff on an ES Mission in the summer time and for the Aircrews in the summer.  They are much more comfortable and easier to work in than a flight suit is during the summer.  Wearing nomex in an airplane in July and August not always the most comfortable.  And that's for someone who lives in New England I can't even begin to imagine what it's like for everyone in more temperate climates.  As far as mission base staff goes, the golf shirt combination in a way looks more working business like.  Which is good if you have to bring other people through mission base.  It's also good for a mission base staff that is part of a joint command staff on a mission.  Most of the orginization we work with usually dress in something similiar to that. 

Your first point (heat) is a good one.  But it's always a matter of degree - if a golf shirt and slacks is OK, why not a golf shirt and shorts?  That's even cooler.....and flip flops are even cooler than shoes.....

The comment about the golf shirt looking good in certain situations sounds reasonable.  No doubt, a mission staff all dressed in golf shirts would look very professional.  But we all know that's not what happens.  After all, what good does your golf shirt do CAP when the guy next to you is in BDUs, and the next guy is wearing a blue flight suit?  The value of a uniform for PR depends on what everyone is wearing - not just any single member.

If someone wanted to MANDATE the golf shirt for wear in certain situations, that would be different.  Since that would go over like a lead ballon, perhaps going with BDUs/BBDUS is better.  You can always take the shirt off when it's really hot, and then at least everyone is in the same style of uniform - just two different colors.  Fewer uniform choices = more uniformity.

Someone can mandate that. Your unit commander. A unit CC certainly may say "everyone should wear the golf shirt with gray slacks for the meeting of...." It's ok to do that. In fact, every unit I've ever seen had a Uniform of the Day as a policy. The golf shirt is inexpensive, so a member's comment of "you're making me spend money!" is baseless... it's cheaper than any and every other uniform combination out there.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: 0 on December 10, 2007, 08:12:01 PM
Quote from: Smokey on December 10, 2007, 08:04:33 PM
We do have a problem with professionalism when it comes to our appearance in uniform.

At a few SAREXs, missions and activities I've seen the following:

An IC (Lt Col) wearing the golf shirt/grey slacks with white socks, brown shoes, a multi colored sweater and a golf cap.



The two parts I highlighted have no bearing with the grey and golf shirt combo.  At least from a regualtion standpoint unless your wing has a suplement saying making it more restrictive.  But as the regulations stand now you can wear whatever sort of outer garment or head device with this combo.  Now I for one try to keep it looking inline so if I wear this style for an added layer of warmth I wear my CAP sweatshirt I got from CAPmart.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on December 10, 2007, 08:17:21 PM
Quote from: Smokey on December 10, 2007, 08:04:33 PM
We do have a problem with professionalism when it comes to our appearance in uniform.

At a few SAREXs, missions and activities I've seen the following:

An IC (Lt Col) wearing the golf shirt/grey slacks with white socks, brown shoes, a multi colored sweater and a golf cap.


Would ya believe that the sweater and golf cap were totally legal?  Strange but true....perhaps we should tighten up the regs.


Quote from: Smokey on December 10, 2007, 08:04:33 PM
Golf shirt/grey stained work style pants, black belt with cowboy buckle, and black cowboy boots and the person was unshaven.

The black cowboy boots, lack of shaving and probably the pants are all legal.  Strange but true....perhaps we should tighten up the regs.





Quote from: Smokey on December 10, 2007, 08:04:33 PM

A scanner wearing the green flight suit (with grade insignia) with a beard and long hair.....
.....the long hair while wearing AF blues...

These are wrong by the regs.  But of course, to the public there's no difference in a long haired buy in AF blues and  long haired guy in a corporate suit.  USAF may know the difference, but the public doesn't.  To them, either long hair is okay, or it's not.  What color your shirt is doesn't play into it.  (I'm not arguing in favor of long hair in USAF suits - just pointing out that the schizonphrenic nature of our policies doesn't really help us with the general public.)

Quote from: Smokey on December 10, 2007, 08:04:33 PM
Bottom line.......DOES YOUR APPEARANCE COMMAND RESPECT ??

Absolutely.  Respect for yourself, or more importantly, respect for the rest of the team/aircrew/staff/squadron you're working with.

And if we had fewer options, not only would we look more uniform, but there'd be less uniform rules to memorize, and we'd increase the chances that everyone would actually know what the rules were.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on December 10, 2007, 08:21:23 PM
Separating "improper uniform wear" for a second, because you can wear any uniform badly, the golf shirt is a problem because it's been allowed to mutate into the uniform for all seasons.

There is usually an expected niche for each uniform, most niches having both AF and corporate options.

The golf shirt is the exception.  I've seen it listed as an acceptable uniform for events that you would wear AF service or corp white/gray or white/blue uniforms.  It also can be worn as mission wear. 

Now you have a uniform that looks out of place with the office wear uniforms and out of place with the field types.  The problem isn't the golf shirt but the fact the uniform doesn't mesh with either of places it's used.

Part of the purpose of uniforms is to give us a group image as well as an individual image.  There may be a place for golf shirts, but I don't think it's either office wear or field wear.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: CAP_truth on December 10, 2007, 09:57:02 PM
Personally I feel golf shirts belong where they belong on the golf course not at meetings or mission headquarters. New media may be around a mission base and it does not look good to see members running around in golf shirts. That my opinion
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Gunner C on December 11, 2007, 12:41:08 AM
Quote from: CAP_truth on December 10, 2007, 09:57:02 PM
Personally I feel golf shirts belong where they belong on the golf course not at meetings or mission headquarters. New media may be around a mission base and it does not look good to see members running around in golf shirts. That my opinion

;D  :clap:
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BillB on December 11, 2007, 01:01:57 AM
Just a thought, wouldn't the golf shirts look more uniform is regular USAF blue pants were worn rather than several shades of grey?
Blue CAP golf shirt emboridered name and rank included
blue AF belt and buckle
blue AF pants.
This would look more like an informal uniform rather than a flying club.  And it is distintive enough as a CAP uniform rather than USAF
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on December 11, 2007, 01:29:23 AM
BACK TO Suggestions.........

Has anyone suggested the elimination of "uniform variations" at Wing and Region levels.  I know most wings and regions have their staff wearing some sort of "different" uniform than everyone else.  Whether that be a different polo shirt that says "Main Wing" and has their HQ patch on it", or a black ball cap instead of the BDU Cover with their BDU's. 

We should all (and I mean everyone) be in the same uniforms that are found in 39-1.  So I suggest that Wing and Region HQ personnel MUST wear the same uniform variations as the members they lead.  No local variation allowed.   

(Just so you know where I am coming from, in PAWG we MUST wear those orange ball caps.  However, the Wing staff wear blue ballcaps.  They also have different undershirt, different polo shirts, etc.  From speaking with members in other Wings, I hear this is common across the country.) 

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on December 11, 2007, 02:03:49 AM
Quote from: BillB on December 11, 2007, 01:01:57 AM
Just a thought, wouldn't the golf shirts look more uniform is regular USAF blue pants were worn rather than several shades of grey?
Blue CAP golf shirt emboridered name and rank included
blue AF belt and buckle
blue AF pants.
This would look more like an informal uniform rather than a flying club.  And it is distinctive enough as a CAP uniform rather than USAF

The cut of the USAF pants is not appropriate for a casual shirt, nor are they very comfortable or durable. The polyester ones snag on everything, and neither those nor the blend are machine washable.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: scooter on December 11, 2007, 03:07:57 AM
I personally like the polo shirt uniform, dont really care if the pants are grey or kakhi. Wear it most of the time except when wearing a flight suit. However, there appears to be no standardization concerning the CAP patch on the shirt. Vanguard sells the shirts with the CAP patch on both the left and right breast. Pick one side and make them all the same. Might even lower cost.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on December 11, 2007, 03:14:06 AM
Quote from: NERMA002 Safety on December 10, 2007, 07:41:48 PM
Col. White I'm not sure if this has been sugested yet.  But if I read your meaning corectly to make our service uniforms more in line with the AF for the blues I have an idea that could work.  No more grey slides metal grade.  On the epulets of the service dress we also pin on the CAP metal cutouts just like is done on the Corprate unforms windbreaker.  And for the blues shirts we wear the AF officer slides with CAP cutouts pined on to them. 

If Lt Col White hasn't already replied, here's my take:

Good idea, but the powers that be in the RealAirForce® are going to have a conniption fit of titanic proportions giving us back hard rank on USAF-style service dress, even with pinning on metal CAP cutouts on the epaulet. They'll probably tell us it's not distinctive enough. Even if we wear scapulars, hair shirts and go on our knees all the way to Canossa to beg forgiveness to His Holiness the Pope (in this case, up the chain of command to CAP-USAF and then AU and AETC), it's already been asked and already shot down in flames more than once. (The' Walk to Canossa' could be probably be done down the main drag of Randolph from the main gate to the 'Taj Mahal', though.  ;D)

We used to wear AF blue shoulder marks with CAP embroidered on them until the 'Barry Board' fiasco of the late '80s early 90s. That might fly for the corporate blues, but it's highly doubtful the RealAirForce® will give 'em back to us for wear with AF-style. Still have a pair of Oooold Style CAP blue shoulder marks ready to go.

(For those o' youse who ain't practicing Roman Catholics (weddings, baptisms and funerals for me!) here's Wikipedia's definition of the Walk to Canossa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walk_to_Canossa .
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: afgeo4 on December 11, 2007, 04:00:54 AM
Quote from: CAP_truth on December 10, 2007, 09:57:02 PM
Personally I feel golf shirts belong where they belong on the golf course not at meetings or mission headquarters. New media may be around a mission base and it does not look good to see members running around in golf shirts. That my opinion

You know what looks great to the media? People who save lives without getting paid for it. They don't care what you're wearing as long as you get the job done. Hey..! Guess what..! That's the same thing that looks good to the families for the ones lost and to the actual people who are lost and... the Air Force is cool with it too!

Look, I'm not one for super-casual corporate wear stuff, but the uniform doesn't reflect on professionalism. Lack of uniformity in appearance and actions does.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on December 11, 2007, 06:45:57 AM
Quote from: NERMA002 Safety on December 10, 2007, 06:08:42 PM
The one good thing about keeping the golf shirt combination is for mission base staff on an ES Mission in the summer time and for the Aircrews in the summer.  They are much more comfortable and easier to work in than a flight suit is during the summer.  Wearing nomex in an airplane in July and August not always the most comfortable.  And that's for someone who lives in New England I can't even begin to imagine what it's like for everyone in more temperate climates.  As far as mission base staff goes, the golf shirt combination in a way looks more working business like.  Which is good if you have to bring other people through mission base.  It's also good for a mission base staff that is part of a joint command staff on a mission.  Most of the orginization we work with usually dress in something similiar to that. 

I live in Texas, where I can assure you it gets a tad toasty now & then. I don't wear nomex on aircrew cause it looks or feels good. I wear it cause we're flying low & slow near our weight limit in bad to quickly changing denisty altitude, wind, and weather conditions, pulling high rate turns in unfamiliar territory. Flight suits are essential safety gear & I personally believe they should be mandated for mission flight duty as they already are in some wings.

As to the rest, I don't care about your comfort or if you think you can get away with business casual cause some civilian administrator from a real emergency response agency is wearing something similiar. You aren't them. You are showing up in uniform saying the Air Force sent you here.

The fact is you don't belong closer than two states away from any kind of disaster or real SaR mission unless you meet either the FEMA standards for civilian responders, or you meet the similiar military operational requirements. I don't know about you personally, but CAP as an org does neither.

When you show up there looking and acting official with the Air Force standing behind you, you're giving the implicit expectation that you meet real Air Force training & mission capable standards, at least to a national guard level. They are under the impression that the Air Force is vouching for your certification level, but if they ever call you on it you're getting sent home.

What CAP does is reinforce that misimpression by looking overly official & playing up our military ties. Those agencies in turn give us missions & then it becomes about our performance & not what training some document says we need to be able to do that job. For better or worse, that's the way it's always been.

Certainly I'm of the opinion that we need to work internally to actually meet those standards. If & when we accomplish that, then I'm still going to say we need to present an image that reinforces our links to the Air Force. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather get to the mission than spend time justifying my credentials to someone before they'll let me get started.


Anyway, I think we've pretty well covered the golf shirt issue. If I might respectfully sugest... moving back on topic.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on December 11, 2007, 04:11:03 PM
I think the golf shirt sub-discussion highlights the central disconnect of this discussion on uniforms - what are they for?

If we had some overarching goal that uniforms were trying to meet, it might be easier to decide if having golf shirts helped or hindered meeting that goal.  Unfortunately, we have many ideas on why we have uniforms but none are universally held and many of them are contradictory.

Here are just a few:

- uniforms make us closer to the AF
- uniforms ID us as CAP
- uniforms are safety gear
- uniforms will make us "more military"
- uniforms allow members to display their training and achievements
- uniforms give us an aura of professionalism and credibility with the public
- uniforms do not show who is in charge
- uniforms do not make us military
- uniforms are a training tool for Cadets

There are probably more that I missed, but I believe I made the point.  Again, we come down to the question of what is the mission and how can uniforms aid us in meeting the mission.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Trung Si Ma on December 11, 2007, 04:14:11 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 11, 2007, 04:11:03 PM
...we come down to the question of what is the mission and how can uniforms aid us in meeting the mission.

This is the real question that has to be asked.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 11, 2007, 04:27:09 PM
Quote from: Trung Si Ma on December 11, 2007, 04:14:11 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 11, 2007, 04:11:03 PM
...we come down to the question of what is the mission and how can uniforms aid us in meeting the mission.

This is the real question that has to be asked.

They do promote unity, teamwork, and esprit de corps
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on December 11, 2007, 05:10:15 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on December 11, 2007, 04:27:09 PM
Quote from: Trung Si Ma on December 11, 2007, 04:14:11 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 11, 2007, 04:11:03 PM
...we come down to the question of what is the mission and how can uniforms aid us in meeting the mission.

This is the real question that has to be asked.

They do promote unity, teamwork, and esprit de corps

No, they _can_ promote those things if applied correctly.  Considering the friction b/w the fit, the fat and the fuzzy, it isn't automatic.  The tug of war b/w "we have to look like the Junior Air Force" and "no chubby left behind" seems to cause a lot of hard feelings.

Whatever path we take, including doing nothing, may lead to people leaving the org.  Understanding the mission would give us a better idea of what members of CAP to we need to accommodate to meet mission goals.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 11, 2007, 07:18:24 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 11, 2007, 05:10:15 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on December 11, 2007, 04:27:09 PM
Quote from: Trung Si Ma on December 11, 2007, 04:14:11 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 11, 2007, 04:11:03 PM
...we come down to the question of what is the mission and how can uniforms aid us in meeting the mission.

This is the real question that has to be asked.

They do promote unity, teamwork, and esprit de corps

No, they _can_ promote those things if applied correctly.  Considering the friction b/w the fit, the fat and the fuzzy, it isn't automatic.  The tug of war b/w "we have to look like the Junior Air Force" and "no chubby left behind" seems to cause a lot of hard feelings.

Whatever path we take, including doing nothing, may lead to people leaving the org.  Understanding the mission would give us a better idea of what members of CAP to we need to accommodate to meet mission goals.

I meant uniforms in a general sense
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on December 11, 2007, 07:32:45 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on December 11, 2007, 07:18:24 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 11, 2007, 05:10:15 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on December 11, 2007, 04:27:09 PM
Quote from: Trung Si Ma on December 11, 2007, 04:14:11 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 11, 2007, 04:11:03 PM
...we come down to the question of what is the mission and how can uniforms aid us in meeting the mission.

This is the real question that has to be asked.

They do promote unity, teamwork, and esprit de corps

No, they _can_ promote those things if applied correctly.  Considering the friction b/w the fit, the fat and the fuzzy, it isn't automatic.  The tug of war b/w "we have to look like the Junior Air Force" and "no chubby left behind" seems to cause a lot of hard feelings.

Whatever path we take, including doing nothing, may lead to people leaving the org.  Understanding the mission would give us a better idea of what members of CAP to we need to accommodate to meet mission goals.

I meant uniforms in a general sense

Understood, but in theory the Committee is trying to get to brass tacks (or collar brass, in this case).

In the military, except for "non-uniform uniforms" like recruiters and AFOSI, there is little need for a golf shirt suit.  In the PD/FD/EMS world, golf shirts seems to be quite acceptable.  A better idea of the image we want the uniform to give would drive the decision.

Other questions concerning outerwear, headgear, epaulet sliders would be easier if we could compare them to the goal for the uniform.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 11, 2007, 07:40:26 PM
The goal was stated earlier. To clean up the closet, align the corporate service uniform and cap-usaf service uniforms closer with common insignia, fill gaps where needed (winter field wear), eliminate unnecessary items, and clean up 39-1 and keeping cost to the member in mind as much as feasible.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: cnitas on December 11, 2007, 08:36:49 PM
I think people are not writing about the goal of the committee, but a mission statement of sorts for the uniform as a whole.

Perhaps a paragraph or statement at the beginning of 39-1 similar to the following:
Civil Air Patrol wears uniforms in order to....(fill in the reason here).

That mission statement should be able to guide us to appropriate uniforms, and the reasons why we wear them.

Afterall, why not have only 3 uniforms combos for all members?  It would save money, and be really easy to write up for 39-1.

1. Golf Shirt combo - Officers and cadets for general wear
2.  Blue Flight suit - For ES flying activity
3.  BBDU - For GSAR
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: MIKE on December 11, 2007, 08:56:23 PM
Quote from: cnitas on December 11, 2007, 08:36:49 PMAfterall, why not have only 3 uniforms combos for all members?  It would save money, and be really easy to write up for 39-1.

1. Golf Shirt combo - Officers and cadets for general wear
2.  Blue Flight suit - For ES flying activity
3.  BBDU - For GSAR

I can't support turning CAP into a glorified Volunteer Fire Department.  No offense to Volunteer Fire Departments.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 11, 2007, 09:00:58 PM
Quote from: cnitas on December 11, 2007, 08:36:49 PM
I think people are not writing about the goal of the committee, but a mission statement of sorts for the uniform as a whole.

Perhaps a paragraph or statement at the beginning of 39-1 similar to the following:
Civil Air Patrol wears uniforms in order to....(fill in the reason here).

That mission statement should be able to guide us to appropriate uniforms, and the reasons why we wear them.

Afterall, why not have only 3 uniforms combos for all members?  It would save money, and be really easy to write up for 39-1.

1. Golf Shirt combo - Officers and cadets for general wear
2.  Blue Flight suit - For ES flying activity
3.  BBDU - For GSAR


Good idea on the statement for 39-1. Please post this same info on the thread Pylon has for the 39-1 issues.

Disagree on the golf shirt. It has its uses and should be confined to those but not used for general wear. I agree with Mike.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: cnitas on December 11, 2007, 09:09:54 PM
Quote from: MIKE on December 11, 2007, 08:56:23 PM
Quote from: cnitas on December 11, 2007, 08:36:49 PMAfterall, why not have only 3 uniforms combos for all members?  It would save money, and be really easy to write up for 39-1.

1. Golf Shirt combo - Officers and cadets for general wear
2.  Blue Flight suit - For ES flying activity
3.  BBDU - For GSAR

I can't support turning CAP into a glorified Volunteer Fire Department.  No offense to Volunteer Fire Departments.

I was being a little tounge-in-cheek.  My point is that without a universal 'goal' or 'mission' we are trying to meet with uniforms, what direction we go is up for debate.  I picked an extreme to illustrate my point. 

On the other hand, we can adopt USAF uniforms only.  Fat and fuzzy? Too bad. 
Or perhaps TPU variations only, no AF style.
Why should we choose 1 over the others?

The mission statement should answer this question. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BillB on December 11, 2007, 09:34:38 PM
Maj Piersall's idea will cost the cadets about $200. and means no more free USAF uniforms for cadets. Great idea we don't need cadets in CAP's flying club anyway.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 11, 2007, 10:17:04 PM
There is no plan to scrap the CAP USAF uniforms. We are aligning the insignia on the corp service uniforms with those of the CAP USAF service uniform. An outline of the planned changes can be seen on page 19 of this thread. We plan to propose that there will be one for one matches of CAP USAF items and Corp Service Items.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Grumpy on December 11, 2007, 10:27:48 PM
Quote from: BillB on December 11, 2007, 09:34:38 PM
Maj Piersall's idea will cost the cadets about $200. and means no more free USAF uniforms for cadets. Great idea we don't need cadets in CAP's flying club anyway.

Of course you are exaggerating about not needing cadets anyway.  They have been a part of CAP almost since the first day.  I'm not going to say anymore on that because it'll just get my dander up.

Thing about the uniforms is that they are a part of our heritage, after all, and I gotta admit it does give me a feeling of still being connected to my old fraternity.

As for the Golf shirt, I wear it to most meetings and then I don't have to change clothes when I go to "debriefing", (Denny's), after our weekly meeting.  Remember the rule about not wearing the uniform one hour after a meeting?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on December 11, 2007, 10:31:21 PM
The golf shirt is a uniform.  Same rule applies.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 11, 2007, 10:44:56 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 11, 2007, 10:31:21 PM
The golf shirt is a uniform.  Same rule applies.

Yup. If it wasn't you couldn't fly in it.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Redstar on December 12, 2007, 12:10:22 AM
OK, I've read all the post and this is what I think.  We should try to align the corp. uniforms with their USAF counterparts as much as possible.  Lose the white and grays, go with the white and blues.  I've got a golf shirt in my closet but I think it looks like something out of the 70's.  If we keep the Golf shirt, lets update it to something along the lines of the 5.11 polo and have only one style.  Not logo on right, logo on left, no name, just name, name and badge, etc.  Just pick (one) and thats it!  As for the pants, it doesn't matter if they are gray or khaki, there will always be different shades and styles.  (Went to target for some Christmas shopping and happened to notice all the khaki pants and red shirts.)  Lets mandate one specific type of pants in one color and stick with it wheather its khaki 5.11's, dark gray bdu, tdu or dockers.  as for the utility uniforms, I don't see the problem with different color nametapes and grade for the different utility uniforms.  Green on green and navy (not ultramarine) on navy.  I think bright colored insignia on a camo uniform looks silly.  I meet weight and grooming requirements but I chose BBDU's over BDU's because of that reason.  (I don't miss wearing my cool white on ultramarine blue jump wings that much.)  As for the ABU's, stick with name, branch, grade and qualification badges only (no patches) in a matching color.  AND, whats the difference between a vol. fire department and a vol. air force.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Former_C/LTC on December 12, 2007, 12:32:04 AM
Good Luck...!!

Seriously though, stop the madness, follow the guidance from AFI 36-2903 on the wear of occupational badges and that's it.  Stop wearing five, six, seven different badges on service dress and BDU...we look [darn] stupid, especially to the US Air Force. 

Next, follow the same guidance on ribbons, versus medals for the mess dress, this will stop every Lt Col in CAP looking like a field marshall. 

Now, only award a ribbon for cadets on the milestone, really make it worth something, and get away from issuing a ribbon for attending meetings for god's sake.

That's a good start.

  Richard J Levitt, MSGT, USAFR

  and Lt Col, CAP
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on December 12, 2007, 12:48:05 AM
LtCol White:

I do not know if this is in your mandate, but will you be addresing the planned introduction of the Hap Arnold Heritage uniform as part of your 39-1 revision?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 12, 2007, 01:52:14 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 12, 2007, 12:48:05 AM
LtCol White:

I do not know if this is in your mandate, but will you be addresing the planned introduction of the Hap Arnold Heritage uniform as part of your 39-1 revision?

Yes, we are trying to get that done now so that when it comes along all that is needed is the phase in date. We plan to ask that what is approved for the current service dress be transferred to the new coat. This would help save another request to USAF down the road.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Stonewall on December 12, 2007, 02:15:17 AM
Quote from: Former_C/LTC on December 12, 2007, 12:32:04 AM
Next, follow the same guidance on ribbons, versus medals for the mess dress, this will stop every Lt Col in CAP looking like a field marshall. 

You know, I don't think CAP is too far off from the AF on the ribbon thing.  I'm not saying CAP has it right, but the AF ain't to far in front of us on this one.

I've been in the military for 13 years and have 16 ribbons.  I've been in CAP for 20 years and have 16 ribbons.  My wife has been in the Air Guard for 4 years, has 6 ribbons.  In CAP for 4 years and has 6 ribbons.

Navy and Marine Corps, you'll see guys with 3 combat tours but  only 6 or 7 ribbons.  You'll see an AF guy/gal with the same rank, a few deployments without any direct contact with the enemy and they'll have 15 ribbons.  Yes, there is a guy in my ANG unit in LIFE SUPPORT who deployed for 120 days.  He has 15 ribbons.

If we knock out a few ribbons, perhaps we can teach the AF a little something about that too.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 12, 2007, 02:22:11 PM
Quote from: Stonewall on December 12, 2007, 02:15:17 AM
Quote from: Former_C/LTC on December 12, 2007, 12:32:04 AM
Next, follow the same guidance on ribbons, versus medals for the mess dress, this will stop every Lt Col in CAP looking like a field marshall. 

You know, I don't think CAP is too far off from the AF on the ribbon thing.  I'm not saying CAP has it right, but the AF ain't to far in front of us on this one.

I've been in the military for 13 years and have 16 ribbons.  I've been in CAP for 20 years and have 16 ribbons.  My wife has been in the Air Guard for 4 years, has 6 ribbons.  In CAP for 4 years and has 6 ribbons.

Navy and Marine Corps, you'll see guys with 3 combat tours but  only 6 or 7 ribbons.  You'll see an AF guy/gal with the same rank, a few deployments without any direct contact with the enemy and they'll have 15 ribbons.  Yes, there is a guy in my ANG unit in LIFE SUPPORT who deployed for 120 days.  He has 15 ribbons.

If we knock out a few ribbons, perhaps we can teach the AF a little something about that too.

I wouldn't mind seeing some reductions either. Got 15 on the military side, 9 on the CAP side. Another member saw my rack and considered it "ostentatious".

Allowing some miniature ribbons would be nice. There are places starting to make the military ribbons in miniatures. Would reduce the amount of real estate needed on my shirt a good bit. I've started wearing just military ribbons on my CAP blues for that reason.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: O-Rex on December 12, 2007, 02:46:04 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 12, 2007, 02:22:11 PM
Quote from: Stonewall on December 12, 2007, 02:15:17 AM
Quote from: Former_C/LTC on December 12, 2007, 12:32:04 AM
Next, follow the same guidance on ribbons, versus medals for the mess dress, this will stop every Lt Col in CAP looking like a field marshall. 

You know, I don't think CAP is too far off from the AF on the ribbon thing.  I'm not saying CAP has it right, but the AF ain't to far in front of us on this one.

I've been in the military for 13 years and have 16 ribbons.  I've been in CAP for 20 years and have 16 ribbons.  My wife has been in the Air Guard for 4 years, has 6 ribbons.  In CAP for 4 years and has 6 ribbons.

Navy and Marine Corps, you'll see guys with 3 combat tours but  only 6 or 7 ribbons.  You'll see an AF guy/gal with the same rank, a few deployments without any direct contact with the enemy and they'll have 15 ribbons.  Yes, there is a guy in my ANG unit in LIFE SUPPORT who deployed for 120 days.  He has 15 ribbons.

If we knock out a few ribbons, perhaps we can teach the AF a little something about that too.

I wouldn't mind seeing some reductions either. Got 15 on the military side, 9 on the CAP side. Another member saw my rack and considered it "ostentatious".

Allowing some miniature ribbons would be nice. There are places starting to make the military ribbons in miniatures. Would reduce the amount of real estate needed on my shirt a good bit. I've started wearing just military ribbons on my CAP blues for that reason.

Even if you do have more ribbons than a bananna republic general, it's all in how you wear them: they CAN be overlapped, significantly reducing the coverage.  I've seen folks with a rack that literally goes to the bottom hem: looks tacky.

Perhaps there should be verbage that "medals shall not fall below x point on the Mess Dress jacket."
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 12, 2007, 03:09:13 PM
Quote from: O-Rex on December 12, 2007, 02:46:04 PM
Even if you do have more ribbons than a bananna republic general, it's all in how you wear them: they CAN be overlapped, significantly reducing the coverage.  I've seen folks with a rack that literally goes to the bottom hem: looks tacky.

Perhaps there should be verbage that "medals shall not fall below x point on the Mess Dress jacket."

Uh, I'm talking about ribbons, not medals. You can't overlap ribbons. Medals, yes. Ribbons, no.

And yes, I was referring to miniature ribbons, not medals. The Air Force permits them, and even defines them in 36-2903. They're half the width as regular ones, and the ribbon material is the same width as the ribbon drape on mini medals. Two miniature ribbons would fit in the same position as a single standard ribbon. For example, a ribbon holder that holds three standard ribbons would hold six miniature ribbons.

Clear as mud?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: NAYBOR on December 12, 2007, 11:44:05 PM
My 2 cents for the (thus far) uniform thread:

I personally like the way things are presently with the Corporate Service Uniform (CSU), with some ideas for small changes and additions.  I've already submitted to LtCol White my proposal (with photos) ideas for mess dress shoulder boards and mess dress for the CSU; a new service cap device (in line with the AF Service Cap device, distinguished for CAP); CAP cutout/US cutout placement ( or removal altogether), and various other things.  In reading the many pages since then, these are my suggestions for proposals.  I'm obviously taking the idea, "shoot for the moon, if you miss, at least you'll land among the stars"...

--For the ABU, why not go all the way and ask for the digital tapes with ultramarine blue writing to designate CAP?  For the Rank, instead of brown and midnight blue, why not use gold and ultramarine blue on digital backgrounds?  If that is shot down, then ask for white thread on digital background for nametapes, with bright rank (same as would be used on the OD cloth) on digital background?  For the BBDU, have navy blue tapes with ultramarine blue writing, and bright rank (like the ABU would use, suggested above) on dark blue background.  If ultramarine blue writing is not an option, use white.  For those who say, "but we should have all the same"--you're gonna pay to update the ABU or BBDU either way, might as well ask for what you want.  None of this is MANDATORY anyways (if you don't want to pay for it, you don't HAVE to!)

--To keep metal rank on the corporate coat (and get rank back on the AF uniform), I too am willing to have CAP cutouts on everything (or the CAP/US arrangement described in my proposal).  While this next idea was not in my original proposal to LtCol White--What about "CAP" on the right lapel (wearer's right), and "US" on the left lapel (again, wearer's left) on all service coats (CSU and AF)?  This should be distinctinve enough, satisfy those who'd like to see the "US" stay on the uniforms (of which I am one), and will hopefully be distinctive enough for the AF.  It will also designate our duality of being both a CAP corporation, and the USAF Aux in service to our country.  I don't want to see metal rank leave the CSU, and would like to see metal rank return to the AF Service coat for CAP like "the old days".  I think it would be especially appropriate to have metal rank with CAP cutouts on the Heritage Coat.  I really don't like the idea of putting the blue slides on either the CSU coat or AF Coat epaulettes.  Blue epaulettes for both the AF and CSU shirts--great!

--if the AF doesn't like all of the suggestions about returning metal rank to the AF coat (and keeping metal rank on the CSU),  why not have as a final suggestion to remove cutouts on ALL service coats to distinguish CAP altogether to get metal rank?  If all requests for metal rank are shot down, but we get the blue epaulettes, we could still do this (remove any/all cutouts).  Since CAP will be embroidered on the sleeves anyways, there will not be any need for any cutouts on either the CSU or AF coat lapels (to include the "US" cutouts).

--if the AF is keeping the brushed silver nametag for the AF service coats, we should too, for both the CSU or AF Service Coat.  For ALL name tags (silver, blue, gray, whatever), put the last name in big letters on the 1st line, and then whatever in smaller letters afterwords.

--yes, I admit, I like the idea of the blue commissioning braid on the CSU too, to be in line with the AF Service Coat.  Now that I have a CSU though--while I didn't think I'd like the silver braid, I actually do--I think it is distinctive for the CAP CSU, and sets it apart.  It also goes nicely with my CSU mess dress boards I designed and mess dress suggestions for the CSU.  Plus, I'd have to have the silver braid replaced, and I just had it done!  I can live with changing it to blue braid, though, if that is what is decided.  My mess dress board idea for the CSU will just have to be adapted to reflect the new sleave braid--not too hard to do at all (just change from silver to blue--the silver was more distinctive, though).  All other mess dress proposals should not have to change. 

--khaki--good stuff!

--grays and whites--yes, get rid of them!

If I think of anything else, I'll post it.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on December 13, 2007, 02:46:58 PM
I really, really like the idea of starting from a "why do we wear uniforms" point of view, and then designing the uniform changes accordingly.

For example,  think about prioritizing these three possible reasons (and there are more)

1.  To foster a USAF military culture in CAP.

2.  To foster a sense of unity amongst the members, and the perception of unity and organization to the public.

3.  To promote pride in the member's accomplishments.

If #1 the most important, the golf shirt needs to die.  All uniforms need to show grade.  Headgear probably shouldn't be optional, nor should outerwear. All corporate uniforms need to look as close to their USAF equivalents in style and color as we can get away with.

2.  If #2 is the most important, then it doesn't matter what we pick to wear, as long as everyone looks similar.  We need fewer optional items.  Outerwear matters a whole bunch (we're outside a lot, ya know).l

3. #3 is most important, then we really don't need changes at all.  Folks wear whatever raises their morale.


There are many way to go.  But what we NEED is a the answer to the basic question "What do we want our uniforms to accomplish?"   And then use the answer as a yardstick for each new proposal.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: cnitas on December 13, 2007, 03:46:23 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on December 13, 2007, 02:46:58 PM
I really, really like the idea of starting from a "why do we wear uniforms" point of view, and then designing the uniform changes accordingly.

For example,  think about prioritizing these three possible reasons (and there are more)

1.  To foster a USAF military culture in CAP.

2.  To foster a sense of unity amongst the members, and the perception of unity and organization to the public.

3.  To promote pride in the member's accomplishments.

If #1 the most important, the golf shirt needs to die.  All uniforms need to show grade.  Headgear probably shouldn't be optional, nor should outerwear. All corporate uniforms need to look as close to their USAF equivalents in style and color as we can get away with.

2.  If #2 is the most important, then it doesn't matter what we pick to wear, as long as everyone looks similar.  We need fewer optional items.  Outerwear matters a whole bunch (we're outside a lot, ya know).l

3. #3 is most important, then we really don't need changes at all.  Folks wear whatever raises their morale.


There are many way to go.  But what we NEED is a the answer to the basic question "What do we want our uniforms to accomplish?"   And then use the answer as a yardstick for each new proposal.



:clap:
I would have to agree with this 100%
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on December 13, 2007, 05:07:35 PM
LtCol White:

Do you expect your recommendations to be ready in time for the (I think) March meeting of the NB, since that is supposed to be the meeting at which uniform changes are to be discussed?

I know you have a very daunting task, but it seems to me that you have already made significant progress in that you have identified the issues and the general recommendations.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 13, 2007, 07:29:16 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 13, 2007, 05:07:35 PM
LtCol White:

Do you expect your recommendations to be ready in time for the (I think) March meeting of the NB, since that is supposed to be the meeting at which uniform changes are to be discussed?

I know you have a very daunting task, but it seems to me that you have already made significant progress in that you have identified the issues and the general recommendations.

Yes, it is our plan to have them presented at the Winter Board Meeting. The larger revision of 39-1 and review of usaf items will take a lot longer so that will be for the next one.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jeders on December 13, 2007, 08:53:52 PM
I don't think this question has been asked yet, are we going to retain the woodland field coats when we switch to the ABU?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on December 13, 2007, 08:56:00 PM
I would assume we would switch.  Can't think of any logical reason not too. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on December 13, 2007, 08:58:35 PM
Quote from: jeders on December 13, 2007, 08:53:52 PM
I don't think this question has been asked yet, are we going to retain the woodland field coats when we switch to the ABU?

In the AF, you can't mix woodland and AFPAT.

You can wear the blue all-weather coat, though.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 13, 2007, 10:48:14 PM
Quote from: jeders on December 13, 2007, 08:53:52 PM
I don't think this question has been asked yet, are we going to retain the woodland field coats when we switch to the ABU?

We would go to whatever USAF wears with the appropropriate CAP insignia
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jeders on December 13, 2007, 10:53:03 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on December 13, 2007, 10:48:14 PM
Quote from: jeders on December 13, 2007, 08:53:52 PM
I don't think this question has been asked yet, are we going to retain the woodland field coats when we switch to the ABU?

We would go to whatever USAF wears with the appropropriate CAP insignia

Ok
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on December 13, 2007, 11:12:38 PM
Suggestion.....

1) Add the black or tan riggers belt currently worn by the AF to the CAP BDU's.
2) Add pin-on Cadet Officer Insignia to the BDU shirt

Thanks!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mdickinson on December 14, 2007, 01:39:21 AM
If I could make two changes to the uniform manual, they would be:

1. Have all senior members wear gray epaulette sleeves (the ones we wear with our AF-style blue uniform). These would work just fine on the white-and-blue uniform and on the TPU.

2. Have Sr Mbr's without grade wear the gray epaulette sleeve without grade insignia.

These simple changes would make all our shoulders look the same ("uniform," you might even say) - not the silly mixed bag that one sees now. And #2 would keep new Sr Mbrs from having to poke holes in the collars of their blues shirts - holes that never quite disappear after they have been promoted!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: O-Rex on December 14, 2007, 03:47:45 AM
Quote from: LtCol White on December 13, 2007, 10:48:14 PM
Quote from: jeders on December 13, 2007, 08:53:52 PM
I don't think this question has been asked yet, are we going to retain the woodland field coats when we switch to the ABU?

We would go to whatever USAF wears with the appropropriate CAP insignia

That could be a tough one for Cadets: the USAF APEC (Gore-tex) Parka goes for $175.  Outfitting for Winter encampments could be an expensive proposition.

I foresee some exceptions in this regard, but I foresee Seniors biting the bullet and shelling out the Buck$. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BuckeyeDEJ on December 14, 2007, 05:15:09 AM
My feelings, after watching nearly a quarter-century of CAP uniform diddling:

-- Leave the service coat epaulets gray. Seriously. But only sell two variants, one of which is blank, and forces officers to use metal grade insignia. The second version could be sold for enlisted members, one that has the "CAP" centered and allows the "U.S." insignia on the lapels (and the regular Air Force stripes, which the Air Force now only allows on sleeves -- epaulet rank for enlisteds is dead). This solution could also apply, with the exception of the lapel insignia, to the fat-guy TPU.

Why the gray? Because the blue epaulet on the service coat is pointless, and doesn't differentiate CAP enough from those who get paid to fight -- which was the whole idea of the maroon, then gray, epaulets to begin with. (Anyone remember the Harwell circlet?) Might as well just buy a new set of CAP cutouts and metal rank insignia, because the only thing you gain is a stripe across the bottom if you're field-grade. It just comes across as a mistake, an "oops, I forgot my rank, so I borrowed someone's epaulets."

-- The return of the blue epaulets to the blue shirts, as well as the blue nametag, would be welcomed. I'm not holding my breath, though. It doesn't bother me to wear the gray, though it definitely introduced a third color to the uniform.

-- On the ABU, I like the idea of the navy-blue cloth, versus the sage, which will be too close to the Air Force's color (and therefore nixed), and the ultramarine, which just screams "we're not worthy."

NOW, FOR SOME OTHER THOUGHTS....


I read much of this thread and groaned. So many of the ideas thrown out have no basis in reality. I'm honestly glad you guys don't sit on a uniform board, or are the national commander ruling by fiat, because you'd have come up with a uniform either like the TPU or worse. Sorry, but for crying out loud....

My personal beefs with the uniform is that every schmo who comes along has to design a tacky new patch or some godawful specialty insignia. The pocket shields were a bad idea made worse when everyone screamed for one for their specialty. NIX THEM, and in their place, allow a newly designed specialty insignia, inspired by the ones the Air Force wears.

-- Adopt the Air Force's heraldry standards, from unit emblems to who gets a flag versus a guidon. This means wings get shields, squadrons get discs and wing flags carry the shield instead of the CAP shield (just like the real Air Force). Wing patches are getting uglier all the time, so we ought to insist on going back to the heritage insignias, but instead in a shield. (For instance, Florida would go back to the gator.)

-- The command badge is fine, as-is, worn in the same place Air Force commanders wear them, ABOVE the name tag. A separate one for group commanders is irrelevant, as the insignia marks a person as a commander, period.

-- The new command patch on flight-duty uniforms is just fine. Remember, during World War II, the "U.S." on the patch was in the exact same place as it is on the new command patch. As much as I appreciated the scroll reading "U.S. Air Force Auxiliary," the name of the organization is Civil Air Patrol. (However, the vehicle decals that echo the new patch are a terrible public-awareness idea, as they don't explain the organization as well as the seal did.)

-- I'm totally in favor of cloth rank insignia on the flight suit, for safety reasons as well as professional ones. I wear the full-color CAP cloth because it doesn't get caught on anything. I have a cloth nametag for my flight suit, which I also wear because it doesn't come apart and it's flexible -- it's ultramarine with white wings, border and name. (I DO have the regulation tag, don't worry.)

-- Ditch all the goofy patches on the BDU, and do it yesterday. The emergency-services patch is a cartoonish joke that replaced a silly patch that replaced the original cartoonish joke. The communications patch doesn't look a whole lot like the badge for the blues, in terms of the arc above and the size, so change it to an embroidered insignia like the wings. Does every activity need a patch? Probably not.

-- Bring the color/honor guard uniform stipulations in line with the Air Force's, save the special service coat. A white shirt instead of the blue is sharper, and it's exactly what the Air Force does -- what's with the bib scarf and another goofy patch with an overly cliched, clip-art design? Heck, put the command patch there instead.

-- I'd be all in favor of a phase-out date for the TPU, except that thanks to its introduction and subsequent rash of changes, we're stuck with it. I truly believe the TPU was the answer to a question no one asked, nor was ever going to ask, save for a national commander who wanted to design his own uniform. That said, let's ditch the grays.

The Air Force's uniform philosophy is to keep it clean and modern -- no patches on the sleeves, no hash marks for longevity, no needless clutter or redundancy -- and CAP just keeps blowing that out of the water. As a visual journalist (that's my real job), I'm trained to eschew clutter and keep things simple and to the point... I wish CAP's uniform legacy was treated the same. Among the ridiculous ideas in this thread are some good ones, and I hope everyone on this board will look at every idea with a sense of practicality, some idea of CAP's uniform history and a critical eye.

Since I've said some things I'm sure will rile feathers, I might as well let you know who I am... and thanks for reading. Please take this post as constructive criticism and not as a diss, from someone who's tired of seeing the organization fuss with the uniform more than a teenage girl on prom night.

DOUGLAS E. JESSMER, Major, CAP
Commander, Clearwater Cadet Sq, Florida Wing
Public Affairs Officer, Florida Wing Group 8
Former cadet lieutenant colonel, West Virginia Wing

Quote sniped - MIKE
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RogueLeader on December 14, 2007, 06:12:06 AM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on December 14, 2007, 05:15:09 AM

-- Leave the service coat epaulets gray. Seriously. But only sell two variants, one of which is blank, and forces officers to use metal grade insignia. The second version could be sold for enlisted members, one that has the "CAP" centered and allows the "U.S." insignia on the lapels (and the regular Air Force stripes, which the Air Force now only allows on sleeves -- epaulet rank for enlisteds is dead). This solution could also apply, with the exception of the lapel insignia, to the fat-guy TPU.

-- The return of the blue epaulets to the blue shirts, as well as the blue nametag, would be welcomed. I'm not holding my breath, though. It doesn't bother me to wear the gray, though it definitely introduced a third color to the uniform.


Um not to sound rude or anything, but WHY in all that is good, would I want two different color epaulets.  As it happens, I have the Silver nametag, which looks much better than any plastic one.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on December 14, 2007, 05:15:09 AM

My personal beefs with the uniform is that every schmo who comes along has to design a tacky new patch or some godawful specialty insignia. The pocket shields were a bad idea made worse when everyone screamed for one for their specialty. NIX THEM, and in their place, allow a newly designed specialty insignia, inspired by the ones the Air Force wears.


So you want to come up with new ones- for us- and kill all that we have?  I'm not saying that I like all, or need all; but that is a SERIOUS waste of money.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on December 14, 2007, 05:15:09 AM

The Air Force's uniform philosophy is to keep it clean and modern -- no patches on the sleeves, no hash marks for longevity, no needless clutter or redundancy -- and CAP just keeps blowing that out of the water.

Um since when did we have has marks for length of service?  Patches are all gone from Blues and Wing option for BDU's.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: SAR-EMT1 on December 14, 2007, 07:27:10 AM
I was looking at the ribbon rack page and was struck by something:
All our CAP 'Officers' are wearing enlisted Aircrew Wings.

In the Air Force the Officers wear a Shield in the center of the wings with enlisted crewmembers having a circle. Any way we can have the triangle and prop inside a shield?

- I know seems minor, but when it hit me it really hit me.

I would be in favor of redesigned specialty track insignia... even if it was just decolored.  -- Get away from the technicolor badges we have now.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on December 14, 2007, 07:54:48 AM
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 13, 2007, 11:12:38 PM
2) Add pin-on Cadet Officer Insignia to the BDU shirt
I'd agree with that as an option.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on December 14, 2007, 07:27:10 AM
I would be in favor of redesigned specialty track insignia... even if it was just decolored.  -- Get away from the technicolor badges we have now.
There are a couple older threads you can search back for on badge (incl wings) and ribbon rework. Those are good concepts!!! However, I'd strongly urge we keep away from such sub items and keep our eye on the ball. I think those are seperate issues we need to deal with AFTER the broader uniform picture comes into focus.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on December 14, 2007, 03:44:37 PM
Dennis:

I think we had the wing discussion on another forum.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BuckeyeDEJ on December 14, 2007, 05:38:51 PM
RogueLeader:

The silver-gray epaulets on the service coat would be only on the service coat, as would the brushed-metal nameplate. The blue could be worn against light-blue (meaning, shirts) and on sweaters. IT MAKES NO SENSE to put dark-blue epaulets on the service coat, since all it does is make the insignia embroidered. The whole reason the epaulets were put on the service coat in the first place was to CHANGE THE COLOR. With apologies to the colonel from Louisiana and the uniform committee, for someone to say "let's put the dark blue epaulet on the service coat" is to be misinformed on why the epaulets are there in the first place. You might as well just put the metal cutouts and the metal rank insignia back on, as it was before the "berry boards."

As for patches, I wouldn't want new ones. The color guard academy, PJOC, yada yada, doesn't need a patch. Schools in the Air Force don't have patches, so why should we? They're just cartoony, and make us look like Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts without the sash, not like the professional organization we say we are.

You misread me on the Air Force uniform philosophy. When the AF separated from the Army, the philosophy was developed -- and all the clutter disappeared. Did CAP ever authorize hash marks? Don't think so. But at that juncture in my message, I wasn't addressing CAP per se, just saying CAP has ignored the Air Force's "clean uniform" philosophy. So the silly shield-shaped specialty badges, which just junk up everything and are as cartoony as most of our patches, should be replaced with a more professional alternative, inspired by the Air Force's specialty badges, that look more along the lines of our ground-team badge and less like a Walt Disney clip-art proposal.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: O-Rex on December 14, 2007, 05:56:38 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 12, 2007, 03:09:13 PM
Quote from: O-Rex on December 12, 2007, 02:46:04 PM
Even if you do have more ribbons than a bananna republic general, it's all in how you wear them: they CAN be overlapped, significantly reducing the coverage.  I've seen folks with a rack that literally goes to the bottom hem: looks tacky.

Perhaps there should be verbage that "medals shall not fall below x point on the Mess Dress jacket."

Uh, I'm talking about ribbons, not medals. You can't overlap ribbons. Medals, yes. Ribbons, no.

And yes, I was referring to miniature ribbons, not medals. The Air Force permits them, and even defines them in 36-2903. They're half the width as regular ones, and the ribbon material is the same width as the ribbon drape on mini medals. Two miniature ribbons would fit in the same position as a single standard ribbon. For example, a ribbon holder that holds three standard ribbons would hold six miniature ribbons.

Clear as mud?

Sorry, I thought you meant mini-medals-still, the overlapping concept still works.

Miniature ribbons?

Great, another set of something I have to buy. . . . .

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on December 14, 2007, 06:08:22 PM
I do think the cartoon shield badges look stupid... we had a discussion about updating those closer to AF several months ago. I'll try to look up some of those old pics later & put it in another thread.

Again, the badges and ribbonms are not going to be messed with in this effort. Not beyond number authorized and placement anyway, and maybe not even that.

Far as grade slides... their purpose is not to change the color of the epaulet. If they serve only to make it look embroidered (from a distance or to the blind I guess) then so be it. The point is to have it as reasonablly close to the AF as possible while remaining distinctive, and to standardize items across our uniform combinations. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 14, 2007, 06:15:31 PM
Quote from: O-Rex on December 14, 2007, 05:56:38 PM
Miniature ribbons?

Great, another set of something I have to buy. . . . .

Notice I said allow not require. Not everyone would need or even want them. It shouldn't be mandatory.

Quote from: mdickinson on December 14, 2007, 01:39:21 AM
2. Have Sr Mbr's without grade wear the gray epaulette sleeve without grade insignia.

These simple changes would make all our shoulders look the same ("uniform," you might even say) - not the silly mixed bag that one sees now. And #2 would keep new Sr Mbrs from having to poke holes in the collars of their blues shirts - holes that never quite disappear after they have been promoted!

I think a blank shoulder epaulet would look tacky. However, I don't see a need for SMWOG to wear cutouts either. If they're not wearing rank, they either forgot to put it on, or they don't have any. There's no real reason to even require it in the first place.

Now if you wanted an epaulet with something like an "OC" (for Officer Candidate) or an "OTC" (for Officer Training Corps like the old days), I could get on board with that. IF you're going to wear an epaulet, it should have some kind of significance, not just worn to be worn.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on December 14, 2007, 06:36:53 PM
Perhaps SMWOG should wear nothing?  Heck, I was always a believer that if they were brand new to CAP, and in the waiting period, they should wear the "CAP" Cutouts in place of the "US" cutouts on the AF-Style Jacket.  Face it, they have not become an officer yet, reward them when they do.  As far as I am concerned, don't make them buy anything special, there are enough "CAP" cutouts floating around out there. 

Why would they wear a blank slide??  Why give Vanguard more money?? 

What do Cadets at the Service Academies wear their first year before they are recognized?  NOTHING. What do Officer Candidates wear (other than OCS/OTS cutouts)?  NOTHING.  What do Soldiers, Airman, Marines and Coast Guardsman wear at their initial training even though they may enter as an E-2/E-3?  NOTHING.

What should Cap Members without grade wear?  NOTHING!

Follow?

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 14, 2007, 06:37:57 PM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on December 14, 2007, 05:38:51 PM
RogueLeader:

The silver-gray epaulets on the service coat would be only on the service coat, as would the brushed-metal nameplate. The blue could be worn against light-blue (meaning, shirts) and on sweaters. IT MAKES NO SENSE to put dark-blue epaulets on the service coat, since all it does is make the insignia embroidered. The whole reason the epaulets were put on the service coat in the first place was to CHANGE THE COLOR. With apologies to the colonel from Louisiana and the uniform committee, for someone to say "let's put the dark blue epaulet on the service coat" is to be misinformed on why the epaulets are there in the first place. You might as well just put the metal cutouts and the metal rank insignia back on, as it was before the "berry boards."

As for patches, I wouldn't want new ones. The color guard academy, PJOC, yada yada, doesn't need a patch. Schools in the Air Force don't have patches, so why should we? They're just cartoony, and make us look like Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts without the sash, not like the professional organization we say we are.

You misread me on the Air Force uniform philosophy. When the AF separated from the Army, the philosophy was developed -- and all the clutter disappeared. Did CAP ever authorize hash marks? Don't think so. But at that juncture in my message, I wasn't addressing CAP per se, just saying CAP has ignored the Air Force's "clean uniform" philosophy. So the silly shield-shaped specialty badges, which just junk up everything and are as cartoony as most of our patches, should be replaced with a more professional alternative, inspired by the Air Force's specialty badges, that look more along the lines of our ground-team badge and less like a Walt Disney clip-art proposal.

All due respect, I am QUITE familiar with the reason for the color change. It was for distinction. the cloth blue is just as distinct as the gray from USAF wearing metal.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 14, 2007, 06:42:44 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 14, 2007, 06:36:53 PM
Perhaps SMWOG should wear nothing?  Heck, I was always a believer that if they were brand new to CAP, and in the waiting period, they should wear the "CAP" Cutouts in place of the "US" cutouts on the AF-Style Jacket.  Face it, they have not become an officer yet, reward them when they do.  As far as I am concerned, don't make them buy anything special, there are enough "CAP" cutouts floating around out there. 

Why would they wear a blank slide??  Why give Vanguard more money?? 

What do Cadets at the Service Academies wear their first year before they are recognized?  NOTHING. What do Officer Candidates wear (other than OCS/OTS cutouts)?  NOTHING.  What do Soldiers, Airman, Marines and Coast Guardsman wear at their initial training even though they may enter as an E-2/E-3?  NOTHING.

What should Cap Members without grade wear?  NOTHING!

Follow?



Agreed. Remember, SMWOG is only a temporary thing. Why waste the money and require purchase of an item they won't have very long.  They will be distinct enough wearing blues with the officer braid on the coat and officer flight cap
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on December 14, 2007, 07:04:08 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on December 14, 2007, 06:42:44 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 14, 2007, 06:36:53 PM
Perhaps SMWOG should wear nothing?  Heck, I was always a believer that if they were brand new to CAP, and in the waiting period, they should wear the "CAP" Cutouts in place of the "US" cutouts on the AF-Style Jacket.  Face it, they have not become an officer yet, reward them when they do.  As far as I am concerned, don't make them buy anything special, there are enough "CAP" cutouts floating around out there. 

Why would they wear a blank slide??  Why give Vanguard more money?? 

What do Cadets at the Service Academies wear their first year before they are recognized?  NOTHING. What do Officer Candidates wear (other than OCS/OTS cutouts)?  NOTHING.  What do Soldiers, Airman, Marines and Coast Guardsman wear at their initial training even though they may enter as an E-2/E-3?  NOTHING.

What should Cap Members without grade wear?  NOTHING!

Follow?



Agreed. Remember, SMWOG is only a temporary thing. Why waste the money and require purchase of an item they won't have very long.  They will be distinct enough wearing blues with the officer braid on the coat and officer flight cap

That will require a change to 39-1.  Currently, SMWOG are considered Airmen, not Officers (Ref. CAPM 39-1 1-3 a & b).  If you follow the reg - which, admittedly, not many do - SMWOG should not wear either officer service dress coats or flight caps with silver and black check braid.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 14, 2007, 07:06:45 PM
Well since we are doing a rewrite of 39-1, this can be considered.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Pylon on December 14, 2007, 07:26:58 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on December 14, 2007, 07:06:45 PM
Well since we are doing a rewrite of 39-1, this can be considered.

Already duly being recommended to the committee:

Senior Member without Grade & Cadet Airman Basic Confusion
OBSERVATIONS
:  Should the change to move to blue nameplates for senior members on the AF-style Service Dress Uniform be approved, this would make the minimum uniform for a Cadet Airman Basic and a Senior Member without grade identical.  Since both grades use the CAP cutout as their insignia, the only current differentiation between the two is the color of the nameplate.

In addition, for Senior Members without grade, CAP cutouts can leave holes in the collar which may remain visible when they become promoted to any other senior member grade.  Since every other SM grade, including NCOs, Flight Officers, and Officers, makes use of the grey shouldermark, it would only make sense that new SM without grade also wear a grey shouldermark.  True to their title of "without grade", the shouldermark would not bear any grade insignia.

RECOMMENDATION:  Senior Members without grade should wear the blank grey shouldermarks already available through Vanguard, in lieu of the metal CAP cutouts.

Senior Members without grade would continue to wear embroidered CAP cutouts on the BDUs – no change.  These cutouts are distinctive from the metal cutouts worn by Cadet Airman Basics on the BDUs.  In addition, since SM officers and flight officers wear embroidered collar insignia, it would make sense – again for consistency – that Senior Members without grade also keep and wear the embroidered blue cutouts on the collar.



Flight Cap & Service Dress Uniform Wear for SM's without grade
OBSERVATIONS:  Current Senior Members without grade are treated, uniform wise, as non-officers.  This means they do not wear sleeve braid on the service dress, they wear solid blue braid edging on their flight cap (enlisted flight cap), and are not eligible to wear the mess dress uniform.

This places an unfair burden on new senior members when purchasing any service dress uniform items.  They are expected to buy an enlisted flight cap, when they will use it for 6 months or less and subsequently will need to buy an officer flight cap.

If a member is dedicated enough to be purchasing blues uniform items, the organization should make it easy for them to purchase items that will last them through their natural wear life.  The current setup places an unneeded financial burden on new senior members.

The Air Force classes all of its "Officer Candidates" in their various accession programs as officers for uniform purposes.  Cadets in AF accession programs (AF Academy, ROTC and Officer Candidate School) wear the officer AF flight cap, even though they are not officers.

RECOMMENDATION:  Treat Senior Members without Grade in the same way that the Air Force treats "Officer Candidates" in their accession programs and class the Senior Member without grade as an "officer" in the definition in Paragraph 1-3, for the purposes of the uniform wear only.  A change to include Senior Members without grade in the uniform definition of officer in Para. 1-3 will automatically allow:

Allow Senior Members without grade to wear the "officer" flight cap with the blue/silver edging.

Allow Senior Members without Grade to wear sleeve braid on the service dress.

Allow Senior Members without Grade to wear the mess dress uniform with dark blue CAP sleeve braid. 

Allow an easy transition for senior members who acquire uniform items early on in their membership and reduce the financial burden on new members.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on December 14, 2007, 08:35:48 PM
^ Why should a member purchase a blank grey slide that they will wear for 6 or less months, then have to buy a new one? 

Also, did I miss the removal of the silver nameplate somewhere? 

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on December 14, 2007, 08:40:16 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 14, 2007, 08:35:48 PM
^ Why should a member purchase a blank grey slide that they will wear for 6 or less months, then have to buy a new one? 

Also, did I miss the removal of the silver nameplate somewhere? 

I could see the unit having a supply and loaning them for the first few months.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 14, 2007, 08:52:35 PM
Something brought up in another thread:

AFI 36-2903, concerning belts with BDU: "Black tip of belt may extend up to 2 inches beyond the buckle facing the wearer's left; blue woven cotton web or elastic with black metal tip and matching buckle.  Black web or black riggers belt with nondescript black buckle authorized as an optional item with BDU."

One, mirror the wear criteria. Two, allow the same belts with the BDU (and I imagine the ABU). Allows shopping at the same store as the Air Force. No real reason why we can't do it. Everyone needs a belt anyway.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BuckeyeDEJ on December 14, 2007, 10:03:53 PM
Col. White, thanks for the response. I disagree that sliding on a blue epaulet is different from wearing the metal -- it's not nearly as recognizable from a distance because the background is what makes the difference -- so I'm totally in the gray camp on that singular use. CAP officers need to be clearly delineated, so as not to be confused with real officers.

I have no preference on the gray for shirts and other blue uniform items, but if the blue returns for those unis, so be it.

I always thought it was out of place to slide the shirt epaulets on the service coat, and that it was a Band-Aid solution, so using epaulets that blend in with the coat is pointless -- I'll bet you a cup of coffee the Air Force agrees on that premise. (Of course, you have to come to beautiful Tampa Bay to collect if I'm wrong....)

My personal preference would be a service-coat gray epaulet with "CAP" embroidered up top and room for the metal to be pinned on. The epaulet stripes for field-grade and general grade should only be seen on shirts and sweaters, where they belong. And for EMs, let me stand corrected from an earlier statement, since AF EMs don't have epaulets on their service coats -- they can wear the CAP cutouts on lapels.

On shirts and other blues uniform items, EMs can wear the gray nametag and the USAF sleeve rank insignia and be quite OK.

All that said, and after all the discussion, I'm glad some sane minds are coming to the table to seek a once-and-for-all, workable and lasting uniform system. It's about time!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on December 14, 2007, 10:29:33 PM
Personally, the gray epalets have never bothered me.  I don't think they look all that bad.  Frankly, it would be a lot easier for me to just slip on epalets rather than trying to properly position metal rank every time I wear the service coat. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ZigZag911 on December 14, 2007, 11:00:55 PM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on December 14, 2007, 05:15:09 AM
The Air Force's uniform philosophy is to keep it clean and modern -- no patches on the sleeves, no hash marks for longevity, no needless clutter or redundancy -- and CAP just keeps blowing that out of the water.

Which is why they continually get mistaken for the Postal Service, or, worse, Greyhound drivers!

However, they are our parent service, so we should follow their lead (even though I find it deadly dull, always have!)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BuckeyeDEJ on December 14, 2007, 11:00:55 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 14, 2007, 10:29:33 PM
Frankly, it would be a lot easier for me to just slip on epalets rather than trying to properly position metal rank every time I wear the service coat. 

Maybe so, but it's what CAP officers did until the color was mandated. Besides, it's what the Air Force does, it's what we do with all our other insignia, and it's just two more pieces of flair. The only difference I'd propose is that we put the metal on plain gray slides that denote us as CAPers -- not too much different from the green tabs they wear in the Army for combat commanders, just that they'll go full-length instead.

Or maybe do gray loops the same size as the Army combat-commander loops, with a "CAP" on them, just for the service coat?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 14, 2007, 11:15:45 PM
OK guys, lets get back on topic here. We're starting to drift again
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on December 14, 2007, 11:22:55 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 14, 2007, 08:52:35 PM
Something brought up in another thread:

AFI 36-2903, concerning belts with BDU: "Black tip of belt may extend up to 2 inches beyond the buckle facing the wearer's left; blue woven cotton web or elastic with black metal tip and matching buckle.  Black web or black riggers belt with nondescript black buckle authorized as an optional item with BDU."

One, mirror the wear criteria. Two, allow the same belts with the BDU (and I imagine the ABU). Allows shopping at the same store as the Air Force. No real reason why we can't do it. Everyone needs a belt anyway.

I hope this is addressed! 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Smokey on December 15, 2007, 12:20:09 AM
I think the idea of getting away from the cartoon color specialty badges is a good one. If we could adopt the AF badges it would eliminate one more special item for Vanguard to rip us off for. The AF badges would be available at any AF  Military Clothing store or even Vanguard  but at a lower price.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BuckeyeDEJ on December 15, 2007, 04:40:56 AM
Smokey, I like the idea, but the Air Force will probably say 'no' because the criteria for earning the specialty badges in Civil Air Patrol will remain different from that for which the Air Force badge is earned.

I actually designed a proposal for those specialty badges... somewhere, I'll have to look for them. They were close enough to the Air Force insignia that you knew they were specialty badges, but they DID have the triangle-and-propeller insigne incorporated in one way or another.

If anyone has morbid curiosity to see that, I'll try to dig it up if asked.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 15, 2007, 04:51:21 AM
We're drifting again. There is already a thread on this. Please stay on track guys.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jb512 on December 15, 2007, 11:31:14 AM
Well, we can suggest that we wear rigger belts and change our cartoon specialty badges to all silver...
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 15, 2007, 05:52:31 PM
Another section that needs to be cleaned up it the section in 39-1 on Honor Guard uniforms. It was pretty much cut and pasted from whatever it was initially intact. It's not particulary well written.

Phrases such as "Items such as blah, blah, blah are not permitted" is not the way to write a anual.

Inclusive directions are more practical than exclusive ones. A simple statement such as "Items not set forth in this publication are not authorized" solves that.

If you write the statement "items such as ........ are not permitted", then someone can easily say "Well, it doesn't say can't wear it." The entire pub should basically say what you can wear.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on December 15, 2007, 08:56:46 PM
I would rather see the honor guard, color guard, drill team issues addressed in a supplement (39-11 or something).

I also think we need to bring more clarity to the issue of wings being able to supplement, or rather NOT supplement, the uniform. We got tons of cadet cords out there to the extent it gets silly. We do some real good cadet professional development programs in our state that we give cords for, and that's a big incentive to attend. The reality though is wings shouldn't have such localized programs. They should be pushed together into a national program & recognized with a ribbon. I understand why we are organized by states - because of the variances in state laws, but wings need to cease behaving like fiefdoms, particularly where reflected in the uniform.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RogueLeader on December 15, 2007, 09:09:12 PM
With the new Hap Arnold Heritage Uniform* now set, when are we going to mandated to be in them.  Note that the belt will have to sit at the natural waist of the wearer.  When we go to that uniform, will a tie be required as well?  Note that the HAHU has a 'mandarin" collar so a tie won't be seen.

Been told that not Hap, Arnold that we are going to, but the Billy Mitchell.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on December 15, 2007, 09:35:12 PM
Quote from: RogueLeader on December 15, 2007, 09:09:12 PM
Been told that not Hap, Arnold that we are going to, but the Billy Mitchell.

The AF can call it whatever, but in reality the uniform they "invented" is the "Army Service Dress Jacket circa 1919". 

They basically stole it back.  If they want heritage they should try just bringing it back with everything that was on it back then.  i.e. pant stripes, branch insignia (USAAF), etc.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: billford1 on December 15, 2007, 09:38:55 PM
Lt Col White,   Do you have a feel for how much of what is being proposed that the USAF will accept? It seems like the primary choices on page 19 ought to be easy for them?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on December 17, 2007, 07:35:10 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 14, 2007, 10:29:33 PM
Personally, the gray epalets have never bothered me.  I don't think they look all that bad.  Frankly, it would be a lot easier for me to just slip on epalets rather than trying to properly position metal rank every time I wear the service coat. 

I would agree.  The grey actually looks pretty sharp.  My guess is, to USAF eyes, the grey looks fine - it's a distinctive CAP thing.  The blue looks weird "why are they wearing shirt-stuff on their coat?"

That said, if going blue is the only way to get everyone wearing the same stuff, I'll deal.  Uniformity should trump personal style.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: 0 on December 17, 2007, 07:42:01 PM
What about wearing metal grad on shoulders and a CAP coutout on the shoulders of the AF service coat  as well?  We do this already on the black windbreaker? 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 17, 2007, 07:46:17 PM
Quote from: NERMA002 Safety on December 17, 2007, 07:42:01 PM
What about wearing metal grad on shoulders and a CAP coutout on the shoulders of the AF service coat  as well?  We do this already on the black windbreaker? 

That's been nixed by the Air Force a few times in the past. That's why we have the Corporate Service coat now.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: 0 on December 17, 2007, 07:50:10 PM
Really?  even with our own cutouts on the epulets they've nixed? 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on December 17, 2007, 07:57:02 PM
Quote from: NERMA002 Safety on December 17, 2007, 07:50:10 PM
Really?  even with our own cutouts on the epulets they've nixed? 

That was the default style WIWAC and went out with the maroon epaulet sliders.

Unless there's an acceptable compromise, such as metal grade and cutout on a plain gray epaulet, I feel we should place gray epaulet sliders on all our service uniforms: both AF and TPU based.

Less stuff in the uniform box and fewer choices, and fewer chances to make a mistake, when setting up a uniform.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: 0 on December 17, 2007, 07:58:16 PM
Well for the corprate dress I like having the blue there.  it looks better and more professional than the grey does.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on December 17, 2007, 08:02:02 PM
Quote from: NERMA002 Safety on December 17, 2007, 07:58:16 PM
Well for the corprate dress I like having the blue there.  it looks better and more professional than the grey does.

It's not a matter of looking "better" - it is a matter of looking like the rest of CAP.

(Say it with me!) One Team, One Fight, One uniform.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Grumpy on December 17, 2007, 08:06:26 PM
Well, we could always go back to circa 1959.  For the service coat you could put the "Chevy Patch" above the name tag, CAP cut outs on the collar and metal rank on the epaulets.  The "Chevy Patch" definitely stands out.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on December 17, 2007, 08:16:31 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 17, 2007, 07:57:02 PM
Quote from: NERMA002 Safety on December 17, 2007, 07:50:10 PM
Really?  even with our own cutouts on the epulets they've nixed? 

That was the default style WIWAC and went out with the maroon epaulet sliders.

Unless there's an acceptable compromise, such as metal grade and cutout on a plain gray epaulet, I feel we should place gray epaulet sliders on all our service uniforms: both AF and TPU based.

Less stuff in the uniform box and fewer choices, and fewer chances to make a mistake, when setting up a uniform.
The proposal is one kind of grade slide for all corp & blues combinations, jackets & shirts. It just happens to be blue slides rather than gray. Some of that is about appearance, but the more practical aspect is cost. The standard AF blue grade slides are mass produced. All vanguard has to do is embroider the CAP onto them & mark for sale, rather than maintaining a whole seperate specialty item.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on December 17, 2007, 08:34:46 PM
Quote from: DNall on December 17, 2007, 08:16:31 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 17, 2007, 07:57:02 PM
Quote from: NERMA002 Safety on December 17, 2007, 07:50:10 PM
Really?  even with our own cutouts on the epulets they've nixed? 

That was the default style WIWAC and went out with the maroon epaulet sliders.

Unless there's an acceptable compromise, such as metal grade and cutout on a plain gray epaulet, I feel we should place gray epaulet sliders on all our service uniforms: both AF and TPU based.

Less stuff in the uniform box and fewer choices, and fewer chances to make a mistake, when setting up a uniform.
The proposal is one kind of grade slide for all corp & blues combinations, jackets & shirts. It just happens to be blue slides rather than gray. Some of that is about appearance, but the more practical aspect is cost. The standard AF blue grade slides are mass produced. All vanguard has to do is embroider the CAP onto them & mark for sale, rather than maintaining a whole seperate specialty item.

I wouldn't be surprised if the cost is the about the same.  Unless they're getting some big discount on blue cloth, the touch labor (i.e. sticking it in the embroidery machine) is gonna be the same for either color.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: 0 on December 17, 2007, 08:50:19 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on December 17, 2007, 08:34:46 PM
Quote from: DNall on December 17, 2007, 08:16:31 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 17, 2007, 07:57:02 PM
Quote from: NERMA002 Safety on December 17, 2007, 07:50:10 PM
Really?  even with our own cutouts on the epulets they've nixed? 

That was the default style WIWAC and went out with the maroon epaulet sliders.

Unless there's an acceptable compromise, such as metal grade and cutout on a plain gray epaulet, I feel we should place gray epaulet sliders on all our service uniforms: both AF and TPU based.

Less stuff in the uniform box and fewer choices, and fewer chances to make a mistake, when setting up a uniform.
The proposal is one kind of grade slide for all corp & blues combinations, jackets & shirts. It just happens to be blue slides rather than gray. Some of that is about appearance, but the more practical aspect is cost. The standard AF blue grade slides are mass produced. All vanguard has to do is embroider the CAP onto them & mark for sale, rather than maintaining a whole seperate specialty item.

I wouldn't be surprised if the cost is the about the same.  Unless they're getting some big discount on blue cloth, the touch labor (i.e. sticking it in the embroidery machine) is gonna be the same for either color.


But to play devil's advocate it would be cheaper in that they wouldn't have to order the grey any more.  By increasing the number of blue they order they would save more money by buying the supplies in bulk.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on December 17, 2007, 09:17:23 PM
Quote from: NERMA002 Safety on December 17, 2007, 08:50:19 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on December 17, 2007, 08:34:46 PM
Quote from: DNall on December 17, 2007, 08:16:31 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 17, 2007, 07:57:02 PM
Quote from: NERMA002 Safety on December 17, 2007, 07:50:10 PM
Really?  even with our own cutouts on the epulets they've nixed? 

That was the default style WIWAC and went out with the maroon epaulet sliders.

Unless there's an acceptable compromise, such as metal grade and cutout on a plain gray epaulet, I feel we should place gray epaulet sliders on all our service uniforms: both AF and TPU based.

Less stuff in the uniform box and fewer choices, and fewer chances to make a mistake, when setting up a uniform.
The proposal is one kind of grade slide for all corp & blues combinations, jackets & shirts. It just happens to be blue slides rather than gray. Some of that is about appearance, but the more practical aspect is cost. The standard AF blue grade slides are mass produced. All vanguard has to do is embroider the CAP onto them & mark for sale, rather than maintaining a whole seperate specialty item.

I wouldn't be surprised if the cost is the about the same.  Unless they're getting some big discount on blue cloth, the touch labor (i.e. sticking it in the embroidery machine) is gonna be the same for either color.


But to play devil's advocate it would be cheaper in that they wouldn't have to order the grey any more.  By increasing the number of blue they order they would save more money by buying the supplies in bulk.

But not enough to make a difference in the price to the consumer - though Vanguard might make more money.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: 0 on December 17, 2007, 09:29:00 PM
Well when you do a cost to profit analysis, they'd make more if it was all on one backing.  Remember they have to pay for the materials they're using.  So if there's one less type to order they can take a percentage of that money used for the greys and get more blue and have mony left over.  Thus they're already ahead of the game before they sell them.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on December 17, 2007, 09:35:02 PM
Quote from: NERMA002 Safety on December 17, 2007, 09:29:00 PM
Well when you do a cost to profit analysis, they'd make more if it was all on one backing.  Remember they have to pay for the materials they're using.  So if there's one less type to order they can take a percentage of that money used for the greys and get more blue and have mony left over.  Thus they're already ahead of the game before they sell them.

You'll forgive if I hope our uniforms decisions don't hang on how much Vanguard can make off of us?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: 0 on December 17, 2007, 09:37:16 PM
They'd most likely be able to charge us a little less actually as well.  Which is always a good thing. Yes at first   we'd have to pay a little more to update what we already have but after that it's not like we'd be ordering it all the time.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on December 18, 2007, 02:29:22 PM
If you look at Vanguard's website, the grey CAP epaulets are actually cheaper than the blue USAF ones they sell!

So much for a discount.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: O-Rex on December 18, 2007, 02:50:43 PM
Lt. Col White:

Maybe I missed it in earlier posts (this is a LONG thread)  but what are timeframes in the decision-making process, i.e., have the proposals been finalized?  Is it going before the next NB?

How many members make up the board?  Are there any NB or NEC members on it?

Is there anything in writing to formally establish a board, permanent or otherwise?  Might head off any future ad-hoc changes that might be co$tly to members later on. . . .

Also, it seems that someone in CAP-USAF is on the board (?)  Are they giving input on recommendations along the way, or giving initial guidlines & boundaries?

It would be nice to get a USAF nod or nay along the way, so that there are no surprises or disappointments later on.  The story I heard was that the whole corporate uniform-thing began when Gen Pineda went to the AETC CC with a proposal for pin-on rank with an enameled CAP shield for the blues (like Army unit crests,) the response to which was a resounding "No!"

I'm very curious as to the process itself: I've been harping on a CAP uniform board for years now: nice to see that we have one.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jason.pennington on December 18, 2007, 04:09:50 PM
I have a question about the Navy Air Warfare Badge.  The 39-1 says you may wear other service aviation badges/wings.  I've looked and looked and the only thing I can find on the subject is that the Navy Uniform Manual classifies this badge as an aviation badge.  Other than someone else's post, I have not found anything that says it is not an aviation badge.  I have been wearing mine for nearly 4 years now.  If someone can show me that it is not an aviation badge, and therefore not authorized, please do and I shall remove it.  Thanks for the help!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Grumpy on December 18, 2007, 04:39:21 PM
If that badge was awarded to you, wear it.  I wear my Air Police, Security Police, Security Forces badge (that should cover all the titles we've been called) with pride 1/2" above my ribbons.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 18, 2007, 05:12:10 PM
Quote from: jason.pennington on December 18, 2007, 04:09:50 PM
I have a question about the Navy Air Warfare Badge.  The 39-1 says you may wear other service aviation badges/wings.  I've looked and looked and the only thing I can find on the subject is that the Navy Uniform Manual classifies this badge as an aviation badge.  Other than someone else's post, I have not found anything that says it is not an aviation badge.  I have been wearing mine for nearly 4 years now.  If someone can show me that it is not an aviation badge, and therefore not authorized, please do and I shall remove it.  Thanks for the help!

If the awarding branch considers it an aviation badge, then it's an aviation badge. You're in compliance with the manual.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on December 18, 2007, 05:17:30 PM
Quote from: Grumpy on December 18, 2007, 04:39:21 PM
If that badge was awarded to you, wear it.  I wear my Air Police, Security Police, Security Forces badge (that should cover all the titles we've been called) with pride 1/2" above my ribbons.

Your SkyCop skill badge is authorized to be worn on the AF uniform, so it's authorized for the CAP suit.

The Navy Air Warfare Specialist aren't aviators in the AF sense, so I would suggest running it past Ms. Parker before popping that thing on.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 18, 2007, 07:05:59 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 18, 2007, 05:17:30 PM
The Navy Air Warfare Specialist aren't aviators in the AF sense, so I would suggest running it past Ms. Parker before popping that thing on.

The manual says "aviation" badge. It doesn't specifically say that the person that has been awarded it has to be an aviator.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jimmydeanno on December 18, 2007, 07:21:32 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 18, 2007, 05:17:30 PM
Quote from: Grumpy on December 18, 2007, 04:39:21 PM
If that badge was awarded to you, wear it.  I wear my Air Police, Security Police, Security Forces badge (that should cover all the titles we've been called) with pride 1/2" above my ribbons.

Your SkyCop skill badge is authorized to be worn on the AF uniform, so it's authorized for the CAP suit.

The Navy Air Warfare Specialist aren't aviators in the AF sense, so I would suggest running it past Ms. Parker before popping that thing on.

My last squadron had a bunch of Navy Personnel that wanted to wear there do dads (something about silver wings looking dumb :) ).  We just had to make the phone call to confirm, but AW wings are allowed.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Stonewall on December 18, 2007, 07:30:33 PM
Quote from: Grumpy on December 18, 2007, 04:39:21 PM
If that badge was awarded to you, wear it.  I wear my Air Police, Security Police, Security Forces badge (that should cover all the titles we've been called) with pride 1/2" above my ribbons.

You wear the "skill badge", not the "security police shield", right?

Meaning, you wear this:
(http://www.af.mil/shared/media/ggallery/webgraphic/web_afg_021203_094.jpg)

And you don't wear this:

(http://www.af.mil/shared/media/ggallery/webgraphic/AFG-070718-006.jpg)



Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Grumpy on December 18, 2007, 09:42:50 PM
That's correct.  It's the Master rating though.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: adamblank on December 18, 2007, 10:28:43 PM
Quote from: Stonewall on December 18, 2007, 07:30:33 PM
Quote from: Grumpy on December 18, 2007, 04:39:21 PM
If that badge was awarded to you, wear it.  I wear my Air Police, Security Police, Security Forces badge (that should cover all the titles we've been called) with pride 1/2" above my ribbons.

You wear the "skill badge", not the "security police shield", right?

Meaning, you wear this:
(http://www.af.mil/shared/media/ggallery/webgraphic/web_afg_021203_094.jpg)

And you don't wear this:

(http://www.af.mil/shared/media/ggallery/webgraphic/AFG-070718-006.jpg)






I have actually seen an individual wearing the SF shield, which is a big no.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RogueLeader on December 19, 2007, 03:29:06 AM
Will we still be authorized to wear Combat boots in Blues?  According to numerous AD folks, the only people that can wear CB with Class A's are Airborne.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Pylon on December 19, 2007, 03:36:53 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on December 19, 2007, 03:29:06 AM
Will we still be authorized to wear Combat boots in Blues?  According to numerous AD folks, the only people that can wear CB with Class A's are Airborne.

CAPM 39-1 says yes.  We're not USAF.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 19, 2007, 04:22:34 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on December 19, 2007, 03:29:06 AM
Will we still be authorized to wear Combat boots in Blues?  According to numerous AD folks, the only people that can wear CB with Class A's are Airborne.

That only applies to Army personnel.  Air Force personnel have been authorized to wear combat boots with all blues combinations for a long while. I wear a set of plain black Ropers with my blues. They're more comfortable than combat boots.

Now I doubt the moldy greens will be authorized. That would just look tacky.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on December 19, 2007, 05:57:32 AM
Quote from: Pylon on December 19, 2007, 03:36:53 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on December 19, 2007, 03:29:06 AM
Will we still be authorized to wear Combat boots in Blues?  According to numerous AD folks, the only people that can wear CB with Class A's are Airborne.
CAPM 39-1 says yes.  We're not USAF.
But will be mirroring the AF in this regard. One of the issues with 39-1 is it was originally written to mirror the AF manual, but as the AF rules changed over time, CAP didn't do the updates. I believe we're going to be trying to link the new version of 39-1 directly to the AF manual so that changes there are automatically incorporated to our version w/o needing to consult leadership on either side - they all have better things to spend their energy on. For the record though, I do believe boots are authorized w/ blues in the AF as well, and have seen it on many occations.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on December 19, 2007, 06:02:35 AM
Quote from: Dragoon on December 18, 2007, 02:29:22 PM
If you look at Vanguard's website, the grey CAP epaulets are actually cheaper than the blue USAF ones they sell!

So much for a discount.
That's actually based on the quality of the items, which a lot of people have complained about in the past. The blue CAP slides being discussed would be avail at roughly the same price as the AF versions, which is the higher quality, and would also include the option of the smaller female versions which we don't make in gray because of cost.

What we're trying to do here is standardize as many things as possible between our own varrious uniform combinations, as well as with the overall AF expectations for their uniform. Part of that effort is to do away with so many specialty items when an off the shelf alternative actually works better. It makes even more sense when you talk about nametags.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BillB on December 19, 2007, 12:30:34 PM
Didn't I see in 39-1 or Knowledgebase that boots are authorized with blues, but NOT bloused?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JayT on December 19, 2007, 02:38:44 PM
Quote from: BillB on December 19, 2007, 12:30:34 PM
Didn't I see in 39-1 or Knowledgebase that boots are authorized with blues, but NOT bloused?

It's in 39-1.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jimmydeanno on December 19, 2007, 02:57:33 PM
Quote from: 39-1, Page 48, table 2-1, row 7
Black, with or without safety toe; must have a plain rounded toe or rounded capped toe with or without perforated seam; zipper or elastic inserts are optional; no designs. Highly polished, high gloss, or patent leather.

May be worn with: New Service Coat, Old Service Coat, Long Sleeve Blue Shirt, Short Sleeve Blue Shirt.

May not be worn with: Mess Dress, Semi-formal.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RogueLeader on December 19, 2007, 04:29:13 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 19, 2007, 04:22:34 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on December 19, 2007, 03:29:06 AM
Will we still be authorized to wear Combat boots in Blues?  According to numerous AD folks, the only people that can wear CB with Class A's are Airborne.

That only applies to Army personnel.  Air Force personnel have been authorized to wear combat boots with all blues combinations for a long while. I wear a set of plain black Ropers with my blues. They're more comfortable than combat boots.

Now I doubt the moldy greens will be authorized. That would just look tacky.


Do you have a cite for the AFMAN regarding boots?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jimmydeanno on December 19, 2007, 04:55:24 PM
Quote from: AFI36-2903, Page 51, line 6

Combat Boots, Black/Jungle: With or without safety toe; must have a plain rounded toe or rounded capped toe with or without perforated seam; zipper or elastic inserts are optional; no designs. High gloss or patent finish optional.

May be worn with: Service Dress, Long Sleeve, Short Sleeve
May not be worn with: Mess Dress, Formal Dress, Semi-Formal

Dress Boots, Black: With rounded plain or rounded capped toe; zipper or elastic inserts optional; no design; sole will not exceed 1/2 inch in thickness and shoe heels will not exceed 1 inch in height
(measured from the inside front of the heel). High gloss or patent finish optional.

May be worn with: Service Dress, Long Sleeve, Short Sleeve
May not be worn with: Mess Dress, Formal Dress, Semi-Formal
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 19, 2007, 06:25:22 PM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on December 19, 2007, 04:55:24 PM
Quote from: AFI36-2903, Page 51, line 6

Combat Boots, Black/Jungle: With or without safety toe; must have a plain rounded toe or rounded capped toe with or without perforated seam; zipper or elastic inserts are optional; no designs. High gloss or patent finish optional.

May be worn with: Service Dress, Long Sleeve, Short Sleeve
May not be worn with: Mess Dress, Formal Dress, Semi-Formal

Dress Boots, Black: With rounded plain or rounded capped toe; zipper or elastic inserts optional; no design; sole will not exceed 1/2 inch in thickness and shoe heels will not exceed 1 inch in height
(measured from the inside front of the heel). High gloss or patent finish optional.

May be worn with: Service Dress, Long Sleeve, Short Sleeve
May not be worn with: Mess Dress, Formal Dress, Semi-Formal

Added note that these boots have to be well polished and in good condition. You can't just wipe off black field boots and wear them with scars all over them.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RogueLeader on December 19, 2007, 06:58:42 PM
Roger, and thanks.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on December 20, 2007, 01:52:23 PM
Quote from: DNall on December 19, 2007, 06:02:35 AM
Quote from: Dragoon on December 18, 2007, 02:29:22 PM
If you look at Vanguard's website, the grey CAP epaulets are actually cheaper than the blue USAF ones they sell!

So much for a discount.
That's actually based on the quality of the items, which a lot of people have complained about in the past. The blue CAP slides being discussed would be avail at roughly the same price as the AF versions, which is the higher quality, and would also include the option of the smaller female versions which we don't make in gray because of cost.

What we're trying to do here is standardize as many things as possible between our own varrious uniform combinations, as well as with the overall AF expectations for their uniform. Part of that effort is to do away with so many specialty items when an off the shelf alternative actually works better. It makes even more sense when you talk about nametags.

So we want to RAISE the price of the epaulets as part of our cost cutting measures?  Sheesh.

I've never had a problem with the quality of the grey epaulets.  They are equal to the black ones I wear every day.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on December 20, 2007, 10:50:58 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on December 20, 2007, 01:52:23 PM
So we want to RAISE the price of the epaulets as part of our cost cutting measures?  Sheesh.

I've never had a problem with the quality of the grey epaulets.  They are equal to the black ones I wear every day.
They're not actually, but that's not the point.

Right now people get metal grade, blue slides, and 3 sets of grey slides. That runs a bit over $35.

With standardization, you use the same items on all combinations, that works out to roughly $25.

Likewise, members currently buy 4 dif nametags at about $23 (grey 3-line, blue 2-line, silver 2-line, silver 1-line). Where we could instead go to widely avail off the shelf AF versions just like AFJROTC/AFROTC/etc use. That reduces it to 2 nametags (one line blue & one line silver) running about $10. That issue isn't even really about the potential savings nearly as much as it is about ease of rapid access to items on the local level.

If you want to argue that we should standardize to grey, that's fine. I respect that position, and it is the second choice - and frankly the more likely to be approved. However, I personally believe the blue versions look much more natural & in place to the eyes of AF viewers.

CAP had blue slides & blue nametags on the AF uniform for most of our history. It was removed & replaced with maroon when CAP got too out of line & the AF felt it important to distinguish that we were not them (changed to grey after some serious begging). We've had our problems, including recently. I think the AF has learned from this period that it's easier to control CAP if you keep them close rather than hold them at a distance. We now in the era of the total force. We have CAP-USAF & significant powers within the AF pushing the idea of CAP being more integrated within the total force concept & utilized (like we do in theory with chaplains) to help fulfill the larger total-AF mission. At the same time, we're in a period of major transition with the uniforms, both going to ABUs & eventually the new service coat. Given these conditions, I believe it's appropriate to better align & standardize ourselves with our parent organization & the standards THEY set for THEIR uniform.

As I said, you're welcome to your alternate opinion, and I do sincerely respect that, but I think we have an opportunity here to do a bit more than just knock a couple bucks off the uniform costs to new members. If we can do both things at once, I think it's appropriate to put that proposal forward.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on December 21, 2007, 04:32:12 AM
I think moving to blue epaulets for the Service Dress jacket is a bad idea.

Frankly, I think people are going to look at us and say, "You know, those things go on the shirt and not the jacket."  That's if they say anything at all: they may just shake their heads at the way we wear our uniform.

With the gray slides there's less of a chance of that as they can understand it's an additional difference b/w CAP and USAF uniforms.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 21, 2007, 04:46:50 AM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 21, 2007, 04:32:12 AM
I think moving to blue epaulets for the Service Dress jacket is a bad idea.

Frankly, I think people are going to look at us and say, "You know, those things go on the shirt and not the jacket."  That's if they say anything at all: they may just shake their heads at the way we wear our uniform.

With the gray slides there's less of a chance of that as they can understand it's an additional difference b/w CAP and USAF uniforms.

Hmmm, good point.

Here's an idea. How about an actual shoulder board for seniors?

It may sound wierd, but there used to a formal dress uniform in the Air Force that was basically a service dress jacket, but used  Mess Dress shoulder boards. Instead of an epaulet, it had a set of loops like the mess dress jacket that a strap slipped through on the underside of the boards.

Maybe a similar design for seniors in an appropriate color, with rank insignia pinned on. Once you have the boards, there wouldn't be any reason to buy anything other than insignia. It would probably have to be fairly low profile, so as not to be too obvious.

The loops wouldn't be too difficult to do either. Just sew them on sturdy so that they don't come off. Not like you'd actually see them, they'd be under the board anyway.

Standardize this same board for both SDU, and CSU. Then we're all set. A distinctive nametag and a set of shoulder boards would definitely set us apart.

I may regret asking, but: Thoughts?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DrJbdm on December 21, 2007, 05:10:20 AM
The shoulder board idea may not be too bad, I think you could design a shoulder board that could utilize the epaulets so as to keep from having to have loops sewn in place. Aren't cadet shoulder boards designed that way?

for the record, I think the grey slides look horrible on the jacket, forget trying to make an additional distinction, AF members still look at us and shake their heads  saying we must have no clue on fashion. I am sure not a single one of them goes, "wow, what a neat idea for distinction!" the CAP printed on the blue slides provides plenty of distinction, no need to add a bunch more. the object with distinction is not to tell the difference between AF and CAP officers from a mile away in a dense fog, it needs to be a subtle yet understandable distinction.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: arajca on December 21, 2007, 05:18:50 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 21, 2007, 04:46:50 AM
Hmmm, good point.

Here's an idea. How about an actual shoulder board for seniors?

It may sound wierd, but there used to a formal dress uniform in the Air Force that was basically a service dress jacket, but used  Mess Dress shoulder boards. Instead of an epaulet, it had a set of loops like the mess dress jacket that a strap slipped through on the underside of the boards.

Maybe a similar design for seniors in an appropriate color, with rank insignia pinned on. Once you have the boards, there wouldn't be any reason to buy anything other than insignia. It would probably have to be fairly low profile, so as not to be too obvious.

The loops wouldn't be too difficult to do either. Just sew them on sturdy so that they don't come off. Not like you'd actually see them, they'd be under the board anyway.

Standardize this same board for both SDU, and CSU. Then we're all set. A distinctive nametag and a set of shoulder boards would definitely set us apart.

I may regret asking, but: Thoughts?
During a period of boredom a year ago, I came up with this idea...

Grade isignia would be standard metal pin on - just change the pins when you get promoted.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on December 21, 2007, 11:41:08 AM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 21, 2007, 04:32:12 AM
I think moving to blue epaulets for the Service Dress jacket is a bad idea.

Frankly, I think people are going to look at us and say, "You know, those things go on the shirt and not the jacket."  That's if they say anything at all: they may just shake their heads at the way we wear our uniform.

With the gray slides there's less of a chance of that as they can understand it's an additional difference b/w CAP and USAF uniforms.[/quote]
I know where you're coming from, but I see it a little differently.

Respectfully, we're not going to shoulder boards. It's expensive & would get a simliar, "those belong on mess dress," or, "this ain't the Navy" reaction. It's not practical & it moves still further away from what they AF viewer is expecting to see.

blue vs gray...
The gray is high contrast & I think stands out to the point of drawing excessive attention to the item. That causes them to question everything about the uniform right form the start.

I'd rather have something that better blends in, both literally to the coat as well as to their expectations of what they normally see, but while still clearly labeling it as different. I've talked in the past about black - and yes I know we're not the Army either, it's just about lower contrast. There's a whole thread about that floating around somewhere with graphics & all. It was really a compromise to try to bring people together, and it got some decent support at the time.

I'd also note that we're really trying to cut down the number of nametags. Four versions not counting cadets is flat out of control. The economies of scale (or lack thereof) on something like that for our size organizaiton is just nuts.

We're talking about going to one standard blue nametag for both the white & blue shirts (and one standard silver for both service coats). That may be the normal 1-line AF version if they'll go for it (at least for cadets), or it may be the two-line version currently used on the white shirt if they don't. We went to gray nametags when we went to the gray epaulets, I'll leave it at that.

Look - we're going to have to do something here to come together. We just can't continue using so many specialty items or such a variety of dif items. We need to use off the shelf solutions (either directly or adapted for our use) as much as possible. That means we have to compromise and come together on some things. You don't have to agree with me on this point or any other, but I really think it deserves some strong consideration.

In the end, I think the AF is going to like standardization, but will say to use the gray. And, that's okay, but blue should be on the table first, and I think that's where the proposal is headed.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on December 21, 2007, 12:35:46 PM
Quote from: DNall on December 20, 2007, 10:50:58 PMIf you want to argue that we should standardize to grey, that's fine. I respect that position, and it is the second choice - and frankly the more likely to be approved. However, I personally believe the blue versions look much more natural & in place to the eyes of AF viewers. 

Yup, that's exactly what I'm arguing.  I've got no reel beef with blue, except that to a USAF guy, putting blue sliders on the service dress coat will look very odd.  As in "Hey buddy, ya know you put your shirt rank on your jacket?"

With grey, no confusion.  It's obviously not USAF, so there are no comparisions.  And on a stylistic note, if we have to put sliders on a coat, the contrasting grey looks better to me than the blue, which won't always match exactly, depending on the fade of the sliders and the coat.  I recall back in my ROTC days when we tried putting green epaulet sliders on a green coat - it never quite looked right.  The contrasting black ones looked much better.

Also, different colored epaulets (albeit red) are kind of the traditional way to denote CAP officers.  Red would look silly with blue, but grey is not bad.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JayT on December 21, 2007, 02:06:47 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 21, 2007, 04:46:50 AM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 21, 2007, 04:32:12 AM
I think moving to blue epaulets for the Service Dress jacket is a bad idea.

Frankly, I think people are going to look at us and say, "You know, those things go on the shirt and not the jacket."  That's if they say anything at all: they may just shake their heads at the way we wear our uniform.

With the gray slides there's less of a chance of that as they can understand it's an additional difference b/w CAP and USAF uniforms.

Hmmm, good point.

Here's an idea. How about an actual shoulder board for seniors?

It may sound wierd, but there used to a formal dress uniform in the Air Force that was basically a service dress jacket, but used  Mess Dress shoulder boards. Instead of an epaulet, it had a set of loops like the mess dress jacket that a strap slipped through on the underside of the boards.

Maybe a similar design for seniors in an appropriate color, with rank insignia pinned on. Once you have the boards, there wouldn't be any reason to buy anything other than insignia. It would probably have to be fairly low profile, so as not to be too obvious.

The loops wouldn't be too difficult to do either. Just sew them on sturdy so that they don't come off. Not like you'd actually see them, they'd be under the board anyway.

Standardize this same board for both SDU, and CSU. Then we're all set. A distinctive nametag and a set of shoulder boards would definitely set us apart.

I may regret asking, but: Thoughts?

Wouldn't that cost more? I know my old Cadet shoulderboards costs about $30 plus insignia.

Further more, how would regular AF guys react? (Not that it actually matters in the least bit......)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on December 21, 2007, 02:50:00 PM
Keep in mind that whenever these "the AF people will think we don't know what we're doing arguments" are presented that most CAP people will probably never come in contact with AF personnel while wearing thier Service Dress uniforms other than those that are specificially invited to CAP events. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DrJbdm on December 21, 2007, 03:23:20 PM
maybe shoulder boards isn't such a hot idea after all. some good points where raised.

  I don't know what will happen with the idea of going to blue sliders but I'm guessing it's all in the preparation and the presentation. as I learned in the Police Academy, it all comes down to how you articulate something.

   IF the AF was to come back and say no to blue, despite our best efforts then the next compromise idea might be to ask for black. we just need to get rid of the grey. I know some of you like the grey, but it just doesn't look great. Besides grey would look horrible on the CSU. if we can't have blue or black then I think we should stay how we are; grey on AF & blue on CSU.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JC004 on December 21, 2007, 08:51:20 PM
Shoulder boards is one thing I miss least about being a cadet.  The things might be alright if they put a hook & loop bottom similar to the SM epaulet sleeves with Velcro.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on December 21, 2007, 09:04:26 PM
I know that somewhere in the depths of this thread it has been recommended that any BDU-ABU or new Service Dress uniform transitions be extended.  I would like to make the suggestion that rather than having a specific sunset date for any new service dress uniform that a "until no longer servicable" rule apply to them in particular. 

Unlike the fatigue uniforms, these are pricy items that are purchased solely for CAP use and quite frankly, I think CAP shouldn't ask its members to buy more than 1 set during their career (barring any major decreases or increases in body size).  Since they are not worn all that often by most senior members in particular they are probably more likely to go to civilian wear that they already own rather than buy a new service coat for $150-200. 

Frankly, it won't really take long for only a few people to be wearing the old style uniforms so it won't be quite as jarring as all the other uniform variations that will continue to be worn anyway.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ZigZag911 on December 21, 2007, 09:04:57 PM
Cadet officer shoulder baorsds were a huge pain!

I'd rather pay for a different color for the shoulder marks -- maybe royal blue, to distinguish us from Real AF?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JayT on December 21, 2007, 09:35:34 PM
Quote from: DrJbdm on December 21, 2007, 03:23:20 PM

   IF the AF was to come back and say no to blue, despite our best efforts then the next compromise idea might be to ask for black. we just need to get rid of the grey. I know some of you like the grey, but it just doesn't look great. Besides grey would look horrible on the CSU. if we can't have blue or black then I think we should stay how we are; grey on AF & blue on CSU.

So what you're saying is "People who like grey, they just like it because it's their opinion."

and then the next sentence you say "Grey looks horrible."

then you say "Black would look better."
(paraphrased of course)

Black would be chang just for changes sake.

And to another poster, whats the difference between the fatigues and BDUs really? If we say 'Wear until no longer servicable,' we'll have members wearing obselete uniform items for the next fifteen years. And we'll have Senior Members and cadets wearing BDU items over ABUs, etc etc etc.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: NAYBOR on December 21, 2007, 10:43:28 PM
Because of the talk of the shoulder boards, here is a link to a Word document with some of the proposals I submitted to LtCol White.  I will not post the pictures directly to the site here.  Please understand that these are only PROPOSALS.  This is in addition to my other proposals on this board, made after these proposals.  Comments?

http://www.mediafire.com/?5jijeyzjbz2 (http://www.mediafire.com/?5jijeyzjbz2)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 22, 2007, 07:06:09 AM
Quote from: NAYBOR on December 21, 2007, 10:43:28 PM
Because of the talk of the shoulder boards, here is a link to a Word document with some of the proposals I submitted to LtCol White.  I will not post the pictures directly to the site here.  Please understand that these are only PROPOSALS.  This is in addition to my other proposals on this board, made after these proposals.  Comments?

http://www.mediafire.com/?5jijeyzjbz2 (http://www.mediafire.com/?5jijeyzjbz2)

A few. Why bother using Air Force officer shoulder boards when there are CAP Mess dress boards already? This isn't consolidating anything at all. I think ours look better, but that's my opinion. Either way, we need to quit borrowing military stuff for the "pseudo-Air Force" CSU.

Second, what is wrong with our service cap device? I don't understand the "need" to retool an insignia that has served us well for a few decades. There is no reason to spend that money.

Third, I would remove references of placing any insignia below "U.S." insignia. That's like flying an American flag below a CAP flag. It just isn't done.

Also, the CSU is not a military uniform. In any way, shape, or form. We get to wear "U.S." insignia on the Air Force variants because those are  based on an actual military uniform. CSU is not, was not, and never will be a military uniform.

Your presentation obviously was a great deal of hard work, and could use a little polish, but it was good.

I just don't see the reason for the content.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: NAYBOR on December 22, 2007, 03:01:30 PM
Hi Hawk,

The shoulder boards were actually boards I designed from scratch using AFROTC boards because they are clutch back.  I thought they'd match nicely with the silver commissioning braid on the CSU.  The boards are black, not blue, like the AF boards, making them distinctive from ANY mess dress boards the AF uses.  They just would've looked similar, and users would use black bow ties and studs for a CSU mess dress rather than the blue tie and silver studs the AF uses.  If we go to blue commissioning braid on all coats, then yes, the boards would look like our CAP mess dress boards--we could just change the silver braid on the boards to blue, and keep the AFROTC black boards with clutch back to be attached to the CSU.  Keep the black bow tie and black studs and cuff links.  Simple.

There is nothing wrong with our present service cap device in CAP--I just made some suggestions for ones to look more "in line" with our AF officer one.  I figured LtCol White said make ANY suggestions--I took that as an invitation to take an "...And the kitchen sink..." approach.

You're absolutely right about the US being below CAP on the coat.  I hadn't thought about that.  Bad idea.  And please believe me-- I NEVER intended the CSU to be treated as a military coat.  Absolutely not.  It is what it is--a CORPORATE coat, made to be a military equivalent.  I feel that we should take the CAP cutouts off of it, personally, to make it look more corporate, but I guess that if you do that, you'd have to take the metal rank off too.  We could put rank stripes on epaulet boards then, or on the sleeves, like corporate airlines do (thus making the CSU more "corporate"), but I think a lot in cap would have a "poop" fit over that.  Very "McPeak", but hey, McPeak tried to do it with a military coat, NOT a CSU.  If we did rank stripes, it would make the CSU CAP destinctive, and would never be confused for an AF officer.  Might be something we might want to think about.  I like the metal rank on the CSU, but rank stripes, either on epaulet boards or on the sleves, would make it look more corporate.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on December 22, 2007, 03:36:57 PM
The intent was commendable, but the execution went over like a lead zeppelin (pun intended).  ;D

I 'ga-ron-tee' (apologies to the late Justin Wilson...) the shoulder boards would have been shot down in flames by the RealAirForce®, unless there was some distinctive CAP identifier (maybe a bullion CAP senior member hat device emblem?) added on the board along with bullion grade insignia. Doesn't matter if they were black or blue, as currently designed  in your plan they're currently indistinguishable from each other, at least in the eyes of the Air Force.

I'd keep the dark blue bowtie instead of black - less expense. Ditto with silver or mother-of-pearl studs and cufflinks. Keep the shirt plain or use a standard pleated tux shirt.

Not sure if the current mess dress boards have some loops under the boards or if you have to tack on velcro. If the latter's the case, if boards are go, then have Mudguard - ahem, Vanguard - modify the attachment to a clutch back or loop so they can be used for either mess dress or formal CSU.

I still scratch my head with the silver sleeve braid... "Ensign Lieutenant"? ;D If they (the RealAirForce) let us go with dark blue sleeve braid, then I agree with you in using the current mess dress boards unchanged.

One thing I would like to see done with the CSU service dress jacket... narrow the frickin' lapels! As it is, if you have more than two rows of ribbons and wings, they get partially obscured. And staggering doesn't work well unless you have more than four rows of ribbons.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: FlyingTerp on December 22, 2007, 04:24:40 PM
Quote from: NAYBOR on December 21, 2007, 10:43:28 PM
Because of the talk of the shoulder boards, here is a link to a Word document with some of the proposals I submitted to LtCol White.  I will not post the pictures directly to the site here.  Please understand that these are only PROPOSALS.  This is in addition to my other proposals on this board, made after these proposals.  Comments?

http://www.mediafire.com/?5jijeyzjbz2 (http://www.mediafire.com/?5jijeyzjbz2)

IMHO, the CSU option with a bow tie is good enough for a "formal service dress."  Its not a Mess Dress, but it fits the occasion without the additional expense of multiple uniform items.

I'm a big fan of our current service cap insignia.  Its not expensive, its readily available, and its distinctively CAP.  I really don't see the need to modify the AF service cap insignia for our use.

I do agree with your statement to keep the CSU "as is."  I really don't see the need for any major overhaul of our uniforms.  Lets get 39-1 updated, so we don't have to deal with multiple conflicting policy letters.   Let's wear our uniforms proudly and correctly, and get on with the mission!

Thanks for the effort.  It was an interesting read.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 22, 2007, 09:31:30 PM
I'm glad you took the comments in the spirit they were intended, NAYBOR. Some people would have thought I was just being a jerk.

The CSU could certainly use a few little "fancy" touches as a formal uniform. I think the bow-tie is a start, and mess dress shoulder boards would be pretty distinctive.

I know that in the Eighties, one of the allowances in AFR 35-10 was that certain grades (lieutenants, I believe) were permitted to use a flat two ribbon bar to affix the mess dress shoulder board to the epaulet of a standard service coat. It allowed those junior grades to use a regular service coat as a more formal uniform.

Now with full size medals, it made a pretty good Air Force equivalent to the Army Dress Blue (which is now becoming the Army Service uniform). If we had full size medals, we could have something formal without someone needing actual multiple uniforms.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on December 23, 2007, 05:20:58 AM
Quote from: DrJbdm on December 21, 2007, 03:23:20 PM
   IF the AF was to come back and say no to blue, despite our best efforts then the next compromise idea might be to ask for black. we just need to get rid of the grey. I know some of you like the grey, but it just doesn't look great. Besides grey would look horrible on the CSU. if we can't have blue or black then I think we should stay how we are; grey on AF & blue on CSU.
It's a forgone conclusion at this point that we'll be using the same epaulets on: the AF-style & Corp-style service coat, and the shirts for both. As well as the same plastic nametag for both shirts, and same metal nametag for both jackets. The only real question is what color. The nametag will almost certainly be blue, either one or two line (same nametag for cadets), regardless of what the epaulets look like.

I do believe blue would be best option. I don't think the initial reaction of an AF viewer is going to be thinking they put the shirt rank on the jacket - maybe but it's not a strong argument to me. Right now they see the gray as SO out of place that they see it as jacked up from the start & go on to analyize the rest of the uniform before they make any attempt to figure out who or what you are.

I like black as a second choice, because it's low contrast versus the gray. It has its pros & cons, but I don't think it's been widely considered. Do understand it's an attempt at compromise to bring the CSU & AF service dress together, along with the people on each side of the issue. And of course it does have precedent in the AF family... Here's an example of how that looks:
(http://www.afrotc.umn.edu/photos/01/GLP.jpg)
(http://www.afrotc.umn.edu/photos/01/MG.jpg)

If all that fails, then it will almost for sure be gray for everything. There is little question remaining that we're going to standardize btwn the corp & AF serivce uniforms, and attempt to standardize better w/ the AF in the process. Again though, the question is how we can come together to standardize & reduce the excessive number and varriety of items needed, and in so doing to control costs.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DrJbdm on December 23, 2007, 06:25:38 AM
The black actually looks sharp on the blues, and it actually doesn't look that bad on the coat. I really think that if we ended up going to black, then we should ditch the CAP printed on the slides unless we wore a regular AF 1 line nametag. If we stayed with the 2line nametag then the CAP on the slides is redundant.

1st choice would be Blue epaulet slides
2nd choice would be black epaulet slides
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on December 23, 2007, 02:21:50 PM
Here's another thing that may need to be addressed for consideration by the committee:

Dark Blue Corporate Flight Suit and Utility Uniform (aka blue "faux flight suit") Headgear:

Either flight cap (from blues) or blue patrol cap from the CAP DFU (aka "Blue BDU") may be worn. Grade insignia, if worn on patrol cap, may be either ultramarine blue background (to match CAP DFU) or dark blue background to match embroidered dark blue background grade insignia (if worn) on corporate flight suit/utility uniform. (If dark blue is selected as the new nametape color then just keep dark blue.)

Flight cap/patrol cap is not worn in a FOD-critical area (flight line).

Flight cap/patrol cap may be stowed in either lower leg pocket of the blue flight suit/utility uniform; the pocket where the cap is stowed may remain unzipped and a portion of the flight cap/patrol cap may remain exposed. Pocket will remain zipped in a FOD critical area (flight line).

Questions, comments, groans, rotten tomatoes from the peanut gallery?  ;D
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on December 23, 2007, 03:08:34 PM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on December 23, 2007, 02:21:50 PM
Here's another thing that may need to be addressed for consideration by the committee:

Dark Blue Corporate Flight Suit and Utility Uniform (aka blue "faux flight suit") Headgear:

Either flight cap (from blues) or blue patrol cap from the CAP DFU (aka "Blue BDU") may be worn. Grade insignia, if worn on patrol cap, may be either ultramarine blue background (to match CAP DFU) or dark blue background to match embroidered dark blue background grade insignia (if worn) on corporate flight suit/utility uniform. (If dark blue is selected as the new nametape color then just keep dark blue.)

Flight cap/patrol cap is not worn in a FOD-critical area (flight line).

Flight cap/patrol cap may be stowed in either lower leg pocket of the blue flight suit/utility uniform; the pocket where the cap is stowed may remain unzipped and a portion of the flight cap/patrol cap may remain exposed. Pocket will remain zipped in a FOD critical area (flight line).

Questions, comments, groans, rotten tomatoes from the peanut gallery?  ;D

No groans or rotten tomatoes, Chuck, but a request for clarification.

Do I understand you to make it an option to wear the blue patrol cap OR flight cap with the blue flight suit?

Also, do I understand that you want to ditch the option of wearing metal rank insignia on the blue patrol cap?

If the responses are 1. YES and 2. NO, I think that's a good idea.  Any other responses, and we'll have to talk.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 23, 2007, 03:13:20 PM
Quote from: DNall on December 23, 2007, 05:20:58 AM
(http://www.afrotc.umn.edu/photos/01/MG.jpg)

Is that an epaulet, or an actual shoulder board on those coats? Can't quite tell due to the angle of the picture and the resolution. If it's a shoulder board, that's the kind of thing I had in mind for our seniors. Something lower profile than the cadet shoulder boards, but still distinctive.

Just have to figure out a way to pin on the rank without making the board "rise".
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on December 23, 2007, 03:19:58 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 23, 2007, 03:08:34 PM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on December 23, 2007, 02:21:50 PM
Here's another thing that may need to be addressed for consideration by the committee:

Dark Blue Corporate Flight Suit and Utility Uniform (aka blue "faux flight suit") Headgear:

Either flight cap (from blues) or blue patrol cap from the CAP DFU (aka "Blue BDU") may be worn. Grade insignia, if worn on patrol cap, may be either ultramarine blue background (to match CAP DFU) or dark blue background to match embroidered dark blue background grade insignia (if worn) on corporate flight suit/utility uniform. (If dark blue is selected as the new nametape color then just keep dark blue.)

Flight cap/patrol cap is not worn in a FOD-critical area (flight line).

Flight cap/patrol cap may be stowed in either lower leg pocket of the blue flight suit/utility uniform; the pocket where the cap is stowed may remain unzipped and a portion of the flight cap/patrol cap may remain exposed. Pocket will remain zipped in a FOD critical area (flight line).

Questions, comments, groans, rotten tomatoes from the peanut gallery?  ;D

No groans or rotten tomatoes, Chuck, but a request for clarification.

Do I understand you to make it an option to wear the blue patrol cap OR flight cap with the blue flight suit?

Also, do I understand that you want to ditch the option of wearing metal rank insignia on the blue patrol cap?

If the responses are 1. YES and 2. NO, I think that's a good idea.  Any other responses, and we'll have to talk.

Correctamundo, Maj. Kach.  I'd like the option of either wearing the flight cap or the patrol cap (no unit ball cap*) on the blue flight suit/utility uniform. I don't want to ditch the metal grade on the blue patrol cap (Lord knows we finally got it, at least on the blue BDUs), but give them the option to go metal or cloth. My apologies for not being very clear in my previous post.

(*I might go for a ball cap only if it's plain dark blue in color. No unit identifiers, patches, farts and darts on the bill, etc.)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on December 23, 2007, 03:26:32 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 23, 2007, 03:13:20 PM
Quote from: DNall on December 23, 2007, 05:20:58 AM
(http://www.afrotc.umn.edu/photos/01/MG.jpg)

Is that an epaulet, or an actual shoulder board on those coats? Can't quite tell due to the angle of the picture and the resolution. If it's a shoulder board, that's the kind of thing I had in mind for our seniors. Something lower profile than the cadet shoulder boards, but still distinctive.

Just have to figure out a way to pin on the rank without making the board "rise".

Actually, looking at it close, I think those ARE shoulder boards, and they don't look bad.  When "Shoulder boards" were mentioned, I envisioned the Navy/Cadet type of oversize board.

I would suggest embroidered rank on the board, if selected.  Pins would look tacky and reduce the wear life of the board.  You don't get promoted enough in this outfit to make buying new boards a serious expense!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on December 23, 2007, 03:28:14 PM
If shoulder boards could be applied without an epaulet, we could buy the enlisted service coat and save like $60 bucks initially.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on December 23, 2007, 03:29:48 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 23, 2007, 03:13:20 PM

Is that an epaulet, or an actual shoulder board on those coats? Can't quite tell due to the angle of the picture and the resolution. If it's a shoulder board, that's the kind of thing I had in mind for our seniors. Something lower profile than the cadet shoulder boards, but still distinctive.

Just have to figure out a way to pin on the rank without making the board "rise".

They look to me like shoulder marks instead of hard boards.

IIRC, the shoulder marks used by BICE are black with standard US officer insignia.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: riffraff on December 23, 2007, 03:39:12 PM
Black epaulettes already exist - viz-a-viz those used by the US Army officers.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on December 23, 2007, 03:40:11 PM
Quote from: riffraff on December 23, 2007, 03:39:12 PM
Black epaulettes already exist - viz-a-viz those used by the US Army officers.

Black? For the life of me I thought they were Army green.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on December 23, 2007, 03:42:18 PM
I missed this - when did we get authorized metal grade for the BBDU cap?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on December 23, 2007, 03:48:17 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 23, 2007, 03:42:18 PM
I missed this - when did we get authorized metal grade for the BBDU cap?

See the Jun 2006 Corporate Uniform interim change letter. Kinda came in under the radar.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on December 23, 2007, 04:03:17 PM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on December 23, 2007, 03:48:17 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 23, 2007, 03:42:18 PM
I missed this - when did we get authorized metal grade for the BBDU cap?

See the Jun 2006 Corporate Uniform interim change letter. Kinda came in under the radar.

Oh Mighty Zarquon...

What is this obsession with metal grade insignia?  We're like the Tin Woodsman, off to see the Wizard AF for the bling that will make everything better.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: riffraff on December 23, 2007, 04:04:34 PM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on December 23, 2007, 03:40:11 PM
Quote from: riffraff on December 23, 2007, 03:39:12 PM
Black epaulettes already exist - viz-a-viz those used by the US Army officers.

Black? For the life of me I thought they were Army green.
No, The Army changed to black back in the very late 1980s, IIRC.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on December 23, 2007, 05:06:53 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 23, 2007, 04:03:17 PMOh Mighty Zarquon...

What is this obsession with metal grade insignia?  We're like the Tin Woodsman, off to see the Wizard AF for the bling that will make everything better.

Beats me, boss...   But ya gotta remember: to some, bling is eveyrthing! ;D

And then there are some who are either too lazy to sew on cloth insignia or don't wanna pay a tailor to get it done.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JayT on December 23, 2007, 08:12:15 PM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on December 23, 2007, 02:21:50 PM
Here's another thing that may need to be addressed for consideration by the committee:

Dark Blue Corporate Flight Suit and Utility Uniform (aka blue "faux flight suit") Headgear:

Either flight cap (from blues) or blue patrol cap from the CAP DFU (aka "Blue BDU") may be worn. Grade insignia, if worn on patrol cap, may be either ultramarine blue background (to match CAP DFU) or dark blue background to match embroidered dark blue background grade insignia (if worn) on corporate flight suit/utility uniform. (If dark blue is selected as the new nametape color then just keep dark blue.)

Flight cap/patrol cap is not worn in a FOD-critical area (flight line).

Flight cap/patrol cap may be stowed in either lower leg pocket of the blue flight suit/utility uniform; the pocket where the cap is stowed may remain unzipped and a portion of the flight cap/patrol cap may remain exposed. Pocket will remain zipped in a FOD critical area (flight line).

Questions, comments, groans, rotten tomatoes from the peanut gallery?  ;D

Definately. A plain dark blue Rothco baseball cap would also be nice (like how you can wear a BDU baseball cap with regular BDUs.)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 23, 2007, 08:19:49 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 23, 2007, 04:03:17 PM
What is this obsession with metal grade insignia?  We're like the Tin Woodsman, off to see the Wizard AF for the bling that will make everything better.

Simple. Lot easier to change when that promotion rolls around. Less money too. You want to spend seven or eight bucks on new epaulets for your service coat, or a couple dollars for some pin-on rank?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on December 23, 2007, 08:46:59 PM
Army Epaulets used to be green for officers and black for NCO's.  About 8 or 10 years ago, they shifted to all black for everybody.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on December 23, 2007, 09:11:50 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 23, 2007, 03:13:20 PM
...Is that an epaulet, or an actual shoulder board on those coats?
AFROTC. It's a shoulderboard. It's fuzzy like a new beret, kind of fat & shaped sort of concaved so it'll curve over & obscure the actual epaulet, and as you can see it has a button on top to simulate being the epaulet. They do require the officer coat to be worn as they are affixed to the epaulet of the coat & would not attach to the jacket properly (you can't rig that up). That said, the same issues still come up. It's too expensive to produce/purchase, and it's not consolidating to one item worn on blue & white shirt, and Corp & AF coats. Putting all eggs in that one basket means higher volume lower cost, & a cleaner look.

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 23, 2007, 08:19:49 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 23, 2007, 04:03:17 PM
What is this obsession with metal grade insignia? 
Simple. Lot easier to change when that promotion rolls around. Less money too. You want to spend seven or eight bucks on new epaulets for your service coat, or a couple dollars for some pin-on rank?

Actually, metal costs about the same as the epaulets. I personally prefer metal on hats becuase, I think it's a cleaner apperance even versus an OD background, much less dark or royal blue. I also don't really like the idea of trying to sew the stuff on straight.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BillB on December 23, 2007, 09:40:52 PM
Ask cadet officers what they think about shoulder boards, and you'll find they dislike them. The National CAC has even proposed that they be dropped in favor of the slides cadets already have without that $29.00 cost of shoulder boards. On the average senior member shoulder boards would look dumb on AF style uniforms. May be OK for CG Aux, but not for CAP.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on December 23, 2007, 09:45:12 PM
Quote from: BillB on December 23, 2007, 09:40:52 PM
Ask cadet officers what they think about shoulder boards, and you'll find they dislike them. The National CAC has even proposed that they be dropped in favor of the slides cadets already have without that $29.00 cost ...
A couple cadets have mentioned that. I think we've covered why shoulder boards can't be an option. That's a good idea though. I'd support dropping the cadet shoulder boards in favor of their standard blue epaulet slides (just like the shirt).
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 23, 2007, 09:47:12 PM
Quote from: DNall on December 23, 2007, 09:11:50 PMAFROTC. It's a shoulderboard. It's fuzzy like a new beret, kind of fat & shaped sort of concaved so it'll curve over & obscure the actual epaulet, and as you can see it has a button on top to simulate being the epaulet. They do require the officer coat to be worn as they are affixed to the epaulet of the coat & would not attach to the jacket properly (you can't rig that up).

There's a way, I'm sure. I just haven't kickstarted the imagination yet.

Quote from: DNall on December 23, 2007, 09:11:50 PM
Actually, metal costs about the same as the epaulets.

First I was looking at the AAFES website, and was in serious disagreement. Then I checked out Vanguard, and on there, epaulets are the same as metal. Which is a seriously jacked system.

On AAFES, a set of bright metal captains bars are $1.75. On Vanguard, a set are $7.00. Why are we putting with this crap? That is ridiculous.

Anyway, going with the AAFES rate, you pay $9 for a pair of epaulets, and a set of rank insignia. If you already had a set of shoulder boards, then it would only cost you that much. With two pair epaulets, it's $14.

Then again, Vanguard might have a cow if we went with something that they couldn't exclusively sell us.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Tim Medeiros on December 23, 2007, 10:04:53 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 23, 2007, 03:13:20 PM
Quote from: DNall on December 23, 2007, 05:20:58 AM
(http://www.afrotc.umn.edu/photos/01/MG.jpg)

Is that an epaulet, or an actual shoulder board on those coats? Can't quite tell due to the angle of the picture and the resolution.

According to my AFROTC class, and current friends in AFROTC, those are epaulets.  Shoulder boards are only used on mess dress.  Personally, I liked the use of epaulets on the service jacket, kept the number of items needed from supply down.  Then again, being a former cadet in CAP, I'm not fond of the shoulder boards currently in use for cadets as the velcro that comes with them is crap.  5 little dots maybe a quarter-inch in diameter, and they don't hold at all to the jacket so the first time you go to salute you have an instant projectile traveling towards C/Amn Snuffy at the back of the formation.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: SJFedor on December 23, 2007, 10:09:41 PM
I thought so. At first, I didn't even think they had GMC shoulder boards, only epaulets, and the shoulder boards were POC types. I looked online, and was proved wrong.

But, if you look REALLY close, you can see the installed AF epaulet from the jacket on the medial side of the black epaulets.

I think black would look real good on us, as well.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Grumpy on December 23, 2007, 11:30:49 PM
I don't, just for the simple reason that black is Army and the Air Force is our parent organization.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 24, 2007, 02:49:36 AM
Quote from: Grumpy on December 23, 2007, 11:30:49 PM
I don't, just for the simple reason that black is Army and the Air Force is our parent organization.

You know, the Army doesn't have any ownership on the color black. And these are Air Force uniforms.

But to address another point, are we going to end up with people confusing us with AFROTC cadets if we had black epaulets?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: baronet68 on December 24, 2007, 07:56:07 AM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 23, 2007, 04:03:17 PM
Oh Mighty Zarquon...

What is this obsession with metal grade insignia?  We're like the Tin Woodsman, off to see the Wizard AF for the bling that will make everything better.

I have two theories:

1. People want what they can't have.
2. Some might think since the 'real' AF has metal insignia that if CAP had it then they'd be 'real' too. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on December 24, 2007, 02:47:08 PM
Or...

We only want to return to the condition that CAP was once in.

Metal rank on the shoulders of the service dress blue was at one time a normal part of the uniform.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: arajca on December 24, 2007, 02:52:38 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 24, 2007, 02:47:08 PM
Or...

We only want to return to the condition that CAP was once in.

Metal rank on the shoulders of the service dress blue was at one time a normal part of the uniform.
As were blue shoulder slides for seniors (like AF, but with "CAP" embriodered at the top) and blue nametags on the service uniform.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: FlyingTerp on December 24, 2007, 05:21:14 PM
One major issue with the wear of "Army Black" epaulets across CAP uniforms is that the CSU (TPU) without the double breasted jacket will look almost identical to the new "old" blue Army service uniform worn as a "class B." 

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: MIKE on December 24, 2007, 05:27:12 PM
Can't leave well enough alone can ya.  :(
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 24, 2007, 05:56:16 PM
Quote from: FlyingTerp on December 24, 2007, 05:21:14 PM
One major issue with the wear of "Army Black" epaulets across CAP uniforms is that the CSU (TPU) without the Capt Kangaroo jacket will look almost identical to the new "old" blue Army service uniform worn as a "class B." 

Not really. The Army dress blue pants are a lot lighter blue, almost royal. The CSU pants are a navy blue.

The shirt being considered for the ASU is a grey one. The CSU uses a white shirt.

In order to confuse an Army class B with a CSU lite, you'd have to be color blind in a few different spectrums, and completely ignorant of uniforms in general. Anyone that actually wears a military uniform isn't going to be confused at all.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ColonelJack on December 24, 2007, 06:15:45 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 24, 2007, 05:56:16 PM
The Army dress blue pants are a lot lighter blue, almost royal. The CSU pants are a navy blue.

And their pants have a wide gold stripe down the outside.  (Well, from Corporal on up they do.)

Quote
The shirt being considered for the ASU is a grey one. The CSU uses a white shirt.

It's also going to have a herringbone twill to it and be of a heavier-weight fabric than the current green ones.  It would be most difficult to confuse the new Army gray shirt with the CSU white one. 

Jack
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on December 24, 2007, 08:23:03 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 24, 2007, 02:49:36 AM
Quote from: Grumpy on December 23, 2007, 11:30:49 PM
I don't, just for the simple reason that black is Army and the Air Force is our parent organization.
You know, the Army doesn't have any ownership on the color black. And these are Air Force uniforms.

But to address another point, are we going to end up with people confusing us with AFROTC cadets if we had black epaulets?
AFROTC uses diagnal lines (pictured) for GMC (first two years) & navy officer style stripes for POC (last two years). CAP uses standard officer grade insignia. Little chance of confusion. The one issue would be with FO/TFO/SFO, for which the version on BDU/BBDU should be embroidered rather than the current stripes. I'd also recommend a blank slide (just the CAP) for SMWOG, who we should really start calling officer candidates.

The Army officer grade slides also have a gold stripe at the base (and no CAP embroidered on them), where AF slides have none for company grade & a silver stripe for field grades (top & bottom for gen officers). I would point out though that we could use the same pre-embroidery epaulet stock to make ours from, which should result in cost savings.

The Army blues (currently the formal uniform & being mod'd to the new service dress) are significantly dif. The pants are very distinguished from the AF, and the grade is indicated by shoulder straps (think John Wayne in some old cavalry uniform). The shirt to go with that uniform for class-Bs is going to be gray - a color which they don't seem to think CAP has exclusive ownership of. Again, little chance of confusion.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 24, 2007, 08:42:04 PM
Quote from: DNall on December 24, 2007, 08:23:03 PM
I'd also recommend a blank slide (just the CAP) for SMWOG, who we should really start calling officer candidates.

This idea of a blank slide for SMWOG is a solution looking for a problem. Such an insignia serves no purpose.

If you want to put an "OTC" (for Officer Training Corps, like the old days) or "OC" (for officer candidate), I can get on board with it. Make the insignia meaningful. There is no reason for a person to buy something that they won't wear more than six months.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: FlyingTerp on December 24, 2007, 08:52:49 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 24, 2007, 05:56:16 PM

Not really. The Army dress blue pants are a lot lighter blue, almost royal. The CSU pants are a navy blue.

The shirt being considered for the ASU is a grey one. The CSU uses a white shirt.

In order to confuse an Army class B with a CSU lite, you'd have to be color blind in a few different spectrums, and completely ignorant of uniforms in general. Anyone that actually wears a military uniform isn't going to be confused at all.

Good to hear I was wrong on the ASU.  I pulled out my black slides from my SDF days and threw them on my white CSU shirt.  It looked pretty sharp next to the blue pants.  Hopefully it will be considered as a possibility.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on December 24, 2007, 09:03:47 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 24, 2007, 08:42:04 PM
Quote from: DNall on December 24, 2007, 08:23:03 PM
I'd also recommend a blank slide (just the CAP) for SMWOG, who we should really start calling officer candidates.

This idea of a blank slide for SMWOG is a solution looking for a problem. Such an insignia serves no purpose.

If you want to put an "OTC" (for Officer Training Corps, like the old days) or "OC" (for officer candidate), I can get on board with it. Make the insignia meaningful. There is no reason for a person to buy something that they won't wear more than six months.

That's fair.

I don't like now that we use the pin on CAP cutouts to designate SMWOG. It makes pin holes from repeated use that sometimes damage the shirt, when after six months they're going to wear epaulet slides for the rest of their career. And, it makes the 18yo SMWOG & the 17yo C/AB look exactly alike, especially if I standardize them to the same blue nameplate. I was just looking to put the designation on the epaulet versus the collar.

AFROTC, AF Acad, & OTS each have a slightly dif epaulet design to designate the grades within their cadet/candidate structures. I didn't think we needed to do anything like that, just use a basic epaulet slide. It's not a real big issue though. I just thought it'd be nice to clean that up a bit.

I'm a lot more in favor of designating/calling them officer candidates than I am concerned with how we designate the status on the uniform for a few months. I think it better psychologically emphasizes that they are supposed to be in a train up period to earn their officership rather than just waiting for paperwork to process, and it allows us to get rid of the "senior member" term all together. That's off topic though, sorry.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on December 24, 2007, 10:10:45 PM
Or, the UNIT could spring for a few gray slides and issue them out to the FNG's.  The unit would recover the blank gray slides once officer rank was awarded.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Pylon on December 25, 2007, 01:54:01 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 24, 2007, 10:10:45 PM
Or, the UNIT could spring for a few gray slides and issue them out to the FNG's.  The unit would recover the blank gray slides once officer rank was awarded.

Bingo!

CAP SMwoG already have to buy the metal cutouts for grade insignia which they won't use after 6 months or less as it stands.  So a few bucks plus or minus isn't a huge deal, especially if we can change their flight cap to the officer type and save them a few bucks there.

Here's the issue with the CAP cutouts, besides the holes in the collar.  If the blue shouldermarks get approved, along with the blue nameplate (for the one epaulet, one nameplate, one organization appearance) a C/AB would be identical in service dress blues to a SMwoG. 

The blank epaulets are $6, the CAP cutouts $3.35.  Not a big difference in cost, again - especially if we can eliminate the need for SMwoG to wear the enlisted cap for 6 months or less, then have to go out and buy an officer one.  The savings there would more than make up for the extra $2.65  The blank epaulet also establishes continuity with all other senior members in blues -- SM officers wear epaulets, SM FOs wear epaulets, and SM NCOs can wear epaulets.  Makes sense from an organizational standpoint to have everyone in the senior member class of membership wearing the same epaulets - again for the one organization, one look approach.  Much easier for outsiders, cadets, and newbies to tell who is who in the organization as well.

Simplicity really is beautiful.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Major Carrales on December 25, 2007, 02:01:49 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 24, 2007, 10:10:45 PM
Or, the UNIT could spring for a few gray slides and issue them out to the FNG's.  The unit would recover the blank gray slides once officer rank was awarded.

Bingo, Kach, that is the sort of thing we do for cadets.  We issue them the CAP Cutouts and then they return, exchange, them at each promotion.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: MIKE on December 25, 2007, 03:42:49 AM
Yo Mike... One of the things I would recommend is to get rid of epaulets for NCOs a la USAF.  Sleeve grade only.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on December 26, 2007, 06:58:52 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 24, 2007, 02:47:08 PM
Or...

We only want to return to the condition that CAP was once in.

Metal rank on the shoulders of the service dress blue was at one time a normal part of the uniform.

If we want to return to the condition that CAP was once in, we need metal rank....on bright red epaulets!   :)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 26, 2007, 08:14:31 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on December 26, 2007, 06:58:52 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 24, 2007, 02:47:08 PM
Or...

We only want to return to the condition that CAP was once in.

Metal rank on the shoulders of the service dress blue was at one time a normal part of the uniform.

If we want to return to the condition that CAP was once in, we need metal rank....on bright red epaulets!   :)

If you're asking for that, you gotta carry it all the way. In other words: Khaki.

Bright red just wouldn't look right on our navy blue uniforms.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: SAR-EMT1 on December 26, 2007, 11:51:15 PM
Lets not go to extremes ok?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BillB on December 27, 2007, 12:47:03 AM
Not only khaki, but OD and pink and greens luftwaffe looking wings and a maximum of 9 ribbons. And don't forget the red sleeve braid.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 27, 2007, 02:06:56 AM
OK guys, back on track please
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: arajca on December 27, 2007, 02:17:47 AM
How about adding a black stocking cap (knit or fleece) to the bdu/bbdu outerwear for use in cold weather?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ZigZag911 on December 27, 2007, 03:09:06 AM
Has the possibility of metal rank on the epaulets of service jacket (blouse) been considered? With addition of pin on CAP command crest, to make it distinct from actual AF?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ColonelJack on December 27, 2007, 11:44:27 AM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on December 27, 2007, 03:09:06 AM
Has the possibility of metal rank on the epaulets of service jacket (blouse) been considered? With addition of pin on CAP command crest, to make it distinct from actual AF?

Actually, I believe it has been addressed recently (within the last couple of years).  AF said no way.

Many believe that's why "He whose name shall not be spoken" created the Corporate Service Uniform ... to wear metal rank on a service jacket that AF had no say-so over.

Even so, I think the CSU was a great idea for a lot of other reasons.

Jack
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Pylon on December 27, 2007, 01:30:52 PM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on December 27, 2007, 03:09:06 AM
Has the possibility of metal rank on the epaulets of service jacket (blouse) been considered? With addition of pin on CAP command crest, to make it distinct from actual AF?

I believe that exact proposal was already fielded with negative results.  Metal rank is not in our future.  I like the idea of the one blue epaulet - same epaulet on everything from outerwear and sweaters to blues and service coat, on both corporate and AF-style.  The senior members would have matching epaulets and nameplates as the cadets, again on both corporate and AF-style, and we'd look like *gasp* one organization.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on December 27, 2007, 02:32:46 PM
Quote from: Pylon on December 27, 2007, 01:30:52 PM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on December 27, 2007, 03:09:06 AM
Has the possibility of metal rank on the epaulets of service jacket (blouse) been considered? With addition of pin on CAP command crest, to make it distinct from actual AF?

I believe that exact proposal was already fielded with negative results.  Metal rank is not in our future.  I like the idea of the one blue epaulet - same epaulet on everything from outerwear and sweaters to blues and service coat, on both corporate and AF-style.  The senior members would have matching epaulets and nameplates as the cadets, again on both corporate and AF-style, and we'd look like *gasp* one organization.

Pylon and the others are correct.  About two years ago it was discussed with the AF to allow metal rank on the service dress blue.  There was a command crest designed that would be placed halfway up the epaulet, much like the Army's DUC.  The AF rejected that idea outright.  A secondary proposal was sent up for sew-on gray epaulets with metal rank, rather than the gray epaulet slides.  The AF nixed that one, too.  The AF DID approve sew-on insignia with the UM blue background, on the BDU cap, so we at least got something.  (This means, I think, that the AF subscribes to the "Throw them a bone" management technique).

After that, "He who shall not be named" came out with the TPU, and black leather flight jackets.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on December 27, 2007, 03:25:24 PM
The last thing I'd want on a service blouse (or aviator) shirt is metal grade - the pins / frogs would be sticking in your shoulders all the time, especially with a jacket on.

Everybody wears sleeves these days on their blouses (if they wear shoulder grade).
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on December 27, 2007, 05:09:48 PM
I don't know, Eclipse.

I was commissioned in the Army in 1978 and wore every grade from 2LT to Maj. on the shoulders of my jacket, and I never got poked by my own pins.

Hoist by my own petard a few times, but never poked by my own pins.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on December 27, 2007, 05:23:05 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 27, 2007, 05:09:48 PM
I don't know, Eclipse.

I was commissioned in the Army in 1978 and wore every grade from 2LT to Maj. on the shoulders of my jacket, and I never got poked by my own pins.

They have never poked me either!  Now when we wore pin-on in Garrison on our PC's they did leave a mark on my forehead.  That was about it.

If we can get blue slides for the jacket, lets go for it!  Let's not even suggest other colors!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Pace on December 27, 2007, 05:29:26 PM
From the way I read his post, he meant the light blue or aviator shirt.  In which case, I completely agree.  Although I'm really not sure what post it was in response to since no one else mentioned anything about metal grade on shirts that I see.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on December 27, 2007, 06:22:13 PM
Yes, I was referring to metal grade on the shirts - I read an above post to be "blouse" when it said "blue".

Whoops, though I don't really want metal on my jackets, either - I don't care for how the frogs push up the epaulets, its always looked a "off" to me.  I don't understand why they haven't come up with a better way to affix the grade.

I won't post any specific photos, but a quick Google shows lots of examples...
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Major Carrales on December 27, 2007, 06:34:40 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 27, 2007, 06:22:13 PM
I don't understand why they haven't come up with a better way to affix the grade.

They have, in Star Trek all the pins are magnetic. ;)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DogCollar on December 27, 2007, 06:41:11 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on December 27, 2007, 06:34:40 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 27, 2007, 06:22:13 PM
I don't understand why they haven't come up with a better way to affix the grade.

They have, in Star Trek all the pins are magnetic. ;)

Make it so, number one!! ;)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 27, 2007, 07:03:39 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on December 27, 2007, 06:34:40 PMThey have, in Star Trek all the pins are magnetic. ;)

I've actually thought about using magnets for both nameplates and badges. Would be a lot easier to line them up. Don't think they would work as well on Service Coats, but at least shirts would be easier. They make the Ultrathins magnetic, so a complete set would be pretty easy.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Major Carrales on December 27, 2007, 07:22:45 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 27, 2007, 07:03:39 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on December 27, 2007, 06:34:40 PMThey have, in Star Trek all the pins are magnetic. ;)

I've actually thought about using magnets for both nameplates and badges. Would be a lot easier to line them up. Don't think they would work as well on Service Coats, but at least shirts would be easier. They make the Ultrathins magnetic, so a complete set would be pretty easy.

The magnets would have to be incredibily strong.  I've seen the UltraThins of which you wrote, but have strayed against them for fear of losing ribbon racks and other badges.

I don't think Service Coats will ever having anything better than the pin/clutches versions, unless there was a velcro solution that saw ribbon racks.

Here, for you TREK BUFFS, is what they did during TOS...
(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/thumb/1/13/CommodoreStone.jpg/200px-CommodoreStone.jpg)

Or the rare time ribbons were worn with the Movie Era Uniform.  Here Col West, a less than good guy involved in a plot, serves as an allegory for Lt Col Ollie North.

(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/2/26/Colonel_West-Operation_Retrieve.jpg)


(http://www.st-spike.org/images/uniforms/2278-2350/a4.jpg)
Don't beieve the Ollie North thing, go here and read...

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/West
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 27, 2007, 08:25:42 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on December 27, 2007, 07:22:45 PM
The magnets would have to be incredibily strong. 

Rare earth magnets are incredibly strong. I've caught a finger between two small ones, and had a blood blister for weeks. Many of them you can put one on the  inside and one outside of your hand, and they will hold there.

I haven't actually witnessed it, but heard rumor of an unfortunate soul who caught a finger between some larger ones and ended up with a broken bone.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Major Carrales on December 27, 2007, 08:28:15 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 27, 2007, 08:25:42 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on December 27, 2007, 07:22:45 PM
The magnets would have to be incredibily strong. 

Rare earth magnets are incredibly strong. I've caught a finger between two small ones, and had a blood blister for weeks. Many of them you can put one on the  inside and one outside of your hand, and they will hold there.

I haven't actually witnessed it, but heard rumor of an unfortunate soul who caught a finger between some larger ones and ended up with a broken bone.

Yikes!!!  We forget that, compared to the powers of the natural world, we are insignificant ants.

Is this the type of magnet in use on the UltaThins you mentioned?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on December 27, 2007, 08:30:33 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on December 27, 2007, 07:22:45 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 27, 2007, 07:03:39 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on December 27, 2007, 06:34:40 PMThey have, in Star Trek all the pins are magnetic. ;)

I've actually thought about using magnets for both nameplates and badges. Would be a lot easier to line them up. Don't think they would work as well on Service Coats, but at least shirts would be easier. They make the Ultrathins magnetic, so a complete set would be pretty easy.

The magnets would have to be incredibily strong.  I've seen the UltraThins of which you wrote, but have strayed against them for fear of losing ribbon racks and other badges.

I don't think Service Coats will ever having anything better than the pin/clutches versions, unless there was a velcro solution that saw ribbon racks.

Here, for you TREK BUFFS, is what they did during TOS...
(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/thumb/1/13/CommodoreStone.jpg/200px-CommodoreStone.jpg)

Or the rare time ribbons were worn with the Movie Era Uniform.  Here Col West, a less than good guy involved in a plot, serves as an allegory for Lt Col Ollie North.

(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/2/26/Colonel_West-Operation_Retrieve.jpg)

Don't beieve the Ollie North thing, go here and read...

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/West

I am glad to see that in the 24th century flip charts are still being produced.  Wonder if they got those made up at Staples or Office Max?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 27, 2007, 08:31:02 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on December 27, 2007, 08:28:15 PMIs this the type of magnet in use on the UltaThins you mentioned?

I don't think so. The ones I've seen are more similar to what you have on your fridge than anything else. Pretty much magnetic particles suspended in a plastic.

The rare earth ones would ideally hold on most metal badges. Just have to hollow the back a bit so the badge would be properly flush when you put it on. Easily done, I just haven't gotten around to it yet.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Major Carrales on December 27, 2007, 08:31:32 PM
QuoteI am glad to see that in the 24th century flip charts are still being produced.  Wonder if they got those made up at Staples or Office Max?

Kinkos..obviously!!!  I think it was still the 23rd Century then?  Whence?  Thence? (don't know the proper term from talking about the past of the future.) ;)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: fyrfitrmedic on December 27, 2007, 08:47:26 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on December 27, 2007, 08:31:32 PM
QuoteI am glad to see that in the 24th century flip charts are still being produced.  Wonder if they got those made up at Staples or Office Max?

Kinkos..obviously!!!  I think it was still the 23rd Century then?  Whence?  Thence? (don't know the proper term from talking about the past of the future.) ;)

2293 = 23rd Century, but we've drifted way off topic here it seems.

To get back onto topic: I've no objection to slides, just as long as we don't go back to the much-hated raspberry things...


Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on December 27, 2007, 09:04:11 PM
You could sew a sheet of steel into the epaulet and in the lining of the jacket where badges go, so that the magnet would not have to go through the whole bulk of the material.

If you used a stainless steel mesh, it would be flexible and act just like a foam enforcer.

The grade would stick like a pin and sit perfectly flush...

Hm....
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Major Carrales on December 27, 2007, 09:42:59 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 27, 2007, 09:04:11 PM
You could sew a sheet of steel into the epaulet and in the lining of the jacket where badges go, so that the magnet would not have to go through the whole bulk of the material.

If you used a stainless steel mesh, it would be flexible and act just like a foam enforcer.

The grade would stick like a pin and sit perfectly flush...

Hm....

Look like a would-be Thomas Edison just joined the fold!!!  :P :)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on December 27, 2007, 11:25:21 PM
Magnetic won't work well once you get old enough for a pacemaker.  Or, rather the magnet will work just fine, but the pacemaker won't.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: W3ZR on December 28, 2007, 12:51:11 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 27, 2007, 11:25:21 PM
Magnetic won't work well once you get old enough for a pacemaker.  Or, rather the magnet will work just fine, but the pacemaker won't.

Ahhh do we want to really live forever ?

(http://www.k3bm.com/photos/baby.gif)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on December 28, 2007, 01:05:35 AM
Actually looking back at those STWOK-era uniforms, they look pretty sharp.

I bet if we went to those our recruiting would skyrocket!   ;D
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ColonelJack on December 28, 2007, 02:58:22 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on December 27, 2007, 07:22:45 PM
Here Col West, a less than good guy involved in a plot, serves as an allegory for Lt Col Ollie North.

(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/2/26/Colonel_West-Operation_Retrieve.jpg)


The bizarre thing is ... "Colonel" West is wearing a Starfleet admiral's jacket.  There was never any provision (in canon) for Marines or the rank of colonel in Starfleet.

Now, back to topic.

Jack
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Major Carrales on December 28, 2007, 03:17:18 AM
Quote from: ColonelJack on December 28, 2007, 02:58:22 AM


The bizarre thing is ... "Colonel" West is wearing a Starfleet admiral's jacket.  There was never any provision (in canon) for Marines or the rank of colonel in Starfleet.

Now, back to topic.

Jack

As we understand it, a "Colonel" in Starfleet should be wearing a "Captains" jacket (minus the gold braid on the flap and admiral's insignia.  However, places seem to explain that the rank of "Colonel" is more a position than a rank. 

Sort of like the unofficial use of the term "Commander" for a Wing or Group Commander in CAP.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on December 28, 2007, 04:08:33 AM
Please stay on track guys!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on December 28, 2007, 04:47:56 AM
Refresher to get us back on track, and to help those that just joined us (so they don't have to read all 41 pages!)   :)

Quote from: mikeylikey on December 07, 2007, 03:17:01 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 05, 2007, 03:07:17 PM
Could I take a moment to review what we have so far?

1.  AF Blues:

- No change likely on weight requirements.
- Switch from gray to blue epaulet sleeves, with "CAP" identified.

2.  TPU:

- Switch from silver braid to same blue as on AF coat.
- Lose silver chinstrap from flying saucer cap.
- Switch from hard rank to blue epaulet sleeve, same as AF coat.
- Shirt to have same blue epaulet with "CAP."
- "CAP" lapel brass to remain.
- Allow neatly-trimmed beards, but NOT long hair.
- Not resolved:  wear of military ribbons and badges... Same rules as on AF coat?

3.  White and Grays:

- History.

4.  Flight Suits:

- Retain dual flight suits, sage green and dark blue.
- Sew-on bright rank for both shoulders.
- Sage green background for AF flight suit, dark blue for blue flight suit.
- Not resolved:  embroidered name badges?

5.  BDU's:

- Retain BDU for time being.
- Introduce ABU on a schedule driven by the AF logistical chain.
- No change to BDU during phase-out period.
- Retain blue BDU for the fats and fuzzies.
- Switch to dark blue nametapes and rank background for BBDU.
- Unresolved:  Dark blue or sage green background for ABU tapes and rank?

6.  Golf Shirt:

- Retain as a casual uniform.
- Switch to khaki trousers (Is this correct, or unresolved?)
- Establish a single authorized golf shirt.

7.  Blazer Uniform:

- Retain for IACE and as an alternate dress uniform.
- Switch to khaki trousers (Again, was this resolved?)

Does this summarize what has been discussed and decided, or do I have something wrong?



So we all don't have to read back to page 24 to catch up. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: SAR-EMT1 on December 28, 2007, 09:57:51 AM
This was asked earlier Col White but of wverything we have brought up so far, how likely is it that they will be accepted by the Air Force?

And of what we have discussed so far, how much of it has been previously submitted?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JarakMaldon on December 28, 2007, 12:24:27 PM
This may have come up already, and I apologize if it has, but was there any discussion on the Commander's Insignia?  Specifically, wearing insignia below the nametag as a graduated commander?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on December 28, 2007, 01:03:18 PM
It's a great idea - if we also nixed the command service ribbon. 

We came out with the ribbon before USAF decided on the badge.  Now that they've got one, we should use it the same way they do.  And they don't have a ribbon.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on December 28, 2007, 02:58:17 PM
Back on track:

Military badges.  39-1 says they should be "Subdued."  I have heard from some former Army guys that getting subdued BDU sew on badges is now nearly impossible.  This will probably resolve itself when we go to the ABU, but in the meantime there will be a transition period where guys will not be able to get sew-on badges.

Two suggestions:

1.  Authorize subdued pin-on badges during the transition period (which, reading the reg now, I don't think is specifically prohibited, anyway)  or...

2.  Authorize white-on-blue (or gold-on-blue for the Water Lilies) military badges on the BDU until the ABU comes out.

Also (as long as I'm still on track)

There are two tables of award precedence in 39-1.  The one showing the precedence of CAP awards lists "US Military Awards" as primary, then the CAP awards in their listed order, and lastly, "Foreign Awards."  That's good.  But...

The listing of precedence of the "US Military Awards" includes some foreign awards.  This causes confusion, and I think it is improper.  CAP awards SHOULD still take precedence over foreign awards.  I am especially adamant about this, since my foreign awards are from the Government of the Republic of (South) Vietnam, and that government did not last as long as the Civil Air Patrol has.

I'm pretty sure I know what happened.  Some "Zero-days-of-active-duty" NHQ type looked at one of the many military award charts when they drafted the regulation table.  The award charts include common foreign awards, but the fact that they are on a chart published in the United`States still does NOT make them "US Military Awards."

As long as we are re-writing 39-1, lets put the foreign awards where they should be.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JarakMaldon on December 28, 2007, 03:19:40 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 28, 2007, 02:58:17 PM2.  Authorize white-on-blue (or gold-on-blue for the Water Lilies) military badges on the BDU until the ABU comes out.

This is something I know is practiced already by many.  Several outlets who shall remain nameless produce badges in this flavor.  I have a few white-on-blue versions of my AF function badge on hand.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Dragoon on December 28, 2007, 03:49:54 PM
Personally, I vote for white and blue for all military badges.  There are enough places to do the embroidery, and mixing subdued and full color looks rather odd.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Grumpy on December 28, 2007, 05:17:44 PM
"Military badges.  39-1 says they should be "Subdued."  I have heard from some former Army guys that getting subdued BDU sew on badges is now nearly impossible.  This will probably resolve itself when we go to the ABU, but in the meantime there will be a transition period where guys will not be able to get sew-on badges."

Interesting, when I tried to find my AF Security Police speciality badge all I could find were subdued badges.  You are talking about the BDUs, right?

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Pylon on December 28, 2007, 05:22:34 PM
Thanks for the note requesting a clarification for the bronze "V" device, and also on clarifying blue-on-white embroidery as an option for existing authorized badges.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on December 28, 2007, 05:37:59 PM
Quote from: Grumpy on December 28, 2007, 05:17:44 PM
"Military badges.  39-1 says they should be "Subdued."  I have heard from some former Army guys that getting subdued BDU sew on badges is now nearly impossible.  This will probably resolve itself when we go to the ABU, but in the meantime there will be a transition period where guys will not be able to get sew-on badges."

Interesting, when I tried to find my AF Security Police speciality badge all I could find were subdued badges.  You are talking about the BDUs, right?

What they mean is the Army does not sew wings or badges on the ACU, they wear pin on in garrison and nothing in the field.  Therefore, it will be harder to get black on green embroidered badges for Airborne, Air Assault and CIB's.

The AF will face the same problem when all the AF badges are midnight blue on gray.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on December 28, 2007, 05:47:03 PM
I don't believe we should go to blue CAP epaulets for the jackets - we should stay with gray.

I also believe we should go with either white on dark blue tapes/bright on dark  blue insignia for all field or flight wear. 

We should also plan to sunset the BBDU and blue flight/utility jumpsuit in favor of gray BDU(GBDU)/jumpsuit/flightsuit when CAP sunsets the woodland in favor of ABU.

When that happens, all tapes and insignia should match the AF (midnight blue on gray).  We should use midnight blue on gray tapes on the CAP ABU and GBDU instead of the AF's midnight blue on AFPAT.  The stripes for CAP SM NCO's should be the ABU stripes on both the ABU and GBDU.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: NEBoom on December 28, 2007, 05:56:47 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on December 28, 2007, 05:47:03 PM
I don't believe we should go to blue CAP epaulets for the jackets - we should stay with gray.

I also believe we should go with either white on dark blue tapes/bright on dark  blue insignia for all field or flight wear. 

We should also plan to sunset the BBDU and blue flight/utility jumpsuit in favor of gray BDU(GBDU)/jumpsuit/flightsuit when CAP sunsets the woodland in favor of ABU.

When that happens, all tapes and insignia should match the AF (midnight blue on gray).  We should use midnight blue on gray tapes on the CAP ABU and GBDU instead of the AF's midnight blue on AFPAT.  The stripes for CAP SM NCO's should be the ABU stripes on both the ABU and GBDU.

So you're advocating two color changes for nametapes?  Change from ultramarine to dark blue now, then change again to "midnight blue on grey" when the ABU comes in?  Why make a change to the current uniforms if all that's going to happen to them is phase out in the (relatively) near future??  We should stick with the ultramarine until the ABU phase in, then change tape colors the same time we change uniforms.  Cheaper/easier that way.

And I'm not at all opposed to dropping the Blue BDUs as a corporate uniform and going with another color.  I mentioned a while back in one of these threads that a lot of the BBDUs I've seen tend to fade fairly quickly, and end up kind of ratty looking.  Don't know if I'd agree with grey as the color to change to.  Wondering if too light of a color would show dirt too easily.  Plain OD was more like what I had in mind.  Whatever though.  As long as we standardize our insignia across AF and Corporate on all uniforms (service, utility, and flight) I'll be happy.  Don't really care what colors we settle on, just want uniformity.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on December 28, 2007, 06:28:18 PM
Quote from: Grumpy on December 28, 2007, 05:17:44 PM
"Military badges.  39-1 says they should be "Subdued."  I have heard from some former Army guys that getting subdued BDU sew on badges is now nearly impossible.  This will probably resolve itself when we go to the ABU, but in the meantime there will be a transition period where guys will not be able to get sew-on badges."

Interesting, when I tried to find my AF Security Police speciality badge all I could find were subdued badges.  You are talking about the BDUs, right?



Yes, on the BDU.  Sorry if I wasn't clear.  AF subdued badges are probably still widely available, but with most of the Army in ACU, subdued Army badges for the BDU have suddenly become as rare as a conservative in San Francisco.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 28, 2007, 06:41:38 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 28, 2007, 06:28:18 PMAF subdued badges are probably still widely available, but with most of the Army in ACU, subdued Army badges for the BDU have suddenly become as rare as a conservative in San Francisco.

That's why I picked up seven packs of Army Aviation wings while I was at Eustiss. The woman thought I was nuts, but she was happy that she didn't have to inventory them to send back.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: foriley on December 29, 2007, 01:23:34 AM
Allow vendors other than Vanguard.

Give TPU a name. "Corporate uniform" is overused and duplicative.

Uniform should be "uniform" within CAP and to the greatest degree possible within USAF. This will be cost effective and uniform. (I'm in favor of dropping use of USAF uniform for the TPU near-USAF one.) We look rediculous when two versions of "the uniform" are permitted in classes, functions, etc. Look at some graduation pictures. It gets worse when the golf shirt / gray trousers are tossed in as well. But two may be the least we can get down to. However, within that absurdity the shirts, rank, sleeves, etc should be as close as possible.

If not able to wear USAF or TPU then wear civvies. Coat, tie and slacks. And when ABU/BDU is worn then civilian wear should be work trousers and work shirt w/ collar. Everybody wears the same style shoes regardless of USAF, TPU or civvies (includes boots when wearing work trousers).

AF uniform manual as the governing document with CAP supplement. No contradictions of USAF manual, which will resolve issues of metal/plastic/cloth, velcro/sewn, black/brown, leather/cloth, subdued/bright, etc. Only modifications of USAF manual permitted to make CAP distinctive versions of approved items.

Use the USAF fitness standards (http://www.af.mil/news/USAF_Fitness_Charts.pdf) with Marginal or better required to wear USAF or TPU. USAF will have to define standards for advanced ages not on cited charts.

Loose the double breasted TPU coat. It looks Naval. It's also expensive compared to single breasted.

USAF style TPU shirt. Not just white, but same pockets, etc. Back to "Uniform means uniform".

USAF sleeves on TPU shirt(s) will be much cheaper than "CAP" blue sleeves. Again, back to using the USAF uniform manual above.

AF hued TPU braid rather than silver & AF chin strap rather than silver. See above.

ABU asap w/ all supplements for weather and temperature. This includes foul wx, extreme cold, etc.

Designate a glider and glider ground crew uniform. This will mean approving a boonie style hat, shorts or convertible pants, etc.

Designate a Ground Team vest in high visibility yellow, orange or green. It's impossible to see Ground Teams in camo. Require for ABU/BDU and civilian clothes.

Designate a Flight Line high visibility vest, hat and gloves. Again these are positions that need to be seen, not blend in. Require for all flight line crew regardless of underlying uniform / civvies.

Incident command patch should be worn by Incident Commander only. It's odd and confusing to have one IC but several wearing an IC patch.

Designate a PT uniform... well, if using the USAF uniform manual that's already done... just change the t-shirt to CAP.

Dump the psuedo-flightsuit. Wear a flightsuit or wear ABU/BDU... or work pants and a work shirt, with boots/work shoes.

All flightsuits should be NOMEX or similar. Green, navy blue or high visibility orange. (We're not trying to hide our aircrews if they go down after all!) In mountains, desert or unpopulated areas an orange flightsuit would be far more safety prudent than hard to spot green or blue.

Anyway... I'm sure I'll think of more, but that's my $0.02
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ZigZag911 on December 29, 2007, 02:45:04 AM
Let's call the corporate service uniform (formerly 'TPU') the "CAP Service Uniform"; then we can start calling the 'military style uniform' by its proper name the "Air Force service uniform".
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on December 29, 2007, 04:00:30 AM
Except it is not the Air Force service uniform, they are Air Force style uniforms.  Start calling it the Air Force service uniform and people will begin thinking we can wear unaltered AF uniforms. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RogueLeader on December 29, 2007, 04:19:57 AM
^^ ah darn. . . Where'd I put those gray epaulets?  oh shoot.  I just sold them and bought hard rank. . . .
[/drift]
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 29, 2007, 08:10:06 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 29, 2007, 04:00:30 AM
Except it is not the Air Force service uniform, they are Air Force style uniforms.  Start calling it the Air Force service uniform and people will begin thinking we can wear unaltered AF uniforms. 

Wrong. It is an Air Force uniform. It has Civil Air Patrol distinctive insignia, but it is an Air Force uniform.

If it wasn't, why does this line exist in CAP 39-1?

"All uniform items must display a USAF certification label.  Members who buy uniform items from other than AAFES MCSSs should check the reliability of the seller and make sure each garment has an USAF certification label."

Since you'll probably want to check for yourself, it's para 1-8. e, starting about line 6.

This stuff about it's not an Air Force uniform is pure bovine excrement. Zigzag was right.

I'd suggest  the term "Air Force variant". It's more accurate than "style". We don't wear something "like" or "similar to" the Air Force uniform. We wear the Air Force uniform. It just has some different costume jewelry.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: afgeo4 on December 29, 2007, 08:59:07 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 29, 2007, 08:10:06 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 29, 2007, 04:00:30 AM
Except it is not the Air Force service uniform, they are Air Force style uniforms.  Start calling it the Air Force service uniform and people will begin thinking we can wear unaltered AF uniforms. 

Wrong. It is an Air Force uniform. It has Civil Air Patrol distinctive insignia, but it is an Air Force uniform.

If it wasn't, why does this line exist in CAP 39-1?

"All uniform items must display a USAF certification label.  Members who buy uniform items from other than AAFES MCSSs should check the reliability of the seller and make sure each garment has an USAF certification label."

Since you'll probably want to check for yourself, it's para 1-8. e, starting about line 6.

This stuff about it's not an Air Force uniform is pure bovine excrement. Zigzag was right.

I'd suggest  the term "Air Force variant". It's more accurate than "style". We don't wear something "like" or "similar to" the Air Force uniform. We wear the Air Force uniform. It just has some different costume jewelry.

Air Force uniform items do not an Air Force uniform make. When you say "USAF uniform", it means a uniform that conforms to all USAF regulations regarding uniform wear. What we wear are CAP uniforms that conform to CAP regulations regarding uniform wear. We have USAF style uniforms and Corporate uniforms. CAP members are strictly and categorically prohibited from wearing military uniforms since CAP members are not members of the military.

USAF authorized garments are used in CAP uniforms, that's true, but that isn't a USAF uniform.

A bunch of authorized clothes become a uniform when they are worn in specific combinations as to identify the wearer as a member of a specific service/organization. The organization can be a military branch or a fire department or a parcel delivery company, it doesn't matter. They all have uniforms and all uniforms are specifically regulated in how they are worn to be a true identifier.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on December 29, 2007, 03:19:40 PM
Our Congressional charter authorizes CAP members to "Wear the uniform of the United States Air Force with certain identifying insignia."

When you speak of a "CAP uniform," I think of the TPU, the White and Gray, the Golf Shirt, the Smurf Suit, and the Mexican Wedding Shirt.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on December 29, 2007, 06:53:02 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 29, 2007, 03:19:40 PM
and the Mexican Wedding Shirt.

Ah...... How I do miss seeing those walking around!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ZigZag911 on December 29, 2007, 06:56:30 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 29, 2007, 04:00:30 AM
Except it is not the Air Force service uniform, they are Air Force style uniforms.  Start calling it the Air Force service uniform and people will begin thinking we can wear unaltered AF uniforms. 

Good point, I stand corrected.....whatever the niceties of terminology, such language regarding USAF blues could be misleading.....I'd still like to call corporate blues "CAP Service Uniform".
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on December 29, 2007, 07:08:26 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 29, 2007, 03:19:40 PM
Our Congressional charter authorizes CAP members to "Wear the uniform of the United States Air Force with certain identifying insignia."

This is the point I'm trying to make. You can take any military uniform and put whatever different insignia you want on it, but it's still that military's uniform.

Our insignia makes it specific to us, but it's "borrowed" from our mother branch, namely the Air Force.

That Air Force "style" terminology is incorrect and should be eliminated from the manual.

You can call a rose a petunia, but it's still a rose.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: PhotogPilot on December 29, 2007, 11:20:13 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 29, 2007, 06:53:02 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 29, 2007, 03:19:40 PM
and the Mexican Wedding Shirt.

Ah...... How I do miss seeing those walking around!

Nothing says "Hi, I'm a South American drug lord" like a big cigar and a Noriega shirt.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Bill on January 02, 2008, 12:55:37 AM
I think if we use AFI 10-2701 para 1-3 as our guide in this matter then we have two uniform series authorized by the Air Force; CAP Air Force-style uniform, and CAP Distinctive uniform series.  That  would be be for Dress, Service, Field and flight uniforms. Naturally civilian clothing is always an approved item for our members.

bc
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Pylon on January 02, 2008, 01:11:16 AM
Quote from: Bill on January 02, 2008, 12:55:37 AM
I think if we use AFI 10-2701 para 1-3 as our guide in this matter then we have two uniform series authorized by the Air Force; CAP Air Force-style uniform, and CAP Distinctive uniform series.  That  would be be for Dress, Service, Field and flight uniforms.

Para 1-1 of CAPM 39-1 explains that the Air Force actually only authorizes and has control over our AF-style uniforms closet.  CAP exercises control over the CAP distinctive/corporate uniforms.

Quote from: Bill on January 02, 2008, 12:55:37 AM
Naturally civilian clothing is always an approved item for our members.

Not in many circumstances.  The newest CAPM 39-1 guidelines require a uniform be worn for pretty much everything... flying in CAP aircraft, participating in any capacity with Cadet Programs, and so on.  Civilian clothing isn't always an option for senior members.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on January 02, 2008, 01:50:44 AM
Quote from: Pylon on January 02, 2008, 01:11:16 AM
Para 1-1 of CAPM 39-1 explains that the Air Force actually only authorizes and has control over our AF-style uniforms closet.  CAP exercises control over the CAP distinctive/corporate uniforms.

That is not entirely true as seen when the AF asked CAP to remove the "US" cutouts and AF buttons from the TPU jacket.  They also seemed to have "control" over other various items associated with that uniform. 

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Pylon on January 02, 2008, 02:06:32 AM
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 02, 2008, 01:50:44 AM
That is not entirely true as seen when the AF asked CAP to remove the "US" cutouts and AF buttons from the TPU jacket.  They also seemed to have "control" over other various items associated with that uniform. 
You're right.  The AF also maintains control over their insignia and devices, that's also in Para 1-1; I was over-summarizing the paragraph.  Should have included that.

CAP still controls corporate uniforms, but if we want to use their devices or accessories, it appears we need their approval.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Bill on January 02, 2008, 02:44:33 AM
Well  I stand corrected on the Civilian clothing, you are most correct when it comes to flying but my comments were more about us working with our parent organization and trying to incorporate their full statements in our own regulations as it relates to our uniform choices, to help reduce confusion...

Then here are some other comments to take a shot at:

Colonel White and his Committee, my other thoughts on the issue of uniforms and possible changes.

1.   Because of cost to members I would limit any immediate changes to these two uniform series.  Members in some cases have spent several hundred dollars on items only to have them changed for unknown reason in less than 30 days.  COST should be the driving force to any immediate changes.  I would encourage waiting until the Air Forces approves CAP move to the new Service and Field uniforms in the CAP Air Force style uniform series. 

2.   While the need should be for uniformity between the two uniform series, making a change now only to change it again in two or less years seems less cost effective.  If uniformity is the second goal to cost then in addition to standardizing name tags and grade insignia on the Service uniforms this should be the same with the Field uniform group; ABU/BBDU, dark blue tape with white letters and silver and gold grade insignia on dark blue.  I would be in favor of phasing out the Blue Battle Dress Uniform style to the 511 Tactical Duty Uniform series as the CAP Distinctive Field Uniform in either Digi-Woodland or TDU Khaki, with both shirt and trousers costing about $36 each.  This would be for all the reasons listed elsewhere on this thread.  The Digi-Woodland would make the uniform near the color combination as the new Air Force ABU, but the shirt is distinctively different form all Armed Service field uniform groups. This uniform comes in 65% polyester/35% cotton ripstop or cotton twill. (One source is www.qmuniforms.com) In addition the current Field Jackets could be used with this uniform pattern, along with all the woodland cold weather gear talked about.

3.   Possible immediate change to the CAP Distinctive uniform series would be to discontinuing the White and Gray uniform, and then include the fuzzy members with neatly trimmed beards and hair in the White and Blue uniform.

4.   While I personally don't care for the polo combination it has it's place but should be limited to only the dark blue polo shirt with gray or dark blue cotton, dickey, docker, or even 511 slacks.  I would be in favor of the current polo being replaced in some distant future with a better quality dark blue polo shirt, possibly a 511 type.  This new one polo shirt could be ordered with Civil Air Patrol embroidered over the left pocket, and the member's last name embroidered over the right area even with the title on the left side.

5.   Regardless of which CAP uniform is being worn the standard for badges and ribbons should be the same.  After all these are both uniforms that are Distinctive to CAP, pursuant to the Air Force Instructions on the subject.  I would encourage that the current standard for the CAP Air force-style service uniform be extended to the CAP Distinctive service uniform.  The medals and badges worn on the CAP Air Force style Mess Dress uniform be extended to the CAP Distinctive Dress Uniform (New CAP service jacket worn with bow tie), no need for hard shoulder boards, or tux shirts, just more expense that has no real need to make this uniform look more formal.

6.   I know a lot has been said about the silver sleeve braid and the silver hat strap, I don't care for the sleeve braid if it doesn't reflect the grade, but I like the silver hat strap.  Clearly I am in the minority of this group, but for the sense of uniformity, when the change is made I would be willing to give it up.  However, I don't suppose we would want to ask the Air Force if we could put the silver hat strap on the Service Hat when we were it with the CAP Air-Force-style Service or Mess Dress uniform groups?  That might help with some of the other proposed changes to make our CAP members in the CAP Air Force-style uniform distinctively different at a distance and in low-light conditions.

That is my two and a half cents for what it is worth.

bc
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on January 02, 2008, 02:45:10 AM
Quote from: Pylon on January 02, 2008, 02:06:32 AM
You're right.  The AF also maintains control over their insignia and devices, that's also in Para 1-1; I was over-summarizing the paragraph.  Should have included that.

CAP still controls corporate uniforms, but if we want to use their devices or accessories, it appears we need their approval.

I was only trying to say that the AF has more controll over what we wear than what is generally known.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on January 05, 2008, 01:37:23 AM
1. They are legally AF uniforms. They are controlled by law, and some yahoo could go to jail for imitating a CAP member in uniform. Same with CGAux.

2. AF does control the cloths as well as the insignia that go on them. They had to authorize wear of the current service & BDU uniforms, as well as contniued wear by cadets by not adults of the old style service coat. And, they will have to authorize wear of the new service coat when it comes out, as well as the initial wear date for ABUs & what they will allow the stuff on there to look like.

3. To be perfectly technical... it is and has always been the "Air Force STYLE" or (and pay attention here so the meaning isn't lost) the "corporate STYLE" uniform. There is no such thing as uniforms of the CAP corporation. The phrase "corporate uniform" is just a short hand that has now found its way into official documents. However, it originally referred to standard business attire with the addition of CAP nametags & such - ie the blazer combo. for most of CAP's history, the only "uniforms" were AF-style & approved by the AF. The alternative was completely civilian & was meant to be a no-cost item since most people already have it.

/end point of order.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: sfdefender on January 05, 2008, 02:24:09 AM
CAP should consider authorizing the wear of both the tan and olive, flesh-out (desert) boots with the BDU.  It makes boots more affordable and the availability of them in the FEDLOG system means that CAP could continue to get them at no cost through DRMO and other sources.  I have already had to turn down mulitple boxes of used pairs from the National Guard.

Additionally, I would be all for Stonewall's OD Green TRU (KBU) and it would look great with the new tan/olive boots. His concept uniform is a true winner!!!

MATTHEW J BREWER
Capt, USCAP
PCR-OR-065
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: afgeo4 on January 05, 2008, 08:17:36 AM
Quote from: DNall on January 05, 2008, 01:37:23 AM
1. They are legally AF uniforms. They are controlled by law, and some yahoo could go to jail for imitating a CAP member in uniform. Same with CGAux.

2. AF does control the cloths as well as the insignia that go on them. They had to authorize wear of the current service & BDU uniforms, as well as contniued wear by cadets by not adults of the old style service coat. And, they will have to authorize wear of the new service coat when it comes out, as well as the initial wear date for ABUs & what they will allow the stuff on there to look like.

3. To be perfectly technical... it is and has always been the "Air Force STYLE" or (and pay attention here so the meaning isn't lost) the "corporate STYLE" uniform. There is no such thing as uniforms of the CAP corporation. The phrase "corporate uniform" is just a short hand that has now found its way into official documents. However, it originally referred to standard business attire with the addition of CAP nametags & such - ie the blazer combo. for most of CAP's history, the only "uniforms" were AF-style & approved by the AF. The alternative was completely civilian & was meant to be a no-cost item since most people already have it.

/end point of order.

I don't believe there is a law against imitating a member of a non-profit corporation unless you use it to defraud someone. Thus, imitating an officer or cadet of CAP isn't illegal. We are not the military.

However, if some "yahoo" is imitating a USAF officer, then sure, there is a federal law against that, but CAP officers aren't USAF officers.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: arajca on January 05, 2008, 02:24:14 PM
Actually, the same law that covers impersonating an AF officer covers impersonating an officer of its auxillary. Some posted it in another discussion here - not sure where.

So, while impersonating an officer of a non-profit may not be a crime, impersonating a CAP officer is.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: CASH172 on January 05, 2008, 02:53:16 PM
But if we're not the full time auxiliary, someone impersonating a CAP officer wouldn't be a crime.  Unless if they were at a AFAM location. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jason.pennington on January 05, 2008, 02:55:23 PM
I see there are a lot of opinions on our uniforms.  That is great!  I would hate to think one man was the driving force behind all of our uniform changes.  But I do have a question: is there anyone on the Uniform Committee actually reading this thread?  Are these thoughts, of the membership, getting back to NHQ?  I ask this because I am unfamiliar with the vast majority of you.  Basically, does this count towards our future?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: fyrfitrmedic on January 05, 2008, 04:30:21 PM
Quote from: jason.pennington on January 05, 2008, 02:55:23 PM
I see there are a lot of opinions on our uniforms.  That is great!  I would hate to think one man was the driving force behind all of our uniform changes.  But I do have a question: is there anyone on the Uniform Committee actually reading this thread?  Are these thoughts, of the membership, getting back to NHQ?  I ask this because I am unfamiliar with the vast majority of you.  Basically, does this count towards our future?

Did you read the beginning of the thread?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on January 05, 2008, 04:34:11 PM
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 05, 2008, 08:17:36 AM
I don't believe there is a law against imitating a member of a non-profit corporation unless you use it to defraud someone. Thus, imitating an officer or cadet of CAP isn't illegal. We are not the military.

However, if some "yahoo" is imitating a USAF officer, then sure, there is a federal law against that, but CAP officers aren't USAF officers.


We hashed this topic around early last year.  The concensous was it is a crime.  The US CODE backs it up. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: sfdefender on January 05, 2008, 07:00:20 PM
Has anyone else noticed that it takes several months or even years for the USAF to make major uniform changes.  Yet, when CAP decided to start making changes they just publish the regulation update and its done.  I am not privy to what goes on behind the scenes, but I would really like to know if uniform changes ever go through a wear test cycle.  Now I imagine that NHQ staffers probably test things out (I hope at a minimum) but my question is:

Why not extend a wear test program down to the field, like ten members a wing or somthing along those lines? It would be a good litmus test for new uniform combos and would enhance member input at the National level.

MATTHEW J BREWER
Capt, CAP
PCR-OR-065
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Major Carrales on January 05, 2008, 07:30:14 PM
Quote from: sfdefender on January 05, 2008, 07:00:20 PM
Has anyone else noticed that it takes several months or even years for the USAF to make major uniform changes.  Yet, when CAP decided to start making changes they just publish the regulation update and its done.  I am not privy to what goes on behind the scenes, but I would really like to know if uniform changes ever go through a wear test cycle.  Now I imagine that NHQ staffers probably test things out (I hope at a minimum) but my question is:

Why not extend a wear test program down to the field, like ten members a wing or somthing along those lines? It would be a good litmus test for new uniform combos and would enhance member input at the National level.

MATTHEW J BREWER
Capt, CAP
PCR-OR-065


That tends to be problematic since we do not wear the uniforms everyday.

I have been a long time proponent of a 5 to 10 year moratorium on uniform changes.  This interval prevents things like the "US Civil Air Patrol" nametapes.  Since uniform changes with the USAF often take a while anyway to move over to CAP, this would not be too much of an issue.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Stonewall on January 05, 2008, 07:36:03 PM
Here's an idea for test-wear.

For major changes, such as a brand new uniform, have it evaluated at two or three functions.

Just using my KBU idea as a reference here. (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=3896.0)  But take the KBU and present it at all of the Region Staff Colleges for the year.  Then at Cadet Officer School.  Then at National Staff College.  Maybe use 2 or 3 of the larger encampments to present the idea.

CAWG has a rather large encampment from what I understand.  Have 10 people walking around for a few days in the KBU.  Then open the polls.  Do the same thing at NSC, COS and RSCs.  Then present it at the NB.  There ya go.  Done.

Or, an online poll at NHQ's website.  Have members log in to eServices to view new uniform proposals and cast their vote.  Done and done.  DOH!!!!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on January 05, 2008, 11:10:32 PM
Quote from: Stonewall on January 05, 2008, 07:36:03 PM
Or, an on-line poll at NHQ's website.  Have members log in to services to view new uniform proposals and cast their vote.  Done and done.  DOH!!!!

OMG!!!  That is the best suggestion yet for this whole Uniform Committee thing.  Open the thing up to members.  Place it in E-Services so that only Active members can vote.  Put the uniform pics and descriptions and costs associated with each change, addition or deletion.  Tally the votes and there we have a true representation of what the MEMBERS want.  NOT JUST A SMALL GROUP of people.  The Uniform Committee is a great idea, but I still don't like the fact that it is comprised of people we don't know, who may only live in one part of the country, and already have biased conceptions of what they want.  We have already seen things "shot down" in this thread for the mere reason that the "AF has disapproved that idea in the past".  Well it never HURTS TO ASK AGAIN!

Anyway, it should be a poll or vote open for 1 month and then the results presented to the NB.

Do you remember before the ACU's came out the Army did that on-line poll and vote for what future uniforms should look like?  I think they had some star trek type uniforms on there and even early drawings of the ACU's.

I am all for your voting plan!  I hope that it is carried through.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on January 06, 2008, 03:36:07 AM
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 05, 2008, 08:17:36 AM
Quote from: DNall on January 05, 2008, 01:37:23 AM
1. They are legally AF uniforms. They are controlled by law, and some yahoo could go to jail for imitating a CAP member in uniform. Same with CGAux.

2. AF does control the cloths as well as the insignia that go on them. They had to authorize wear of the current service & BDU uniforms, as well as contniued wear by cadets by not adults of the old style service coat. And, they will have to authorize wear of the new service coat when it comes out, as well as the initial wear date for ABUs & what they will allow the stuff on there to look like.

3. To be perfectly technical... it is and has always been the "Air Force STYLE" or (and pay attention here so the meaning isn't lost) the "corporate STYLE" uniform. There is no such thing as uniforms of the CAP corporation. The phrase "corporate uniform" is just a short hand that has now found its way into official documents. However, it originally referred to standard business attire with the addition of CAP nametags & such - ie the blazer combo. for most of CAP's history, the only "uniforms" were AF-style & approved by the AF. The alternative was completely civilian & was meant to be a no-cost item since most people already have it.

/end point of order.

I don't believe there is a law against imitating a member of a non-profit corporation unless you use it to defraud someone. Thus, imitating an officer or cadet of CAP isn't illegal. We are not the military.

However, if some "yahoo" is imitating a USAF officer, then sure, there is a federal law against that, but CAP officers aren't USAF officers.

You are wrong, George.  It is a crime to impersonate a CAP officer.  The law governing impersonating military officers specifically includes military auxiliary officers. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on January 06, 2008, 03:38:06 AM
Quote from: CASH172 on January 05, 2008, 02:53:16 PM
But if we're not the full time auxiliary, someone impersonating a CAP officer wouldn't be a crime.  Unless if they were at a AFAM location. 

You and George are both wrong. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: afgeo4 on January 06, 2008, 03:54:42 AM
Care to cite the federal law that states that it is illegal to impersonate a military auxiliary officer?

Remember, we are not federal employees. We are volunteer members of a non-profit corporation that sometimes acts as the auxiliary of the USAF.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: CASH172 on January 06, 2008, 03:54:59 AM
Does the law say "Civil Air Patrol" or "USAF Auxiliary?"  What I'm saying is that if the law just states the auxiliary, some good lawyer can argue a guy out of jail that way. 

EDIT: If it really is just the auxiliary, someone might wanna write their congressman about changing that. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on January 06, 2008, 03:10:35 PM
QuoteTITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 33 > § 702
§ 702. Uniform of armed forces and Public Health Service

Whoever, in any place within the jurisdiction of the United States or in the Canal Zone, without authority, wears the uniform or a distinctive part thereof or anything similar to a distinctive part of the uniform of any of the armed forces of the United States, Public Health Service or any auxiliary of such, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
Whether or not CAP is always an AF auxiliary, we are always wearing the uniform of the AF auxiliary and that is what the law applies to. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on January 06, 2008, 08:15:34 PM
Way off topic guys. Please move the drift elswhere and return to the topic at hand.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: tjaxe on January 06, 2008, 08:49:02 PM
Colonel White,
How long do you anticipate accepting input via this thread; I.E. is there a "thread deadline?"

Thanks!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on January 06, 2008, 10:23:43 PM
There is no deadline on here. We are leaving the thread open. We have received a tremendous amount of ideas. Many feasibile and some not. We're in the process of assembline everyting in a reviewable form and trying to make sure no items have slipped through the cracks. We're making good progress and everyone's input is greatly appreciated.

We really need folks to help out now in identifying 39-1 issues to be addressed. Pylon has set up a thread here to collect these. This is an huge undertaking and requires MANY sets of eyes so we can get everything addressed and cleared up in the manual.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Stonewall on January 07, 2008, 01:07:51 AM
Lt Col White:  

I am confident this will be a fair and just effort to create, replace, enhance or otherwise improve the uniforms for CAP across the board.  As I am sure you have seen "My utility uniform proposal" (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=3896.0), I would like this to be taken into consideration as a future option during the transition phase for the Air Force into ABUs.  As you can tell, the tone throughout the thread is that I advocate two main points.  First and foremost, one utility uniform for all members, regardless of weight and grooming.  Secondly, something I consider to be the common sense aspect of my proposal, a functional uniform that both looks professional in garrison, but more importantly serves a purpose for emergency services. 

Like others, I was impressed to learn that in my poll (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=3896.0), more than half of those who voted for the 4 options voted for my prototype uniform.  Out of 71 voters 38 voted for the Tru-Spec "Tactical Response Uniform" in olive drab green with white on ultramarine tapes and insignia.

Here are the poll results after  71 voters:

Quote
Stonewall's option for everyone   38 (53.5%)
Keep BDUs & BBDUs   13 (18.3%)
Hold out for ABUs   19 (26.8%)
Tell us your idea   1 (1.4%)

I appreciate NHQ's responsibility to please both the Air Force and our more than 55,000 members, but I do hope this simple poll demonstrates that a small group of dedicated CAP members show their desire not just for a change in lieu of the Air Force's transition to ABUs, but a more functional utility uniform.

Additionally, as previously posted in your "NHQ Uniform Committee" discussion, I highly suggest an online uniform proposal page on NHQ's eServices website that can show potential uniforms being considered as well as a means for the members to vote on what they think would best be suited for CAP.  This could last for one month and allow for each member to vote once for their choice of changes to service, utility, and flight uniform standards.

Thank you for taking on this challenging task.  I hope all of our voices are heard.

Semper Vigilans.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: sfdefender on January 07, 2008, 03:29:13 AM
Taken from the Tru Spec website:

Police officer from Oklahoma
"The uniform (TRU) is very well constructed and fits like the ordinary BDU outfit. That is the only similarity between the two uniforms. The TRU has several design features that make it far superior to the traditional BDU.

The TRU shirt has a unique collar that can be worn up or down to help protect your neck and keep out debris. It has hook & loop faced shoulder pockets for patches and there are reinforced internal elbow pockets for elbow pad inserts. There is also a convenient place to keep your pens and pencils on your sleeve.

The TRU trouser has two slanted cargo pockets with drain holes and elastic drawstrings. Both have an internal 5"x 5" hidden pocket. It has reinforced internal knee pockets for knee pad inserts and a lower leg pocket on both legs. I particularly liked the 1" wide belt loops that have a 2 1/4" opening.

I found the most significant thing about this uniform to be the button fly with a drawstring waste. I did not have to keep adjusting the waist size like on ordinary BDU uniforms. The heavy drawstrings in the legs also stayed tied throughout training which made a nice surprise.

"I would definitely recommend the Tactical Response Uniform from Tru-Spec without any hesitation."
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: arajca on January 07, 2008, 04:52:35 AM
Specify appropriate cold-weather clothing for wear with the bdu/bbdu. Something like:
Black or dark blue watch-style hat, knit or fleece.
Black or dark blue snowpants worn over the bdu/bbdu trousers when weather and environmental conditions dictate.
Black or dark brown footwear, appropriate to the conditions expected.
Black or dark blue gaiters, as appropriate to the conditions.
Black, blue, or brown gloves or mittens as appropriate to the temperature.
These will only be worn when the weather conditions are too cold for standard clothing.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jason.pennington on January 07, 2008, 11:15:07 AM
Quote from: fyrfitrmedic on January 05, 2008, 04:30:21 PM
Did you read the beginning of the thread?

No, I did not.  Sorry.  I skimmed over the first 10 - 15 pages or so.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: SAR-EMT1 on January 07, 2008, 06:29:32 PM
Col White: all told how many members does your committee have?
When you have compiled all your findings, who exactly from NHQ and USAF will be reviewing them?
Thank you.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on January 07, 2008, 11:46:09 PM
There are 5 on the committee and once things are compiled they will be reviewed at NHQ for consideration before submission to the NB and USAF
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on January 08, 2008, 12:22:00 AM
Quote-- Adopt the Air Force's heraldry standards, from unit emblems to who gets a flag versus a guidon. This means wings get shields, squadrons get discs and wing flags carry the shield instead of the CAP shield (just like the real Air Force). Wing patches are getting uglier all the time, so we ought to insist on going back to the heritage insignias, but instead in a shield. (For instance, Florida would go back to the gator.)
There should be a national level office with the authority to approve these designs.  Wing Commanders have been known to approve some pretty horrific designs.  Since you're only working on the uniform regulation you probably would have to stick with a simple statement about approval being required from National Headquarters.  The details would have to be worked out in another regulation most likely. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: thp on January 08, 2008, 12:25:27 AM
Authorize the flight cap with the Utility Uniform and the Blue Flight Suit.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JayT on January 08, 2008, 01:54:38 AM
Quote from: thp on January 08, 2008, 12:25:27 AM
Authorize the flight cap with the Utility Uniform and the Blue Flight Suit.

It is authorized with the Blue Flight Suit.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: tjaxe on January 08, 2008, 01:55:39 AM
I'm brand-spanking new to these forums as well as to CAP but as a self-confessed "uniform-geek" I thought I'd jot down some of my thoughts to mingle with the zillion others here:

- I suggest standardizing on army-style BDU caps and doing away with the camo baseball caps.

- I may be at odds with my fellow females on this, but WHAT is the point of the over blouse?  It just seems like yet another uniform item that can cause disparity of appearance among others.

- Is the floppy bow tie really necessary; especially since the tab is authorized for the corporate uniform?  I suggest the floppy tie be sent packing.

Question: Is the male version of the corporate coat authorized for females?  If not, is the female version available somewhere?

Another question... do you have any female CAP members on your uniform committee? Just wonderin'... :)

Thanks!!!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: star1151 on January 08, 2008, 02:00:25 AM
Quote from: tjaxe on January 08, 2008, 01:55:39 AM

- I may be at odds with my fellow females on this, but WHAT is the point of the over blouse?  It just seems like yet another uniform item that can cause disparity of appearance among others.

It's a whole lot more flattering than tucking a shirt in.

(Says the person who hasn't tucked a shirt in since....ever)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Stonewall on January 08, 2008, 02:02:19 AM
Quote from: star1151 on January 08, 2008, 02:00:25 AM
Quote from: tjaxe on January 08, 2008, 01:55:39 AM

- I may be at odds with my fellow females on this, but WHAT is the point of the over blouse?  It just seems like yet another uniform item that can cause disparity of appearance among others.

It's a whole lot more flattering than tucking a shirt in.

(Says the person who hasn't tucked a shirt in since....ever)

My wife tucks her shirt in when wearing blues and I think it looks better, but more importantly, I think it's more in line with your male counterparts.

As my wife says "women who are heavier prefer the princess cut shirt that you can wear untucked".  Princess cut shirts are not an AF issue item, they're a personal purchase item and not required. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Pylon on January 08, 2008, 02:04:33 AM
Quote from: tjaxe on January 08, 2008, 01:55:39 AM
Another question... do you have any female CAP members on your uniform committee? Just wonderin'... :)

Thanks for the suggestions, and for the errors and ambiguities you pointed out in the other thread.  :)

We do have a female member of the uniform committee.  It has actually been one of my pet peeves, so to speak, that uniform decisions that have been made in the past 5 years have largely ignored large portions of our membership.  To me, some of the uniform changes and rollouts went something like this:

"Ta-da!  Be impressed!  This is a new CAP uniform."
"...oh, whoops, we forgot we had females... uhh... let's see... here's a change letter to make some hacked options for females, though clearly not as thought-through as the original..."
"...oh, whoops, we forgot we had NCOs... uhh... let's see... here's a change letter to..."
"...oh, whoops, we never addressed what flight officers wear in this instance... uhh... let's see..."
"...oh, whoops, we didn't think about members who live in cold climates and didn't authorize any outerwear... uhh... let's see..."
"...oh, whoops, we forgot..."

The lack of thoroughly thinking through uniform changes as it applies to all members in  CAP has been a bit embarrassing, I think.  I hope we can fix that and it starts changing with this committee.  Thanks again!  :)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on January 08, 2008, 02:13:02 AM
Quote from: tjaxe on January 08, 2008, 01:55:39 AMQuestion: Is the male version of the corporate coat authorized for females?  If not, is the female version available somewhere?

There is a female version of the corporate service dress jacket; nearly identical in appearance to the male version except it buttons 'the other way round'.  ;D

Below is a guide I prepared for wearing the TPU - ahem - corporate service uniform.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: star1151 on January 08, 2008, 02:14:07 AM
Quote from: Stonewall on January 08, 2008, 02:02:19 AM
Quote from: star1151 on January 08, 2008, 02:00:25 AM
Quote from: tjaxe on January 08, 2008, 01:55:39 AM

- I may be at odds with my fellow females on this, but WHAT is the point of the over blouse?  It just seems like yet another uniform item that can cause disparity of appearance among others.

It's a whole lot more flattering than tucking a shirt in.

(Says the person who hasn't tucked a shirt in since....ever)

My wife tucks her shirt in when wearing blues and I think it looks better, but more importantly, I think it's more in line with your male counterparts.

As my wife says "women who are heavier prefer the princess cut shirt that you can wear untucked".  Princess cut shirts are not an AF issue item, they're a personal purchase item and not required. 

<shrug>

I meet AF (not CAP, but the old AF) weight standards and still find tucked in shirts unflattering.  Then again, I'm a lot younger than most of the membership, which is probably why.  Who wants to wear a shirt tucked in up to their armpits?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on January 08, 2008, 02:14:38 AM
Quote from: tjaxe on January 08, 2008, 01:55:39 AM
- I suggest standardizing on army-style BDU caps and doing away with the camo baseball caps.

I haven't seen one of those in over a decade. No reason we couldn't eliminate them.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Stonewall on January 08, 2008, 02:34:39 AM
Quote from: star1151 on January 08, 2008, 02:14:07 AMI meet AF (not CAP, but the old AF) weight standards and still find tucked in shirts unflattering.  Then again, I'm a lot younger than most of the membership, which is probably why.  Who wants to wear a shirt tucked in up to their armpits?

I'm just not a fan of double standards.  Personally, I'd like an option to wear my shirt untucked.  In fact, until they let me wear shorts with service dress, I think skirts for women should be tossed out.  By no means do I think we should take away a feminine appearance, but women tuck their shirts in when wearing a business suit in the corporate world, why not in the military world?  Just my opinion.  Love it or hate it.

Besides, I think my wife looks hot with her shirt tucked in with blues, and no, it isn't up to her armpits.  It rests where it's supposed to rest, belly button/hips area.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on January 08, 2008, 01:58:24 PM
Quote from: tjaxe on January 08, 2008, 01:55:39 AM
I'm brand-spanking new to these forums as well as to CAP but as a self-confessed "uniform-geek" I thought I'd jot down some of my thoughts to mingle with the zillion others here:

- I suggest standardizing on army-style BDU caps and doing away with the camo baseball caps.

- I may be at odds with my fellow females on this, but WHAT is the point of the over blouse?  It just seems like yet another uniform item that can cause disparity of appearance among others.

- Is the floppy bow tie really necessary; especially since the tab is authorized for the corporate uniform?  I suggest the floppy tie be sent packing.

Question: Is the male version of the corporate coat authorized for females?  If not, is the female version available somewhere?

Another question... do you have any female CAP members on your uniform committee? Just wonderin'... :)

Thanks!!!

Yes, we have 2. One is a USAF Academy grad and CAP SQ CC and the second is a female retired SNCO who is also working on the further development of the CAP NCO program.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Stonewall on January 09, 2008, 04:02:49 AM
Quote from: LtCol White on January 08, 2008, 01:58:24 PM
Yes, we have 2. One is a USAF Academy grad and CAP SQ CC and the second is a female retired SNCO who is also working on the further development of the CAP NCO program.

Okay, by deduction #1 female is Fifinella, someone from your wing.  Who is the other?  Is it OPSEC?

I'm curious to know who makes up the CAP NHQ uniform committee.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on January 09, 2008, 01:40:23 PM
Fifinella LAWG, Pylon NYWG, Chief Walpus OKWG, Me LAWG, Col Starr WAWG
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Stonewall on January 09, 2008, 02:31:57 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on January 09, 2008, 01:40:23 PM
Fifinella LAWG, Pylon NYWG, Chief Walpus OKWG, Me LAWG, Col Starr WAWG

Good, now for my cross country trip to go influence the decision makers to make the right decisions  ;D
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on January 09, 2008, 07:37:07 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on January 09, 2008, 01:40:23 PM
Fifinella LAWG, Pylon NYWG, Chief Walpus OKWG, Me LAWG, Col Starr WAWG

No one from the midwest??  That is a shame!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RogueLeader on January 09, 2008, 09:47:29 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 09, 2008, 07:37:07 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on January 09, 2008, 01:40:23 PM
Fifinella LAWG, Pylon NYWG, Chief Walpus OKWG, Me LAWG, Col Starr WAWG

No one from the midwest??  That is a shame!

What do you call Oklahoma? >:( >:( >:(  It's not in the NCR, but it is still the Midwest.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Stonewall on January 09, 2008, 10:53:51 PM
According to Wikipedia:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/US_map-Midwest.PNG)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RogueLeader on January 09, 2008, 11:14:51 PM
I can change that.  Wiki is NOT the only reference to what constitutes what.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on January 10, 2008, 01:04:39 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on January 09, 2008, 09:47:29 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 09, 2008, 07:37:07 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on January 09, 2008, 01:40:23 PM
Fifinella LAWG, Pylon NYWG, Chief Walpus OKWG, Me LAWG, Col Starr WAWG

No one from the midwest??  That is a shame!

What do you call Oklahoma? >:( >:( >:(  It's not in the NCR, but it is still the Midwest.

Oklahoma is part of the Southwestern United States.  Or at least I always thought it was.  You know the Weather Channel does the 3 minute continental roundup, the guy or lady says "in the Southwest......in Oklahoma, in Texas....blah blah blah".

Huge difference between the weather in Oklahoma, and Illinois/ Indiana/ Missouri ya know.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RogueLeader on January 10, 2008, 02:42:00 AM
^^ Not so different between KS, and NE.
[/drift]
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: pixelwonk on January 10, 2008, 03:10:32 AM
*topic*
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: NAYBOR on January 10, 2008, 04:31:18 AM
To get back on topic, I'd like to submit an "oldie but goodie" from the past that I'd like considered by the NHQ for both the USAF and corporate service coats:

(http://captalk.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3540.0;attach=1505)

OR

(http://captalk.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3540.0;attach=1507)

Precedent for the suggestion: The New York Guard--

http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/nyg/catalog.pdf

Look on page 6--officer cutouts--There's also a rendition of their officer service cap device on page 7.

California also had similar lapel brass for the CSMR (US cutout with a smaller "CAL" across it)--they've changed to a "CA" cutout.  I don't know if other states' SDFs follow a similar cutout to NY.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RogueLeader on January 10, 2008, 02:00:22 PM
What would the cost be for membership?  this would mean ALL in CAP with a Service Coat would have to buy new insignia that is customized.  It would not be in line with the stated objectives of the committee. 

There is that, as well as the fact that it wouldn't look right.  We have hashed that out before- not saying we can't re-discuss it here- but i believe that the consensus was that it didn't look good for CAP.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Grumpy on January 10, 2008, 03:05:31 PM
I'm not all that familiar with the uniform of the Coast Guard Aux., but they have metal rank with the letter "A" on it.  This wouldn't be that much different and it would distinguish us from our parent organization.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RogueLeader on January 10, 2008, 03:16:17 PM
Quote from: Grumpy on January 10, 2008, 03:05:31 PM
I'm not all that familiar with the uniform of the Coast Guard Aux., but they have metal rank with the letter "A" on it.  This wouldn't be that much different and it would distinguish us from our parent organization.

1) Cost
2) 1 letter on insignia, ok; but Letters on top of Letters-  I don't think so. :( :(
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on January 10, 2008, 03:32:32 PM
Quote from: NAYBOR on January 10, 2008, 04:31:18 AM
To get back on topic, I'd like to submit an "oldie but goodie" from the past that I'd like considered by the NHQ for both the USAF and corporate service coats:

(http://captalk.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3540.0;attach=1505)

OR

(http://captalk.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3540.0;attach=1507)

Precedent for the suggestion: The New York Guard--

http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/nyg/catalog.pdf

Look on page 6--officer cutouts--There's also a rendition of their officer service cap device on page 7.

California also had similar lapel brass for the CSMR (US cutout with a smaller "CAL" across it)--they've changed to a "CA" cutout.  I don't know if other states' SDFs follow a similar cutout to NY.

I have a problem with putting anything on top of "US" letters. It's like placing writing over the US flag.

CAP has no desperate need for "US" insignia. It's nice that we have it, but if giving it up can allow us to establish a professional, aesthetically matched uniform, we should accept it.

We are not US military forces. We shouldn't be modifying US insignia for any reason. New York's practice of doing so does not justify our attempting it.

An additional note: NY's use of a modified "U.S." insignia is also not in compliance with the use policy of the Army. From AR 670-1, dated 3 Feb 05, para 30-8. c. :

"State defense forces (SDF) may adopt the Army service and BDU uniforms, provided all service uniform buttons, cap devices, and other insignia differ significantly from that prescribed for wear by members of the U.S. Army. State insignia will not include “United States,” “U.S.,” “U.S. Army,” or the Great Seal of the United States."
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Pace on January 10, 2008, 03:42:34 PM
I find it slightly amusing that CAP reaches out with one hand and slaps itself with the other.  We're now wearing the US flag patch, but we're trying to get rid of the US insignia.  So by following that trend, can the flag come off the BDUs?

Don't flame me if this has been addressed.  I haven't tracked the last 700-800 posts...
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on January 10, 2008, 03:46:49 PM
Quote from: dcpacemaker on January 10, 2008, 03:42:34 PM
I find it slightly amusing that CAP reaches out with one hand and slaps itself with the other.  We're now wearing the US flag patch, but we're trying to get rid of the US insignia.  So by following that trend, can the flag come off the BDUs?

Don't flame me if this has been addressed.  I haven't tracked the last 700-800 posts...

Personally, I'm not attempting to get rid of the U.S. insignia. I just feel that if it is an impediment to our getting a professional looking uniform, we should consider it. If we were given the option of metal on our coats, but had to lose the "U.S.", I wouldn't have any heartburn with it.

I don't care for the flag on our BDU's. It associates us with the Army more than the Air Force, and that is the wrong direction to take.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RogueLeader on January 10, 2008, 03:52:18 PM
I don't want to lose either of them.  I would rather keep the US, and have grey epaulets.  Now, if we had to put the metal CAP on the epaulets, along with the hard rank, that would be awesome.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jason.pennington on January 10, 2008, 04:25:30 PM
CAP cut-outs on the lapels and metal rank insignia would be great for the jacket.  At first I had no problem with getting rid of the AF blues for seniors, but it is the uniform of our cadets.  They expect us to wear our uniform correctly as well as they do.  Of course we should be the example, not the cadets.

With that being said, I still think that SM's need one dress uniform.  The blue pants combo looks better and is more professional than the grey.  It would be great if we could go back to blue rank sleeves for the AF shirt as well, so we could use the same insignia on both shirts, thus saving money.  The same thing goes for the nameplates.  Can we get the blue two-line for wear on the AF blues, or the 3-line blue nameplate back for seniors and wear that on both shirts?  Again, this would bring down some costs.

Someone along the lines here talked about wearing reg. military ribons on the aviator shirt.  I recently (yesterday) read in the Navy Regs that navy ribons can not be mixed with civilian clothing.  So that does away with Navy ribbons on the aviator shirt.  Which is not such a big deal for me anyway.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on January 10, 2008, 04:30:19 PM
Quote from: RogueLeader on January 10, 2008, 03:52:18 PM
I don't want to lose either of them.  I would rather keep the US, and have grey epaulets.  Now, if we had to put the metal CAP on the epaulets, along with the hard rank, that would be awesome.

I don't think that setup will ever fly. Looks a little too busy.

In order to get metal rank, we may have to give up something. It may be the US. I think hard rank with CAP would look fine.

We also have to consider our NCO's. At present, they do not wear US insignia. For uniformity purposes, we'd be better served by having the same collar insignia across the board, for all ranks. Our current NCO's have earned the US more than our CAP officers have.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Falshrmjgr on January 10, 2008, 05:44:02 PM
I have never seen this anywhere,  but the US on the collars has always seemed to me to denote commissioning source (or lack thereof).

US = US Military Commision/US Officer
CAP = CAP Officer
ROTC = ROTC Cadet
OCS = OCS Candidate
SMR = State Military Reserve (or state initials, your mileage may vary)

And if you put it on a disk, it's enlisted.

Now I generally lean toward things that are in favor of CAP looking more like our Active brethren, but in this case I will state emphatically that US on the collars is wrong, misleading, and pretentious.

Hard Rank + CAP = Real CAP Officer
Epaulet Slides + US = Fake US Officer

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on January 10, 2008, 05:46:54 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 10, 2008, 04:30:19 PM
Quote from: RogueLeader on January 10, 2008, 03:52:18 PM
I don't want to lose either of them.  I would rather keep the US, and have grey epaulets.  Now, if we had to put the metal CAP on the epaulets, along with the hard rank, that would be awesome.
Our current NCO's have earned the US more than our CAP officers have.

Not true.  I earned mine as a Military Officer, as did many here.  Also, you just implied that the NCO' are better than the CAP members without previous military experience.  You owe everyone an apology......right?!?!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on January 10, 2008, 05:50:30 PM
Quote from: jason.pennington on January 10, 2008, 04:25:30 PMSomeone along the lines here talked about wearing reg. military ribons on the aviator shirt.  I recently (yesterday) read in the Navy Regs that navy ribons can not be mixed with civilian clothing.  So that does away with Navy ribbons on the aviator shirt.  Which is not such a big deal for me anyway.

I believe the deal as far as military ribbons on civilian clothing is shared by all services, the Navy is simply more emphatic about it. Either way, our corporate Service Dress is still a civilian uniform. I don't think military decs will ever be permitted by the military services.

The Air Force variants are pretty much the only way to wear military insignia. We lose them, we won't have the option.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: sfdefender on January 10, 2008, 05:51:15 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 10, 2008, 03:46:49 PM
I don't care for the flag on our BDU's. It associates us with the Army more than the Air Force, and that is the wrong direction to take.

I wholly disagree with this statement.  The US flag associates the wearer with the United States of America (never a wrong direction to take). It just so happens that our placement is the same as the US Army.

It also just so happens to be that those nifty little eight-ball patches were to be worn in the same location as the Army's Shoulder Sleeve Insignia For War Time Service. I didn't hear anyone complaining about that or saying it was too Army back then...

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on January 10, 2008, 06:00:20 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 10, 2008, 05:46:54 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 10, 2008, 04:30:19 PM
Quote from: RogueLeader on January 10, 2008, 03:52:18 PM
I don't want to lose either of them.  I would rather keep the US, and have grey epaulets.  Now, if we had to put the metal CAP on the epaulets, along with the hard rank, that would be awesome.
Our current NCO's have earned the US more than our CAP officers have.

Not true.  I earned mine as a Military Officer, as did many here.  Also, you just implied that the NCO' are better than the CAP members without previous military experience.  You owe everyone an apology......right?!?!

I owe no apologies. You inferred that NCO's are better, I did not imply.

Simply put, our NCOs have spent time in military service. Our CAP officers, as CAP officers, have not. Former military officer service isn't even part of the equation. It's valuable, but I did not address it in the first place.

I have stated before that the average military person has far more experience wearing a uniform, and serving their country than a CAP member. CAP members have contributed a great deal to their communities, but in a different manner. Apples and oranges. Both food, but far different ingredients.

You are well aware that at present, an NCO must have been a military NCO. As such, there is a lot they have earned in that accomplishment. CAP officers have a different progression.

Besides, what is wrong with wearing "CAP" insignia? It doesn't demean the person, only shows a different program. Not having US doesn't make them any less of a professional.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on January 10, 2008, 06:03:51 PM
Quote from: sfdefender on January 10, 2008, 05:51:15 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 10, 2008, 03:46:49 PM
I don't care for the flag on our BDU's. It associates us with the Army more than the Air Force, and that is the wrong direction to take.

I wholly disagree with this statement.  The US flag associates the wearer with the United States of America (never a wrong direction to take). It just so happens that our placement is the same as the US Army.

I never cared for sleeve insignia in the first place on CAP uniforms.

As far as the flag goes, compare the CAP BDU to an Army one. Then an Air Force one. Then a Navy one. I'll leave the Marines out, since their uniform is drastically different.

Which two of the above uniforms wear the American flag on the right sleeve? As such, which uniforms are going to be more closely associated?

Since the flag was going to be worn, it was probably more appropriate on the left arm. Could have used the flightsuit stock. We also wouldn't have had people putting flags on the right arm of the flightsuits.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on January 10, 2008, 08:27:23 PM
We've only worn the US since the early 90's. Prior to this we always wore the CAP cutouts.  I too see nothing wrong with everyone wearing the CAP cutouts on both service uniforms.

US was a gift from USAF when they gave us the gray eps to replace the maroon as a morale booster after the maroon debacle.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eeyore on January 10, 2008, 08:40:38 PM
I've really never met someone who wasn't associated with the military that has known that only the Army wears the flag. In fact when people have stopped and asked me what I was they have never asked if I was army, they always assume something else.

Now, the cause of that could be that I have never lived near an Army base, I have only lived near Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy bases, therefore most assume I am one of those services while in uniform.

I do not see the flag as an issue and am proud to wear the flag on my shoulder.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jb512 on January 10, 2008, 08:51:07 PM
The CAP over the US looks too weird.  We only need one set of CAP initials whether it be on the epaulets (blue preferred), hard wired to the epaulet with hard rank, or on the collar with no CAPs on the shoulder.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BigMojo on January 10, 2008, 10:14:59 PM
I've stayed away from this thread, but had an idea inspired by my Utility Uniform Coverall thread below. As an option for doing UDF stuff, last minute call outs from work where you don't have time to change, etc...

The idea is to give it a nice look, but differentiate it from the nomex bags. I personally don't want to be associated as a silver winged sun god er pilot/observer  ;) so this gives a good look for us ground pounders, who don't always have the time to run home and get into BDUs.

PS: NOT recommending for field use in the woods, swamps, etc, where the rip-stop BDU is needed. Only for use in Urban Environments, Ramps, Hangers, Marinas, Mission Base, etc.

(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y174/badger1030/Util.jpg)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on January 10, 2008, 10:42:29 PM
OK, It doesn't look too bad.  Clearly different from a flight suit. 

Most guys want to look MORE like pilots, though.  Pilots are cool and chicks dig us.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: afgeo4 on January 10, 2008, 10:55:57 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 10, 2008, 06:03:51 PM
Quote from: sfdefender on January 10, 2008, 05:51:15 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 10, 2008, 03:46:49 PM
I don't care for the flag on our BDU's. It associates us with the Army more than the Air Force, and that is the wrong direction to take.

I wholly disagree with this statement.  The US flag associates the wearer with the United States of America (never a wrong direction to take). It just so happens that our placement is the same as the US Army.

I never cared for sleeve insignia in the first place on CAP uniforms.

As far as the flag goes, compare the CAP BDU to an Army one. Then an Air Force one. Then a Navy one. I'll leave the Marines out, since their uniform is drastically different.

Which two of the above uniforms wear the American flag on the right sleeve? As such, which uniforms are going to be more closely associated?

Since the flag was going to be worn, it was probably more appropriate on the left arm. Could have used the flightsuit stock. We also wouldn't have had people putting flags on the right arm of the flightsuits.

USMC Fatigues (BDUs) were no different than BDUs of any other branch.

New USMC uniforms (MARPAT) are as different from what we wear as new Army (ACU), Air Force (ABU), Navy (NWU) or Coast Guard (ODU).

Thus.. what's your point?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on January 10, 2008, 11:40:41 PM
Oh, hell no.

DO NOT give us two identical uniforms, then give us two different sets of insignia and two ways to place them on the suit.  That way lies madness.

If you don't want to look like aircrew, wear BBDU's
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on January 11, 2008, 02:08:43 AM
OK....so reading the other thread on the new VSAF operation, what Polo shirt and Khaki pants combo are they referring to?  Is that a new combo yet to be released or is it something that will be presented at the next national conference.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RogueLeader on January 11, 2008, 02:37:02 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 10, 2008, 10:42:29 PM
OK, It doesn't look too bad.  Clearly different from a flight suit. 

Most guys want to look MORE like pilots, though.  Pilots are cool and chicks dig us.

1) The tapes are bass ackwards and
2)
Quote from: ddelaney103 on January 10, 2008, 11:40:41 PM
Oh, hell no.

DO NOT give us two identical uniforms, then give us two different sets of insignia and two ways to place them on the suit.  That way lies madness.

If you don't want to look like aircrew, wear BBDU's
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ZigZag911 on January 11, 2008, 03:31:36 AM
The tapes look ridiculous, which probably explains why flight suits use the leather tags!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Pylon on January 11, 2008, 04:16:04 AM
With regards to the utility uniform above:

The uniform committee is looking to pair down CAP's corporate uniforms to a one-for-one with the AF-style uniforms.   In other words, one service dress in AF-style, one style of service dress in corporates - one flying uniform in AF-style, one flying uniform in corporates. 

The Blue Utility Uniform does not equate to anything in the AF closet.  I fail to see how it provides any significant enough advantages over the Blue BDUs or the Blue flight suit to warrant adding a whole new uniform to our already unwieldy repertoire.

Someone aptly said, very recently, that CAP functions can often look more like a NATO conference than anything else.  A chief complaint of many CAP members is that we have so many uniforms.  Creating new ones, new variations, or perpetuating existing uniforms that duplicate efforts simply prolongs those issues.  Our committee aims for simplicity, one-for-one corporate and AF-style closets with only two exceptions (golf shirt and blazer combo), and minimum impact on the members' wallets.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ZigZag911 on January 11, 2008, 04:25:30 AM
Quote from: Pylon on January 11, 2008, 04:16:04 AM
Our committee aims for simplicity, one-for-one corporate and AF-style closets with only two exceptions (golf shirt and blazer combo), and minimum impact on the members' wallets.

Admirable and worthwhile effort, hopefully a successful one eventually -- but the tapes still look ridiculous, please consider some alternative!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Pylon on January 11, 2008, 04:27:43 AM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 11, 2008, 04:25:30 AM
Admirable and worthwhile effort, hopefully a successful one eventually -- but the tapes still look ridiculous, please consider some alternative!

What tapes?  You have to be more specific?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ZigZag911 on January 11, 2008, 04:29:51 AM
"Civil Air Patrol" and Name Tape set on diagonals over diagonal pockets; they just look dumb, leather aircrew patch is a more professional looking alternative.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Pylon on January 11, 2008, 04:33:17 AM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 11, 2008, 04:29:51 AM
"Civil Air Patrol" and Name Tape set on diagonals over diagonal pockets; they just look dumb, leather aircrew patch is a more professional looking alternative.

That's not anything currently being considered.  Blue BDUs and Blue Flightsuits is what we are proposing be kept as is.  I will propose that the Blue Utility Uniform be phased out.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: pixelwonk on January 11, 2008, 04:44:36 AM
Quote from: Pylon on January 11, 2008, 04:16:04 AM
The Blue Utility Uniform does not equate to anything in the AF closet.  I fail to see how it provides any significant enough advantages over the Blue BDUs or the Blue flight suit to warrant adding a whole new uniform to our already unwieldy repertoire.

Someone aptly said, very recently, that CAP functions can often look more like a NATO conference than anything else.  A chief complaint of many CAP members is that we have so many uniforms.  Creating new ones, new variations, or perpetuating existing uniforms that duplicate efforts simply prolongs those issues.  Our committee aims for simplicity, one-for-one corporate and AF-style closets with only two exceptions (golf shirt and blazer combo), and minimum impact on the members' wallets.

Anyone can purchase a green or blue zoom bag for a substantial bit of coin.
The option to obtain a free used green one that the squadron gets from military sources is available to most folks, if they ask around.  Heck, even eBay isn't a bad deal.

Not so much with the navy-colored bag.

Think of it this way, the inexpensiveness of the blue utility suit is what makes it attractive.  You still have a distinctive CAP uniform that equates to an AF one, albeit of a different fabric.  Why take it away from those who wear it, only to force them into buying something way more six times more expensive?

I'd take my folks wearing a blue utility suit instead of the golf shirt at meetings any day.




Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ddelaney103 on January 11, 2008, 04:47:56 AM
Quote from: Pylon on January 11, 2008, 04:33:17 AM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 11, 2008, 04:29:51 AM
"Civil Air Patrol" and Name Tape set on diagonals over diagonal pockets; they just look dumb, leather aircrew patch is a more professional looking alternative.

That's not anything currently being considered.  Blue BDUs and Blue Flightsuits is what we are proposing be kept as is.  I will propose that the Blue Utility Uniform be phased out.

Why?  It looks like the flight suit (so it doesn't make us any less "uniform") but is $180 cheaper.

And before you drag out the safety argument, save it.  Unless we start loading up our Cessna's with a few thousand pounds of JP-8 and have people shoot at us with Armor Piercing Incendiary, the safety argument for aramid doesn't wash.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: cap235629 on January 11, 2008, 05:28:10 AM
[quote author=Pylon link=topic=3540.msg77427#msg77427 date=1200025997
That's not anything currently being considered.  Blue BDUs and Blue Flightsuits is what we are proposing be kept as is.  I will propose that the Blue Utility Uniform be phased out.
[/quote]

Why not keep the Blue Utility Uniform as and alternative to the Blue Nomex Flightsuit, for flight operations only maybe calling it the NON-NOMEX flightsuit, as a cost to member item.  $40.00 beats $300.00 anyday and we are NOT mandated anywhere to wear Nomex, otherwise we wouldn't be allowed to wear anything BUT Nomex uniforms when flying.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on January 11, 2008, 10:05:27 AM
just a point of order... there are some wings that do mandate nomex for flying, some all the time & some just for mission flying. As someone who has had a friend die because of an aircraft fire in a single engine GA aircraft training for CAP, and knowing from experience how much more risky much of our mission flying is than standard GA, I personally place some merit in the safety argument.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BigMojo on January 11, 2008, 01:21:36 PM
Just a point of clarification on why I posted that utility uniform... Not everyone in this organization flies, or even wants to fly, or look like they fly. I'm one of them (call me crazy, many already do) I have nothing but respect for our mission aircrews, I just prefer ground ops.

The utility uniform needs to remain an option. It is a low cost option that allows for and easy and quick way to get into uniform for a UDF mission. I'm my specific area, if we have coordinates, we can get a ground team together, on site, and within 100yards of an EPIRB or ELT before a flight crew has finished getting ready and pre-flighted. There isn't always a place to change pants that's publically acceptable, and being able to put a t-shirt on slide a coverall over work slacks makes a great option, and financially feasible, for under $40 I can have that neatly folded in my truck at all times, which for the same money, I can only buy a BDU blouse. In the end, it puts people on-scene faster, which leads to quicker de-activations, which makes everyone happy.

In the end, I felt I could improve upon an existing option, make it distinctive, give it a purpose, and keep it cheap. (I can get all needed patches/tapes for less than the cost of 1 leather name tag). The reason behind going with tapes over a tag was for readability at a distance for general public, because you can't read a leather tag from more than 2ft away. Orient them on the uniform how you want, I just followed pocket lines to go with the cut. For clarification, I am not proposing this for anything Flight Operation Oriented, just ground work, in an urban environment. I may not want to look like a pilot, conversely, do pilots want us lowly ground pounders looking like them?

BTW...the BBDU needs to go away. As the BDU is being phased out by the USAF, make the woodland BDU that standard for both those that meet weight and grooming, and the fuzzy/fluffy's.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Grumpy on January 11, 2008, 03:21:31 PM
Quote from: BigMojo on January 11, 2008, 01:21:36 PM
BTW...the BBDU needs to go away. As the BDU is being phased out by the USAF, make the woodland BDU that standard for both those that meet weight and grooming, and the fuzzy/fluffy's.

Why would you want a woodland BDU for a ground team?  I would think than while looking to an aircraft in some mountainous area you would want to be seen.  Our wing uses orange shirts so they can be seen from the air.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BigMojo on January 11, 2008, 03:32:26 PM
Woodland is easier and cheaper to get than blue, especially for Cadets. We wear orange hats and vests for visibility.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on January 11, 2008, 03:41:54 PM
Quote from: BigMojo on January 11, 2008, 01:21:36 PM
Just a point of clarification on why I posted that utility uniform... Not everyone in this organization flies, or even wants to fly, or look like they fly. I'm one of them (call me crazy, many already do) I have nothing but respect for our mission aircrews, I just prefer ground ops.

The utility uniform needs to remain an option. It is a low cost option that allows for and easy and quick way to get into uniform for a UDF mission. I'm my specific area, if we have coordinates, we can get a ground team together, on site, and within 100yards of an EPIRB or ELT before a flight crew has finished getting ready and pre-flighted. There isn't always a place to change pants that's publically acceptable, and being able to put a t-shirt on slide a coverall over work slacks makes a great option, and financially feasible, for under $40 I can have that neatly folded in my truck at all times, which for the same money, I can only buy a BDU blouse. In the end, it puts people on-scene faster, which leads to quicker de-activations, which makes everyone happy.

In the end, I felt I could improve upon an existing option, make it distinctive, give it a purpose, and keep it cheap. (I can get all needed patches/tapes for less than the cost of 1 leather name tag). The reason behind going with tapes over a tag was for readability at a distance for general public, because you can't read a leather tag from more than 2ft away. Orient them on the uniform how you want, I just followed pocket lines to go with the cut. For clarification, I am not proposing this for anything Flight Operation Oriented, just ground work, in an urban environment. I may not want to look like a pilot, conversely, do pilots want us lowly ground pounders looking like them?

BTW...the BBDU needs to go away. As the BDU is being phased out by the USAF, make the woodland BDU that standard for both those that meet weight and grooming, and the fuzzy/fluffy's.

If you want a low-cost coverall for low-stress ELT missions, I suggest the flight suit in cotton, which is available in both sage green and blue.    I had one that I would wear when flying gliders.  It is way cooler (temperature-wise, it is just as cool social-wise) and in an environment where fire protection is not an issue it works fine.  (Gliders may crash, but they don't burn!)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jason.pennington on January 11, 2008, 04:19:53 PM
I am not sure if anyone has posted this or not.  CAWG has a UDF uniform consisting of an orange (SAR) button down shirt and the CAP blue BDU trousers.  On the shirt members wear only the CAP and their nametapes.  Oh, and the CAWG patch.  I am not sure of the purpose, except maybe to blend in with the other SAR organizations in the state.  This might be an option to consider for ground teams.  I know it is an extra uniform, but, it might serve a purpose nation-wide.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JayT on January 11, 2008, 05:04:44 PM
Quote from: jason.pennington on January 11, 2008, 04:19:53 PM
I am not sure if anyone has posted this or not.  CAWG has a UDF uniform consisting of an orange (SAR) button down shirt and the CAP blue BDU trousers.  On the shirt members wear only the CAP and their nametapes.  Oh, and the CAWG patch.  I am not sure of the purpose, except maybe to blend in with the other SAR organizations in the state.  This might be an option to consider for ground teams.  I know it is an extra uniform, but, it might serve a purpose nation-wide.

That uniform has be discussed often.

The advantage of the jump suit is that it's something you can have rolled in a ball in the back of your car with a pair of boots and a tee shirt, and you can just throw it on over street clothes basically.

The Blue BDUs look as crappy as BDU's if they're just rolled in a ball, and you need to have authorized boots, head gear, and outer garments. That California uniform isn't authorized.

I keep a jump suit in my car just for that purpose. Plus, I get lonely without all of the pockets.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DogCollar on January 11, 2008, 05:38:20 PM
Quote from: JThemann on January 11, 2008, 05:04:44 PM
Quote from: jason.pennington on January 11, 2008, 04:19:53 PM
I am not sure if anyone has posted this or not.  CAWG has a UDF uniform consisting of an orange (SAR) button down shirt and the CAP blue BDU trousers.  On the shirt members wear only the CAP and their nametapes.  Oh, and the CAWG patch.  I am not sure of the purpose, except maybe to blend in with the other SAR organizations in the state.  This might be an option to consider for ground teams.  I know it is an extra uniform, but, it might serve a purpose nation-wide.

That uniform has be discussed often.

The advantage of the jump suit is that it's something you can have rolled in a ball in the back of your car with a pair of boots and a tee shirt, and you can just throw it on over street clothes basically.

The Blue BDUs look as crappy as BDU's if they're just rolled in a ball, and you need to have authorized boots, head gear, and outer garments. That California uniform isn't authorized.

I keep a jump suit in my car just for that purpose. Plus, I get lonely without all of the pockets.

Another option...that might even be easier, and lower cost, is a reflective jacker and/or vest with agency identifying letters.  They could easily stay in a car trunk until needed.  Just a thought.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: PhoenixRisen on January 11, 2008, 10:32:46 PM
Quote from: JThemann on January 11, 2008, 05:04:44 PM
That California uniform isn't authorized.

Says who?

See section 1-5.c of the California suppliment to the 39-1 http://cawg.cap.gov/files/manuals/cawgm39-1.pdfhere (//http://).

Quote from: CAPM 39-1Region commanders must approve items authorized by wing commanders in coordination with
National Headquarters.

If it's in the CAWG 39-1 suppliment, I would assume it's authorized.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on January 11, 2008, 11:25:59 PM
The Ca thing is state mandated. CAP has no choice other than not to participate. And, it comes with insurance concerns that are counter-balanced by state coverage.

Fast response to a non-emergency ELT on an airport ramp is not what CAP is about. And, that mission is going mostly away. You can argue how much work there will be to do during the transtion, but longer term we're moving in a different direction. What we do now (and frankly this is the case with ELTs as well if your ICs will do the alerts right) is longer lead time warning orders to be on alert for deployment in hours, and to more serious & diverse incidents. We don't need a jumpsuit to wad up in the trunk so we can look official & be covered by insurance when we respond direct to the ramp. What we need is to be identified with the team we're playing for & hold up to the work over the long haul.

Now, if I can try to bring some focus back to this discussion... We are one team, that's the Total Air Force Team. We exist to perform missions for America either in support of or on behalf of that team (regardless of who is paying the bills at the moment). That is the team we will have solidarity & representation of. So...

1. There WILL be one AF-style uniform for flight (green flt suit), utility (BDU/ABU), and service dress. There WILL be one equivalent alternative for each (blue flt suit/BBDU/corp-style serv dress). The only exceptions are the golf shirt with khakis, and I believe the blazer combo, though my vote is to get rid of that & open up the corp-style serv dress, but I have mixed feelings about that too.

2. The primary effort is to standardize between & across that matrix for cost & uniformity in solidarity with the team we play for.

3. The effort will also try to present this material in a clear & concise user friendly & hopefully error free publication.

4. And, it will attempt to modify the system of adopting changes, to maintain the solidarity & simplicity, and to insure wear test & long lead time with member & AF input - ie not the crazy world we've been living in recently.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: sardak on January 12, 2008, 12:28:29 AM
Quote from: DNall on January 11, 2008, 11:25:59 PM
The Ca thing is state mandated. CAP has no choice other than not to participate. And, it comes with insurance concerns that are counter-balanced by state coverage.
Sorry, it's not state mandated and has nothing to do with insurance coverage.  The orange shirt is authorized for reasons discussed on other threads.  The state has never mandated a ground team uniform for CAP or anyone else.  There are plenty of recognized SAR teams in CA that don't wear orange.

The orange shirt uniform is optional even under the CAWG policy, and one can see all sorts of uniform combos on CAP ground teams. 

Mike
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: LtCol White on January 12, 2008, 12:51:54 AM
Back on topic please
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: SAR-EMT1 on January 12, 2008, 02:21:12 AM
Negative to ever taking " US " off our collars

Negative to a GT coverall or Orange shirt or ANYTHING except the BDU-BBDU
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on January 12, 2008, 02:22:33 AM
^ Agreed!  Doubly so!!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: airdale on January 12, 2008, 02:23:58 AM
QuoteBack on topic please

Newbie here.  I have been looking around this forum and especially this thread and am somewhat amazed by the intensity of feelings about what are, to me, little metal doodads and imitation soldier suits.  Don't flame me here; I understand that a lot of people are fond of this stuff.  My point is simply that not everyone in CAP is into the uniform thing.  On topic: Hopefully the committee will remember this.

Quote
I have been asked to do this paying special attention to the "cost to the member" concerns.

Easy -- minimize the amount of special-purpose clothing required.  If you don't do that, you are just putting lipstick on the pig.

I see no reason that a new member shouldn't be able to buy something simple like the golf shirt "uniform" and have that be acceptable for any CAP activity.  For ground teams there may be a necessity for a long-sleeved top plus jeans "uniform" to provide some brush protection. (But, jeez, not camo!  The last thing you want is for ground teams to be invisible.  Camo is not just silly, it reduces safety.)

Beyond the minimum, define as many military-style uniform options and flight suit options as are needed to satisfy the traditionalists.  Then you're done.

All opinions guaranteed worth price paid.  Flame away!

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: PhoenixRisen on January 12, 2008, 03:49:16 AM
Quote from: airdale on January 12, 2008, 02:23:58 AM
QuoteBack on topic please
I see no reason that a new member shouldn't be able to buy something simple like the golf shirt "uniform" and have that be acceptable for any CAP activity.  For ground teams there may be a necessity for a long-sleeved top plus jeans "uniform" to provide some brush protection. (But, jeez, not camo!  The last thing you want is for ground teams to be invisible.  Camo is not just silly, it reduces safety.)

That just screams "Boy Scouts" to me.  Not sure if I'm the only one, but I'm feeling that people wouldn't take us seriously if you came up wearing a "uniform" shirt and a pair of jeans/tennis shoes, and said "I'm with the United States Air Force Auxiliary".

As for the camo, you're not making yourself invisible...  I've never heard of a ground team operation that DIDN'T require their members to wear some type of reflective vest or orange hat / shirt (ala Hawk Mountain).

We wear the Battle Dress Uniform because we're doing work for the US Air Force, and that's [technically] their uniform...

YMMV.

*steps away and fades back into the crowd*
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Slim on January 12, 2008, 03:54:21 AM
Quote from: Pylon on January 11, 2008, 04:33:17 AM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 11, 2008, 04:29:51 AM
"Civil Air Patrol" and Name Tape set on diagonals over diagonal pockets; they just look dumb, leather aircrew patch is a more professional looking alternative.

That's not anything currently being considered.  Blue BDUs and Blue Flightsuits is what we are proposing be kept as is.  I will propose that the Blue Utility Uniform be phased out.

Want to have a little impact on my wallet?  Keep the current blue bag as an aircrew uniform.

That is, for those places which don't require Nomex.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DrJbdm on January 12, 2008, 11:49:11 PM
Quotelittle metal doodads and imitation soldier suits.  Don't flame me here; I understand that a lot of people are fond of this stuff.  My point is simply that not everyone in CAP is into the uniform thing.

   When you joined, you where told that this is the United States Air Force Aux right? and that we are under the U.S. Air Force? and as such we wear Air Force Uniforms (modified for CAP) and that we perform Air Force Missions?  or did they lead you in to believing we are a civic organization that isn't military in any fashion? Perhaps the boy scouts would take you as a scout leader or maybe one of these SAR groups would take you.  Perhaps a Military organization isn't the right fit for you.

   As for BDUs and ABUs, those are worn because CAP is a military organization. SAR isn't the biggest thing we do it's not our reason for being, it's only one small part.  Let me ask this another way:  If the National Guard was doing SAR work would you expect them to not wear military uniforms? because you thought it was silly or unsafe? No, you would expect them to be in uniform. We are the same way, in many ways we are very close to the National Guard.

   If you are simply not into the military aspect of things then fine, become a patron member or something. But accepting a regular membership carried with it the implied acceptance of being in a military organization an following the rules and regulations of both CAP and in some cases the USAF.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: CadetProgramGuy on January 13, 2008, 06:10:03 AM
After 49 pages of not reading anymore, I ask the following:

If you had to go to National Boards right now, what are you asking for uniform changes?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on January 13, 2008, 06:34:30 AM
Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on January 13, 2008, 06:10:03 AM
After 49 pages of not reading anymore, I ask the following:

If you had to go to National Boards right now, what are you asking for uniform changes?

Good Question!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: SStradley on January 13, 2008, 05:56:38 PM
Lt. Col. White,

How does the VSAF uniform fit into or with the work you and the committee are doing?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on January 13, 2008, 07:19:48 PM
I think that's been addressed, in that we'd be going to khakis with a single polo combo, and the prefernce would be to use that for VSAF rather than adding yet another shirt. Ultimately though, we do what the AF tells us to. If they want to require us to purchase yet another specialty clothing item so we can volunteer in support of their family support programs or whatever, then we'll adopt that into our regs, but it may seriously impeede or cause the failure of such an effort. Tha'd be very unfortunate.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: SStradley on January 13, 2008, 09:32:20 PM
Quote from: DNall on January 13, 2008, 07:19:48 PM
I think that's been addressed, in that we'd be going to khakis with a single polo combo, and the prefernce would be to use that for VSAF rather than adding yet another shirt. Ultimately though, we do what the AF tells us to. If they want to require us to purchase yet another specialty clothing item so we can volunteer in support of their family support programs or whatever, then we'll adopt that into our regs, but it may seriously impeede or cause the failure of such an effort. Tha'd be very unfortunate.

I know that the committee is going to recommend khakis.  However, I was asking about the button shirt.  If the A/F is requiring this shirt, then I think the committee should suggest the phase out the polo (of which I have 2) in favor of the VSAF button shirt.

 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on January 13, 2008, 10:13:16 PM
I think the polo would be slightly better than the button down shirt for wear while flying or in other situations where you're going to work up a sweat.  Its less prone to getting all wrinkled up in those cases than the button downs. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jb512 on January 13, 2008, 10:57:28 PM
Quote from: airdale on January 12, 2008, 02:23:58 AM

I see no reason that a new member shouldn't be able to buy something simple like the golf shirt "uniform" and have that be acceptable for any CAP activity.  For ground teams there may be a necessity for a long-sleeved top plus jeans "uniform" to provide some brush protection. (But, jeez, not camo!  The last thing you want is for ground teams to be invisible.  Camo is not just silly, it reduces safety.)


I have to echo everyone else in response to this...  You are aware that this is a military auxiliary, right?  We're not wearing "silly camo" because it's "camo".  We're wearing it because it's a utility uniform for walking through the brush and carrying stuff and it's readily available from our parent organization, etc...

I think the boy scouts still wear jeans and long sleeved shirts though.  You can sew your merit badges right onto the pockets...

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: SStradley on January 13, 2008, 11:27:25 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 13, 2008, 06:34:30 AM
Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on January 13, 2008, 06:10:03 AM
After 49 pages of not reading anymore, I ask the following:

If you had to go to National Boards right now, what are you asking for uniform changes?

Good Question!

  Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
« Reply #844 on: December 27, 2007, 10:47:56 PM »   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Refresher to get us back on track, and to help those that just joined us (so they don't have to read all 41 pages!)   


Quote from: mikeylikey on December 07, 2007, 09:17:01 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 05, 2007, 09:07:17 AM
Could I take a moment to review what we have so far?

1.  AF Blues:

- No change likely on weight requirements.
- Switch from gray to blue epaulet sleeves, with "CAP" identified.

2.  TPU:

- Switch from silver braid to same blue as on AF coat.
- Lose silver chinstrap from flying saucer cap.
- Switch from hard rank to blue epaulet sleeve, same as AF coat.
- Shirt to have same blue epaulet with "CAP."
- "CAP" lapel brass to remain.
- Allow neatly-trimmed beards, but NOT long hair.
- Not resolved:  wear of military ribbons and badges... Same rules as on AF coat?

3.  White and Grays:

- History.

4.  Flight Suits:

- Retain dual flight suits, sage green and dark blue.
- Sew-on bright rank for both shoulders.
- Sage green background for AF flight suit, dark blue for blue flight suit.
- Not resolved:  embroidered name badges?

5.  BDU's:

- Retain BDU for time being.
- Introduce ABU on a schedule driven by the AF logistical chain.
- No change to BDU during phase-out period.
- Retain blue BDU for the fats and fuzzies.
- Switch to dark blue nametapes and rank background for BBDU.
- Unresolved:  Dark blue or sage green background for ABU tapes and rank?

6.  Golf Shirt:

- Retain as a casual uniform.
- Switch to khaki trousers (Is this correct, or unresolved?)
- Establish a single authorized golf shirt.

7.  Blazer Uniform:

- Retain for IACE and as an alternate dress uniform.
- Switch to khaki trousers (Again, was this resolved?)

Does this summarize what has been discussed and decided, or do I have something wrong?




So we all don't have to read back to page 24 to catch up. 




Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: PhoenixRisen on January 14, 2008, 02:11:42 AM
In response to the previous post, one thing I was aware that we'd be asking for (for us Cadets) is the ability to short-stack again - for those who don't like wearing a gazillion ribbons.

(Yes, I'm aware gazillion isn't a word.  :P)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Pylon on January 14, 2008, 03:10:14 AM
Quote from: PhoenixCadet on January 14, 2008, 02:11:42 AM
In response to the previous post, one thing I was aware that we'd be asking for (for us Cadets) is the ability to short-stack again - for those who don't like wearing a gazillion ribbons.

(Yes, I'm aware gazillion isn't a word.  :P)

Noted.  Thank you.  :)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: PhoenixRisen on January 14, 2008, 03:17:16 AM
Quote from: Pylon on January 14, 2008, 03:10:14 AM
Quote from: PhoenixCadet on January 14, 2008, 02:11:42 AM
In response to the previous post, one thing I was aware that we'd be asking for (for us Cadets) is the ability to short-stack again - for those who don't like wearing a gazillion ribbons.

(Yes, I'm aware gazillion isn't a word.  :P)

Noted.  Thank you.  :)

No, thank you for helping us Cadets come one step closer to NOT having to look like Bolivian Generals each time we step into our Blues.   ;D
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on January 14, 2008, 03:25:44 AM
My connection got a little fuzzy there for a while, but I was writing a summation as well. I guess you can compare & see if it all got covered between the two.

VSAF... obviously we don't need both, and of course it'd be stupid to get rid of the polo we got for a shirt we don't. I'm not in the loop on this one, but I'd be willing to bet that's not AF's idea. I think they probably just said no uniforms, business casual. Someone just needs to let them know the polo combo is the way to go. I have faith common sense will prevail.

Blazer combo.... I got mixed emotions, but I can see keeping it. However, I would go back to the roots on this. The point of the blazer combo was not to create a "uniform." It was to put a distinctive nametag/etc on a standard business suit already in everyone's closet. i would just assume go back to that. Meaning that it would not be a standardized uniform with this color gray pants & that color blue jacket. It would just state dark blue/black professional business suit & conservative tie, attach this pin on name badge. IACE is a different thing & doesn't need to be covered in 39-1.

Just a couple quick personal requests...
a) can we completely take out any reference to things as a corporate or corporate-style uniform. I think it unneccessarily engenders an incorrect attitude. Can we instead juat use the word "alternate." ie- the serivce dress uniform & alternate service dress uniform, utility uniform (BDU) & alternate utility uniform (BBDU), flight utility uniform (grn flt suit) & alternate flt utility uniform (blue).

b) can we completely get rid of any refernce to "senior members." Just go with cadet & adult classes of membership (in addition to patron, etc). That includes getting rid of the SM grade & replacing it with officer candidate. I think that does encourage the right attitude for our new members.


If I could try to sum up where we are on the actual proposed matrix (this is one of those correct me if/where I'm wrong things):

Some things are fairly clear:

1. The effort is to reduce cost to members. That doesn't necessarily mean cost to you members who may have to make changes. Rather, it means cost to new members to aquire this stuff from scratch. CAP rolls over membership constantly. We're not concerned with losing people by making changes, cause we tend to pick up just as many or more by going to the new standard. Hate to sound cold & calculating about it, but that's the facts.

2. There will be one AF & one alternative version of each uniform class. That is Utility - BDU(ABU)/BBDU, service - blues/alt blues, flt - grn/blue; plus the golf shirt w/khakis & the blazer combo. Nothing else. If you want to say cotton versions of the blue or green flt suit are authorized, I can deal with that, but we don't need a seperate blue util uniform.

3. Things will be as standardized between the two equiv uniforms as legally possible. The only difference should be the base uniform, the stuff & placement of it should be the same, with very few exceptions.

A) Specifically, that means dropping to one standard plastic nametag for cadets & seniors, blue or white shirt; and, one silver nametag for the jacket, be it single or double breasted.

B) There are some exceptions to the standardization. That's no military ribbons/badges on the alternative blue uniform. We can't do anything about that. And, background color for the tapes on the BDU(ABU)/BBDU. There is no cost differnce between one industry standard color and another, and it looks dramatically better to match backgrounds. That means dark blue tapes for BBDU. BDU/ABU would be up for discussion.

C) Going to "CAP" collar devices on both service coats is up for discussion. It would allow us to standardize, but the popular sentiment is to keep the "US" where we can. I prefer the US, but I'll adapt to whatever standard is set.

4. Patches. We'll be trying to reduce the color explosion. That means taking off a lot of unneeded stuff. AF heraldry standards adopted for future patches. People would be highly encouraged to use a semi-subued darker sort of color pallet. That is to say still full-color, but using things like maroon rather than bright red. It doesn't need to be camoflauged, but it does need to present a more conservative professional appearance.

5. Future uniform change process.

A) The reg will spell out a new process that makes it more difficult to make so many and so drastic changes in such a short period of time. It would require a serious wear test and field input - that is both CAP member feedback, and comments from AF personnel (even for non-AF style items).

B) It would also directly link the CAP uniform mannual to the AF uniform mannual for authoritative guidance. That means if AF changes the way a patch is to be worn on ABUs, then the CAP uniform committe &/or NHQ is authorized to make that administrative change to the CAP reg w/o need of a vote by the NB, member input, etc. This covers wear of the commander's badge & things like that.


Some things will involve change proposals. That's proposing one version we're willing to live with & one version that we want:

6. Standardized grade slides. They will be stadardized, the only question is to what. We're willing to keep gray for everything. That means corp-style alternate blues uniform would get gray slides on both jacket & shirt. We'd prefer going to blue sides like it used to be. That could utilize an adaptation of the cadet officer slide, or it could simply be "CAP" embroidered onto a standard AF grade slide (which allows for female sized slides). Black has been discussed as an alternative & may or may not go in the mix of things presented. Another possibility is if we keep the gray & a distinctive nametag, then there is no need for "CAP" to be embroidered on the slides. Also, some provision may be made for SMWOG, such as a blank grade slide (already available).

7. BDU(ABU)/BBDU. We will go to dark blue background for everything on the BBDU. The worst case is to carry that same dark blue across to BDUs. The better case is white or gray on OD background for BDUs. What we'll probably end up doing is not changing BDUs at all, but rather developing a new set of standards for ABUs to be adopted as those come out. That being, the same backgrounds the AF is using, with full-color embroidery.

8. Nametags. We will go to one plastic & one silver nametag for both cadets & adults, & both AF-style & corp-style. We'd prefer the standard one-line AF versions that are widely avail for low cost from dozens of approved manufactures, and are utilized by AFJROTC/AFROTC/AF Acad/etc. If we can't have that for some reason, we'd go to the two-line version currently used on the corp-style blues uniform. I'd note regarding phase in/out that this would most likely be tied to moving over to the new service coats.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: PhoenixRisen on January 14, 2008, 03:41:52 AM
Quote from: DNall on January 14, 2008, 03:25:44 AM
4. Patches. We'll be trying to reduce the color explosion. That means taking off a lot of unneeded stuff. AF heraldry standards adopted for future patches. People would be highly encouraged to use a semi-subued darker sort of color pallet. That is to say still full-color, but using things like maroon rather than bright red. It doesn't need to be camoflauged, but it does need to present a more conservative professional appearance.

This brings up a proposal on the standardization part of patches.  We want to "standardize", yet NHQ decided to let wings decide as to whether they want to keep their wing patches.  Myself, being unlucky, as we're requred to keep them.

My proposal is to standardize this, and in an effort to align ourselves with the AF - in that they don't wear shoulder wing patches, remove them from ALL wings, and don't give a choice.

That just screams hippocrite when one says "standardization".
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on January 14, 2008, 04:09:21 AM
DNall:

I think you're pretty close to a summary there.

I am pretty sure it was decided to keep the Blazer, since it is required for IACE.  The polo looks like it is approved (with a change to khaki pants) for wear with this new VSAF program.  I don't have a problem with that, and actually the Air Force has a very similar uniform that is worn be recruiters.  There should only be one basic style of polo, with the seal embroidered on the right.  A member who wants to add his name and embroidered qualification badge on the left should continue to be allowed to do so.

I THINK that military ribbons are authorized on the TPU, but not military badges.  I also think that the committee is recommending that to change, and permit wear of both ribbons and badges on the TPU as on the AF uniform jacket.  Military regs authorize wear of awards on clothing of "Military societies," which I think we might qualify on that point.  One can wear one's military ribbons and badges on one's VFW hat, so wearing them on our uniform should be a no-brainer.

I agree on the patches.  If a wing wants a patch, it should meet USAF heraldry standards, and not detract from the uniform appearance.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jeders on January 14, 2008, 04:20:50 AM
Quote from: DNall on January 14, 2008, 03:25:44 AM
8. Nametags. We will go to one plastic & one silver nametag for both cadets & adults, & both AF-style & corp-style. We'd prefer the standard one-line AF versions that are widely avail for low cost from dozens of approved manufactures, and are utilized by AFJROTC/AFROTC/AF Acad/etc. If we can't have that for some reason, we'd go to the two-line version currently used on the corp-style blues uniform. I'd note regarding phase in/out that this would most likely be tied to moving over to the new service coats.

I thought the plastic nametag was going to be the blue 3-line that cadets currently use. This would be my personal choice because then current cadets don't have to get a new nametag. Plus those of us that are former cadets likely still have the one they used as a cadet.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on January 14, 2008, 05:00:21 AM
^ More Officers in CAP than Prior Cadets turned Officer in CAP.  Don't add additional expenses for the majority.  Thanks!   :angel:

Also, I am all for keeping the black Army Windbreaker with pin-on metal grade insignia and a cap cutout.  In fact, we should also try to get that practice moved onto other outerwear as well.  My slides get all crapped over in the rainy and snowy months.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Pylon on January 14, 2008, 05:46:40 AM
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 14, 2008, 05:00:21 AM
^ More Officers in CAP than Prior Cadets turned Officer in CAP.  Don't add additional expenses for the majority.  Thanks!   :angel:

The intent in the blue 3-line nameplate for all idea is not because some former cadet s'members might still have them kicking around. 

It's because it promotes the one team, one appearance concept.  Civil Air Patrol wears one nameplate, across all of our nameplate-using uniforms... cadets... seniors... in AF-style... in corporates.

Pair that idea of wearing blue epaulets with "CAP" on them on all uniforms, now you have cadet officers, senior officers all wearing blue epaulets with "CAP" and grade insignia on them whether in corporates or AF-style.  Again, a one-team, one-look appearance.

So now the differences between the corporate and AF-style service dress uniforms are more subtle, members don't have to own 4 nameplates, and cost is -in the end- reduced.  Right now there are 5 nameplates, not counting U.S. and non-U.S. Civil Air Patrol variants.  If that gets reduced to 2 (3-line blue plastic and brushed steel) then simplicity, easy-to-understand regs, cost-effectiveness, and uniformity all win in the end.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on January 14, 2008, 11:51:30 AM
Why the 3-line? How is it more cost saving to use a larger more complex specialty item versus the very widely avail standard one-line AF version used by every other part of the AF from AFJROTC on up. I understand not wanting to tax cadets by making them get a new item. That gets covered with legitimate phase-in periods. Just curious on the thinking there.

I got no problem with mil badges/ribbons on the other blue uniform. That's AF's call though, maybe even DoD's call, definately not mine.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: cnitas on January 14, 2008, 02:59:10 PM
Quote from: DNall on January 14, 2008, 11:51:30 AM
Why the 3-line? How is it more cost saving to use a larger more complex specialty item versus the very widely avail standard one-line AF version used by every other part of the AF from AFJROTC on up. I understand not wanting to tax cadets by making them get a new item. That gets covered with legitimate phase-in periods. Just curious on the thinking there.

I have been wondering this for awhile myself.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jason.pennington on January 14, 2008, 04:45:13 PM
I agree with one nametag for all.  Style does not matter since Vanguard will find some way to raise the price on them.  But a uniformity would be nice.  20 years ago we all wore the same nametag and it worked.  Grey is OK, and thank the heavens we didn't get a maroon nametag, but blue is better.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: SAR-EMT1 on January 14, 2008, 05:31:04 PM
One name tag would be fine.
But my personal take on it is this: if it isnt a one liner with just the last name then please God let it have " US AF Aux" like the current one, and not " CAP"
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on January 14, 2008, 05:32:56 PM
Quote from: Pylon on January 14, 2008, 05:46:40 AM
If that gets reduced to 2 (3-line blue plastic and brushed steel) then simplicity, easy-to-understand regs, cost-effectiveness, and uniformity all win in the end.

However, Cadets are not wearing the AF brushed steel.  Will they then continue to wear the blue 3-line on the AF service coat, and will WE (Officers or SM's) have to change over from brushed steel to the blue 3-line on the AF service Coat to "fit in" with the Cadets??

I hope not!  Lets keep brushed steel on the AF Jacket, and try to get brushed steel 1-line on the Corporate Jacket as well.  Might as well try to get it for the Cadets as well.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jeders on January 14, 2008, 05:46:36 PM
Quote from: DNall on January 14, 2008, 11:51:30 AM
Why the 3-line? How is it more cost saving to use a larger more complex specialty item versus the very widely avail standard one-line AF version used by every other part of the AF from AFJROTC on up. I understand not wanting to tax cadets by making them get a new item. That gets covered with legitimate phase-in periods. Just curious on the thinking there.

I got no problem with mil badges/ribbons on the other blue uniform. That's AF's call though, maybe even DoD's call, definately not mine.

I'm not saying that the blue 3-line is necessarily more cost-saving, I just thought that that was the consensus of the committee earlier on. If that's changed then that's fine with me.

Quote from: mikeylikey on January 14, 2008, 05:00:21 AM
^ More Officers in CAP than Prior Cadets turned Officer in CAP.  Don't add additional expenses for the majority.  Thanks!   :angel:

There are more officers than former cadets turned senior member, yes. But I'm assuming that there are more cadets and former cadets turned senior member than there are senior members who only wear "corporates" and therefore have the blue one-line.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on January 14, 2008, 09:37:21 PM
Quote from: jeders on January 14, 2008, 05:46:36 PM
Quote from: DNall on January 14, 2008, 11:51:30 AM
Why the 3-line? How is it more cost saving to use a larger more complex specialty item versus the very widely avail standard one-line AF version used by every other part of the AF from AFJROTC on up. I understand not wanting to tax cadets by making them get a new item. That gets covered with legitimate phase-in periods. Just curious on the thinking there.

I'm not saying that the blue 3-line is necessarily more cost-saving, I just thought that that was the consensus of the committee earlier on. If that's changed then that's fine with me.
This is me asking the cmte if that's the case, and if so why.

It's pretty simple to me. I'm all for getting all of the CAP team in the same nametag. But if we're going to follow that logic, then why not use the same nametag as the rest of the AF team that we play for. I can gurantee you that's not the AF pushing that for distinctiveness. If AFJROTC can do something, it's not the AF telling us we can't.

The other thing is, a 3-line is not cost saving, and keeps me tied to limited manufactures. If I can go to 1-line then I can get them made for cadets locally or from dozens of other competitive manufactures for half the price in half the time & with a tenth of the errors I currently have to deal with. By the way, that's $1.70 versus $2.90.


Far as the brushed silver. We're keeping that on the service coat. By going to distinctive epaulet slides versus metal grade we will be able to go to the one-line for the corp-style service coat as well. Most cadets I see wear the old-style service coat, so it doesn't tend to be an issue on their side. As we go to the upcoming service coat, everyone in CAP should have the same one-line brushed silver for that.


QuoteThere are more officers than former cadets turned senior member, yes. But I'm assuming that there are more cadets and former cadets turned senior member than there are senior members who only wear "corporates" and therefore have the blue one-line.
I gurantee you the number of people that have a blue nametag saved cadet time, or back when we were in maroon, is extremely negligable. If that's a factor for you versus a buck & half for a new nametag, you really have issues. In this process, the cost-savings we're talking about are for future members to aquire what they need from scratch. How can I make us more of a team, with each other & the AF, while keeping it inexpensive & easy to access for those new folks.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: CAP Producer on January 14, 2008, 09:42:31 PM
Quote from: Pylon on January 14, 2008, 05:46:40 AM
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 14, 2008, 05:00:21 AM
^ More Officers in CAP than Prior Cadets turned Officer in CAP.  Don't add additional expenses for the majority.  Thanks!   :angel:

The intent in the blue 3-line nameplate for all idea is not because some former cadet s'members might still have them kicking around. 

It's because it promotes the one team, one appearance concept.  Civil Air Patrol wears one nameplate, across all of our nameplate-using uniforms... cadets... seniors... in AF-style... in corporates.

Pair that idea of wearing blue epaulets with "CAP" on them on all uniforms, now you have cadet officers, senior officers all wearing blue epaulets with "CAP" and grade insignia on them whether in corporates or AF-style.  Again, a one-team, one-look appearance.

So now the differences between the corporate and AF-style service dress uniforms are more subtle, members don't have to own 4 nameplates, and cost is -in the end- reduced.  Right now there are 5 nameplates, not counting U.S. and non-U.S. Civil Air Patrol variants.  If that gets reduced to 2 (3-line blue plastic and brushed steel) then simplicity, easy-to-understand regs, cost-effectiveness, and uniformity all win in the end.

I like what Mike says.   ;D
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BlueLakes1 on January 14, 2008, 10:20:38 PM
I wish I still had my old blue cadink nametag....
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on January 15, 2008, 12:16:48 AM
Quote from: Redfire11 on January 14, 2008, 10:20:38 PM
I wish I still had my old blue cadink nametag....

I still got my old black one from my cadet days!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on January 15, 2008, 01:24:38 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 15, 2008, 12:16:48 AM
Quote from: Redfire11 on January 14, 2008, 10:20:38 PM
I wish I still had my old blue cadink nametag....

I still got my old black one from my cadet days!

They had nametags then?

;D

>:D
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RogueLeader on January 15, 2008, 02:26:52 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 15, 2008, 01:24:38 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 15, 2008, 12:16:48 AM
Quote from: Redfire11 on January 14, 2008, 10:20:38 PM
I wish I still had my old blue cadink nametag....

I still got my old black one from my cadet days!

They had nametags then?

;D

>:D


There were enough people to warrant last names? ???
;D
[/drift]
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Redbird Leader on January 15, 2008, 02:38:12 AM
I got lost somewhere: What is VSAF?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on January 15, 2008, 03:30:41 AM
Quote from: Redbird Leader on January 15, 2008, 02:38:12 AM
I got lost somewhere: What is VSAF?
VSAF = Volunteer Service to Air Force. It's a new AF initiative under an older DoD program to utilize volunteers in support of domestic needs. It matches volunteers with opportunities in the AF. It's targeted at military retirees & private civilians. Run through CAP - ie volunteers become members of CAP w/ our existing protections, aux status, & infrastructure. There's a thread about it in the lobby section, and a couple older threads from back in the spring where some of us were talking about making some of this kind of thing happen. Right now, in the pilot stages, it's just targeted at family & IT support, and just being tested in San Antonio & Wright-Pat, but eventually it'll spread out geographically & in terms of what kind of augmentation opportunities will be available.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jeders on January 17, 2008, 03:30:44 AM
I don't know if this has been brought up yet but, can we drop rank on the leather nametag for the flight suits, or make it optional. Since we already wear rank on our shoulders, I don't think we necessarily need it in both places. Plus it means that you can conceivably go your entire CAP career with only one nametag instead having to buy a new one each time you promote. Also, by making rank optional on the nametag, those that aren't going to promote any time soon won't have to go out and get a new one. I see it as a cost saving measure all around.

This one I know has been mentioned, but what are the committees thoughts on the embroidered nametag for flight suits?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DKruse on January 17, 2008, 07:13:46 PM
I came into this thread very late, since I've been inactive on this forum for a few weeks.  I've caught a little bit here and there skimming through this topic about what people want changed.  While I'm not in favor of every proposal, there's nothing too radical being proposed, so I won't get bent out of shape over it.

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned in the 50 previous pages, but I would be in favor of a moratorium on uniform changes after these have been presented to NHQ.

Put something in a regulation that says uniform modifications and removals will only be considered every 3 to 5 years.  New uniforms could be added anytime.

If you want to reduce cost to members, this would be the a key factor.

Happy 2008 to all!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jimmydeanno on January 17, 2008, 07:14:59 PM
^BRILLIANT!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jeders on January 17, 2008, 07:17:13 PM
Quote from: DKruse on January 17, 2008, 07:13:46 PM
I came into this thread very late, since I've been inactive on this forum for a few weeks.  I've caught a little bit here and there skimming through this topic about what people want changed.  While I'm not in favor of every proposal, there's nothing too radical being proposed, so I won't get bent out of shape over it.

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned in the 50 previous pages, but I would be in favor of a moratorium on uniform changes after these have been presented to NHQ.

Put something in a regulation that says uniform modifications and removals will only be considered every 3 to 5 years.  New uniforms could be added anytime.

If you want to reduce cost to members, this would be the a key factor.

Happy 2008 to all!


This has been mentioned. I think the consensus was something like no uniform changes for at least 5 years not including the roll-out of the ABU. Also an exception was made for things where the AF might tell us to change something like when we removed the wing patches from blues.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: tjaxe on January 18, 2008, 02:46:46 PM
Is the Corporate uniform -- with bow tie or something -- authorized as a CAP alternative to the Mess Dress?  If not, can we make it one instead of, or in addition to the Blazer combo?  Maybe it can be "dressed up" with bow ties (male and floppy or whatever) and cummerbunds.  My only request would be to please allow women to wear slacks and low quarters.  This would give women who are not comfortable in dresses or high heels a military-type uniform option for mess dress.   Thanks!!  If this is all already authorized... never mind (said sheepishly).   :)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on January 18, 2008, 04:12:06 PM
Here is a suggestion.  Eliminate everything related to the uniform that is worn by Hawk MTN and Florida Rangers, except for the School patch itself.  AND mandate the proper placement of that patch on the uniform, and make it firm.  As in Wing Commanders can not change the location of patches on the BDU's.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: arajca on January 18, 2008, 06:16:48 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 18, 2008, 04:12:06 PM
Here is a suggestion.  Eliminate everything related to the uniform that is worn by Hawk MTN and Florida Rangers, except for the School patch itself.  AND mandate the proper placement of that patch on the uniform, and make it firm.  As in Wing Commanders can not change the location of patches on the BDU's.

Wait a minute! Are you suggesting that Hawk, NBB, ad nauseum, should be treated just like any other ncsa?! Do you refuse to admit to the in their minds inherent superiority of these activities? How Dare You!



[insert tongue in cheek smiley here]  ;D
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on January 18, 2008, 06:58:13 PM
^  ;D

Some NCSA's still don't have a patch being produced.  CLA comes to mind?!?

I am all for patches, as long as the rules are followed to it's wearing.  I would also accept the removal of ALL patches from the BDU's and follow suit on the ABU's when they roll out!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: AlphaSigOU on January 18, 2008, 06:59:30 PM
Quote from: tjaxe on January 18, 2008, 02:46:46 PM
Is the Corporate uniform -- with bow tie or something -- authorized as a CAP alternative to the Mess Dress?  If not, can we make it one instead of, or in addition to the Blazer combo?  Maybe it can be "dressed up" with bow ties (male and floppy or whatever) and cummerbunds.  My only request would be to please allow women to wear slacks and low quarters.  This would give women who are not comfortable in dresses or high heels a military-type uniform option for mess dress.   Thanks!!  If this is all already authorized... never mind (said sheepishly).   :)

Blue corporate service dress can be worn with a black bow tie or tab as an equivalent to mess dress.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JayT on January 18, 2008, 09:55:42 PM
Quote from: tjaxe on January 18, 2008, 02:46:46 PM
  My only request would be to please allow women to wear slacks and low quarters.  This would give women who are not comfortable in dresses or high heels a military-type uniform option for mess dress. 

If the military doesn't allow that, why would they let us wear it?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BillB on January 18, 2008, 09:59:50 PM
Because the Military has no say in what's worn with the corporate uniform
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on January 19, 2008, 01:29:31 AM
Quote from: BillB on January 18, 2008, 09:59:50 PM
Because the Military has no say in what's worn with the corporate uniform

...or so thought He Who Shall Remain Nameless.

CAP-USAF has plenty of say - which is why we don't have the metal grade on the flight cap, it says CAP on the collar, there's a big silver band on the wheel cap, and the nametag has two lines.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on January 19, 2008, 01:39:26 AM
Quote from: BillB on January 18, 2008, 09:59:50 PM
Because the Military has no say in what's worn with the corporate uniform


And is that really a good idea? It was one thing when the corporate-style "uniform" was normal civilian attire supplemented with a nametag or similiar. It's completely different when it looks like a uniform & that uniform is similiar enough to the AF to be representantive of them (not to mention being worn by people in a community level org associated with & representing the AF on the street level). Is it not appropriate to grant deference & request input from the approval authority even though it isn't required by law. Isn't that really an appropriate step on our part to minimize any past/present/future rift with our teammates?

Quote from: DKruse on January 17, 2008, 07:13:46 PM
...I would be in favor of a moratorium on uniform changes...

I originally supported a moritorium as well, but it's not the best way to go. It's a knee jerk reaction to current events that puts us in a box down the road. Plus, it comes with a bunch of exceptions (ABUs, new service coat, unless AF says this, or that happens, etc) that just make it seem hallow & hypocritical.

The better answer came together from a bunch of dif suggestions earlier in the thread. What it is, is a complete change in the way we consider & adopt uniform changes. There's a couple parts to it...

First, the AF reg is directive guidance. That means if a change is made there then NHQ/CAP Uniform Board can administratively change 39-1 w/o need of a vote by NB/NEC or change letters.

Second, the process for considering items would take about three years unless emergency, AF directed, or safety concerns accelerated it. That process would be transparent & open. It would involve the proposal going online, that would have to include projected financial impacts, then a wide spread wear test, results posted online for extended member comments, we would seek the comments of AF rank-in-file as well as leadership (AU & AETC approval authorities). In other words, nothing can be sprung on anyone without significant notice.

And third, the only way those proposals can then move to a vote is to be offered by the uniform board with a recommendation for approval or disapproval, and that uniform board would only meet something like every four years.

That would be the same process, including AF involvement, for both AF-style & corporate-style uniform items. So basically, you get your moritorium by default, and we get a MUCH better long-term system in place so you don't get screwed after that moritorium is over.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on January 19, 2008, 04:10:57 AM
QuoteCAP-USAF has plenty of say - which is why we don't have the metal grade on the flight cap, it says CAP on the collar, there's a big silver band on the wheel cap, and the nametag has two lines.
No, they only have a say when our corporate uniforms get too Air Forcey for them.  If we wanted the corporate uniform to be pink with orange epalets and rank insignia made from baby seals, they couldn't say a thing about it. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on January 19, 2008, 04:59:31 AM
^ That is so not correct.  If the AF wanted to say something about a Corporate uniform, they would.  And guess what,  CAP would listen because it would go something like this....

"Um hi this CAP-USAF, your new corporate jacket is too pink, we don't like it, and if you don't change it we will withhold money from the budget, thanks and have a nice day"

Even though we are under the impression the AF does not interefer with corporate issues, you KNOW they do.  They would be stupid not to.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: afgeo4 on January 19, 2008, 07:33:26 AM
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 19, 2008, 04:59:31 AM
^ That is so not correct.  If the AF wanted to say something about a Corporate uniform, they would.  And guess what,  CAP would listen because it would go something like this....

"Um hi this CAP-USAF, your new corporate jacket is too pink, we don't like it, and if you don't change it we will withhold money from the budget, thanks and have a nice day"

Even though we are under the impression the AF does not interefer with corporate issues, you KNOW they do.  They would be stupid not to.
Mikey... that's just your opinion, right? We have no proof of this and no instance where we even have strong suspicion as to it happening.

There are USAF people on the BoG and that's how something might happen, but as far as we're concerned, anyone on the BoG is a member of CAP anyway, so it's actually an internal issue.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on January 19, 2008, 03:48:00 PM
^ Your right, just my crazy opinion. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on January 19, 2008, 08:52:25 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 19, 2008, 04:59:31 AM
^ That is so not correct.  If the AF wanted to say something about a Corporate uniform, they would.  And guess what,  CAP would listen because it would go something like this....

"Um hi this CAP-USAF, your new corporate jacket is too pink, we don't like it, and if you don't change it we will withhold money from the budget, thanks and have a nice day"

Even though we are under the impression the AF does not interefer with corporate issues, you KNOW they do.  They would be stupid not to.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I could see that happening. The Air Force let us have the U.S. insignia, they could take those away too. If they think that something CAP is doing would bring discredit to them, I'd bet they'd do something about it.

This idea that CAP is completely autonomous that some people have is going to get us into trouble.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: afgeo4 on January 19, 2008, 09:09:36 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 19, 2008, 08:52:25 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 19, 2008, 04:59:31 AM
^ That is so not correct.  If the AF wanted to say something about a Corporate uniform, they would.  And guess what,  CAP would listen because it would go something like this....

"Um hi this CAP-USAF, your new corporate jacket is too pink, we don't like it, and if you don't change it we will withhold money from the budget, thanks and have a nice day"

Even though we are under the impression the AF does not interefer with corporate issues, you KNOW they do.  They would be stupid not to.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I could see that happening. The Air Force let us have the U.S. insignia, they could take those away too. If they think that something CAP is doing would bring discredit to them, I'd bet they'd do something about it.

This idea that CAP is completely autonomous that some people have is going to get us into trouble.

The US insignia is on USAF style uniforms, which are 100% controlled by USAF. As of this time, USAF does not directly have a say over corporate uniforms. At least not formally, not yet. Informally... yup, I believe they can and do suggest what the right and wrong move may be. I'm not exactly against that though.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on January 19, 2008, 09:15:03 PM
^ I think they should have a say in each and every one of our uniform decisions, both corporate and AF-style.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: adamblank on January 19, 2008, 09:37:36 PM
After freezing out in the field jackets during encampment.  I have come to the idea that for our field jackets we could use the goretex slides.  This of course will be a moot point in short-time.  But it could work for now.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on January 19, 2008, 09:52:24 PM
Quote from: adamblank on January 19, 2008, 09:37:36 PM
After freezing out in the field jackets during encampment.  I have come to the idea that for our field jackets we could use the goretex slides.  This of course will be a moot point in short-time.  But it could work for now.

What?!?!  Do you mean sew the slides on the M-65?  Or slip them on the shoulders?

I would reccomend Gortex if your jacket is not warm enough also.  I doubt CAP will see the ABU parkas for awhile, and when they finally do come, the phase out of the BDU pattern parka will most likely be years.  I would guesstimate at least 10 years for BDU pattern parkas to disappear!  You may be safe purchasing one.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: adamblank on January 19, 2008, 10:21:20 PM
I mean slip the slides on the M-65.  I do have a goretex but I would say the 65 with the liner is a bit warmer.  I do appreciate the advise.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DKruse on January 21, 2008, 05:07:31 PM
Quote from: DNall on January 19, 2008, 01:39:26 AM
The better answer came together from a bunch of dif suggestions earlier in the thread. What it is, is a complete change in the way we consider & adopt uniform changes. There's a couple parts to it...

I'm very much in favor of this approach also.  I just want to avoid the situation we've had over the last 2 years where new uniform changes are coming down from NHQ every 3 months.  If the rank-and-file get some input into the uniform changes, it's even better.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ZigZag911 on January 22, 2008, 07:00:56 PM
I just read the thread on cadet officers wearing service cap.

Isn't it time to standardize this? By this I mean, authorize it nationally (as an option, just like for seniors) rather than leaving it to wing commander's discretion.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jeders on January 22, 2008, 08:15:54 PM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 22, 2008, 07:00:56 PM
I just read the thread on cadet officers wearing service cap.

Isn't it time to standardize this? By this I mean, authorize it nationally (as an option, just like for seniors) rather than leaving it to wing commander's discretion.



Agreed, that would make a lot more sense than being wing commander's discretion, though I don't know that any wing commander has ever denied cadets wearing them. But it would still be better.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on January 22, 2008, 08:19:30 PM
Quote from: jeders on January 22, 2008, 08:15:54 PM
Agreed, that would make a lot more sense than being wing commander's discretion, though I don't know that any wing commander has ever denied cadets wearing them. But it would still be better.

I have a feeling that a lot of wing commanders probably just don't even really think about it in the first place. I don't think allowing or disallowing a hat is something that is really all that much of a priority as far as running a wing goes.

Be easier to just permit in the National 39-1, and be done with it.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: alamrcn on January 22, 2008, 08:25:01 PM
Wheel caps and Bus Driver hats:

Historically, it sounds like maybe sometime, somewhere, someone in charge had issue with Cadets (or A cadet) wearing them... maybe USAF? Dunno.

In many of the Wing uniform suppliments I have access to (here (http://www.incountry.us/cappatches/library.html)), they include a blanket authorization for every cadet officer in the wing to be able to wear one. I agree, in that whatever reason there was originally for some restrictions - it no longer seems to exsist and now just takes up reg-space and creates confussion between wings.

This one definately goes in the "git-r-done" file for the new 39-1.

-Ace
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: FW on January 22, 2008, 08:32:11 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 19, 2008, 09:15:03 PM
^ I think they should have a say in each and every one of our uniform decisions, both corporate and AF-style.

Does anyone remember why we have the "U.S."  on our command patch, BDU tapes and name plate on the Corp. distinctive uniform?  
One reason is due to AF insistence we "will not" have the U.S. cutouts on the "TPU".
HWWNBN'd had a fit over this.  The rest is history :o.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Gunner C on January 22, 2008, 09:55:42 PM
Quote from: alamrcn on January 22, 2008, 08:25:01 PM
Wheel caps and Bus Driver hats:

Historically, it sounds like maybe sometime, somewhere, someone in charge had issue with Cadets (or A cadet) wearing them... maybe USAF? Dunno.

In many of the Wing uniform suppliments I have access to (here (http://www.incountry.us/cappatches/library.html)), they include a blanket authorization for every cadet officer in the wing to be able to wear one. I agree, in that whatever reason there was originally for some restrictions - it no longer seems to exsist and now just takes up reg-space and creates confussion between wings.

This one definately goes in the "git-r-done" file for the new 39-1.

-Ace


It was that way back in 1967 WIWAC.  I just think that no one thought to change it.  It's probably one of those things that is lost to the ages - something historically that got left in the dust.

GC
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BillB on January 23, 2008, 12:20:07 AM
The U.S. on the command patch dates from 1942 when CAP was doing coastal patrol. It was added to the CAP emblem (tiangle and prop) to identify CAP as being uniformed Americans and not civilian spies, in case they were shot down, crashed and were captured by Germans. The U.S. has followed through ever since that time.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: FW on January 23, 2008, 12:59:50 AM
Quote from: BillB on January 23, 2008, 12:20:07 AM
The U.S. on the command patch dates from 1942 when CAP was doing coastal patrol. It was added to the CAP emblem (ti angle and prop) to identify CAP as being uniformed Americans and not civilian spies, in case they were shot down, crashed and were captured by Germans. The U.S. has followed through ever since that time.

Sorry I wasn't clear.  I meant the current patch (2006-present)  we wear on our flight suits, put on our vehicles, aircraft, etc.  vs. the "old" patch that had CAP where the U.S. is
and "Civil Air Patrol" where "U.S. Air Force Auxiliary" was.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on January 23, 2008, 01:01:28 AM
Bill:

The "Legend" I heard was that the red-epaulet uniform with the funny wings was so unusual that people thought that CAP members were some kind of foreign officer.  The "U.S." was to prevent that misconception.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on January 23, 2008, 01:18:44 AM
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 19, 2008, 04:59:31 AM
... If the AF wanted to say something about a Corporate uniform, they would.  And guess what,  CAP would listen because it would go something like this....

"Um hi this CAP-USAF, your new corporate jacket is too pink, we don't like it, and if you don't change it we will withhold money from the budget, thanks and have a nice day"

Even though we are under the impression the AF does not interefer with corporate issues, you KNOW they do.  They would be stupid not to.

Three things:

1) I think you know that conversation would be more tactful (and legal). It'd be more like... "just called to talk about this budget request, we're going to have to give it a hard look ... Oh yeah, and what's up with this new uniform I'm hearing about? Pink, are you serious? I'm not sure that's a very good representation of the AF family. Anyway, we'll be continuing to look at all these issues, stay in touch."


2) You have to define who you mean by AF.

CAP-USAF does comment in private on non-AF-style uniform items, BUT they have some fairly strict guidlines on where & how they can be involved in CAP decision making. They have to make sure it's: compliant with US & international law; safety/insurance concerns; real AF readiness/operations. If CAP really wants to put everyone in polos & shorts then you're going to need to read some body language when CAP-USAF is saying no comment.

However, CAP-USAF is not the approval authority for AF-style uniform items. That has to go thru AU CC to AETC CC (or their designated uniform boards). You can't really call it THE AF's input unless it either comes from that level or CSAF/SAF decide to delgate AF-style approval to CAP-USAF, which ain't gonna happen (and shouldn't). I gurantee you the AETC CC didn't know anything about the corporate-style service dress till it was already being fielded. That's not the right way to do things.


3) If you've ever been in the military, you understand phrases like commander's intent, command guidance, or congressional intent/guidance.

AF slapped CAP around in the past for misbehaving. Likewise, AF has been slapped around by Congress at times for being too controlling. CAP is ultimately a bunch of civilians that get mouthy with their reps when they don't like what they hear. Most times that's with a very poor understanding of the issues, what's being proposed, or both. I wouldn't go as far as saying AF is gunshy about inserting themselves into control/leadership/decision-making over CAP, but they aren't going to squander that sometimes risky political capital on things that aren't essential.


What I'm saying is, yes, AF could do some things to get what they want within CAP (uniforms or otherwise), but that's not generally how it works & they have a whole lot of incentive not to do that. That's unfortunate in my opinion, but that's the real world.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on January 23, 2008, 01:32:19 AM
Far as serive caps for cadet officers. I'd generally defer to Nat CAC for that. However, I'll give you my quick take for why it shouldn't be authorized.

It should be worn only with the service coat, and even then only in very formal situations (military funeral, etc). I know there is no formal restriction or written guidance in either CAP or AF, but that's the standard.

Most CAP members, especially cadets, will never be in a situation like that (that requires headgear anyway).

Also, we still have cadets wearing both the current & older style service coats. That means expensive hats in two dif kinds of fabric. Both of which require an expensive hat device. Cadets, even moreso than adults, are more prone to want all that extra stuff they don't need.

Sorry, but unless CAC makes a strong case for it, or someone convinces me otherwise, I'd restrict service cap wear by cadets to honor guard/color guard/drill team situations. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Senior on January 23, 2008, 04:51:10 AM
T-shirt for BDU.  As I read the phase out dates for the Brown Army T-shirt,
I remember my time in the Army Reserve.  The issue brown t-shirt neck
elastic quickly gaped open, so you had to wear it backward.  Also, when you took off the BDU coat you never had a convenient place for a pen, etc.
My recommendation to make the black Air Force T-shirt mandatory, but
use a civilian brand(Hanes, Dickies) with a pocket.  The advantage to the
member is availability, usefulness.  They last a lot longer also. ;)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on January 23, 2008, 05:58:13 AM
You can wear those now. Why would fewer options rather than more be better? And, ABUs will be here in a few years, so BDUs are becoming a non-issue.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on January 23, 2008, 07:08:19 AM
Quote from: Senior on January 23, 2008, 04:51:10 AM
T-shirt for BDU.  As I read the phase out dates for the Brown Army T-shirt,
I remember my time in the Army Reserve.  The issue brown t-shirt neck
elastic quickly gaped open, so you had to wear it backward.  Also, when you took off the BDU coat you never had a convenient place for a pen, etc.
My recommendation to make the black Air Force T-shirt mandatory, but
use a civilian brand(Hanes, Dickies) with a pocket.  The advantage to the
member is availability, usefulness.  They last a lot longer also. ;)

You can purchase black t-shirts without a pocket pretty inexpensively, and the pocket on a t-shirt isn't all that useful. It tends to sag and stretch out when used.

Also, if you're not wearing a shirt, it's probably pretty unlikely that you would need a pen.

Pocketed t's aren't all that practical, and don't really present a professional appearance when worn with any kind of uniform, military or otherwise.

In 19 years, I've never had a t-shirt collar gap open. Ever. I wonder what people are doing to them that causes it. It's never happened to most of the people I know either.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Senior on January 24, 2008, 05:48:26 AM
Not fewer options, everyone wears the same color t-shirt of our parent
organization. 
In the Army, when it is hot and you are working you were
allowed to take off the BDU coat.  Now in my job in the Army,maintenance,
you had to fill out paperwork and you needed a pen.  Hence, a t-shirt with
a pocket would have been handy.  I am sure everyone can think of instances in the field, on a HOT flight line that you weren't in full uniform.
From this board, the ABU won't be authorized for a long time, so we will
be in BDUs for a while.  From this board we all want to dress in the same
uniform so go with the black.
I was talking about the ISSUE brown t-shirt.  The neck elastic sagged all the
time from normal wear.  You could buy(I think) Fruit of the Loom at the PX
but they were expensive.  I wear t-shirts on my job everyday and the Hanes, Fruit of the Loom Work type T-shirt pocket doesn't droop.
Finally, this topic talked about cost to the masses.  If you can go to ChinaMart and buy work quality black t-shirts it makes it cheaper(you don't buy from Vanguard or have to travel to base/fort) and the pocket makes the uniform item more useful. :)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: afgeo4 on January 24, 2008, 08:14:15 AM
The Army never allowed you to wear a t-shirt with a pocket. The Air Force doesn't either. If you needed a pen, you probably kept one in the pant cargo pocket or in the toolbox, right? Well... that's what you do in CAP too. We wear what USAF wears.

Btw... the argument of not having a place to keep a pen is weak. Keep the pen where you keep your forms. That's why uniforms don't have such places on them aside from BDU tops. Neither the ACU or BDU have pen pockets on pants. Neither are allowed worn with pocket tees.

I was a maintainer in the Air Force for a few years and I can't say that the pen issue was THAT big of a deal for me. I've always found a way to keep one around.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on January 24, 2008, 09:02:53 AM
I've never seen anyone buy an expensive issue shirt from a PX. Why would they do that? Every shirt I get in CAP (unit, activites, etc), & most in the Army, is black. I wear those, as does everyone else. I don't see where the problem is, much less the need for a mandate.

Far as ABUs, AF approved CAP going to those while they were still in wear test. It's just a matter of when. That's based on two things: 1) when servicable BDU surplus drops too low to support our cadets; and, 2) when ABU inventory gets high enough that AF needs are not harmed by CAP demand. Anything beyond that is guess work. We do have good information about trends, supplies, manufactures, etc. The best logic at this point is an initial authorize date in the 2009-13 range, possibly sooner but not later then that. BDUs would still be auth a couple years after that initial date, but the further we go from now the harder it is to keep fielding them on dwindling stocks.

ABUs are coming. Regardless of when that is, the consideration on BDUs is to either: 1) simplify & then restrict future changes; or, 2) set the stage for what we want on ABUs.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ZigZag911 on January 24, 2008, 11:42:59 PM
I still think all seniors should go to the Blue BDUs, or some other color if there is concern about confusing us with law enforcement.

I will readily grant that the cammys (and down the line, ABU), are enticements for cadet recruiting.....so be it, it is unlikely they will be taken by the public for Real AF.

Realistically, much of our day to day work is done in utility uniforms......if the seniors wore something that did not mirror the AF ABU/BDU series so closely, it might lessen some of the tension with our parent service, and end a lot of confusion.

For instance, if all seniors wore BBDU now, there might have been less of an argument for creating a new combination for the VSAF missions.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RogueLeader on January 25, 2008, 02:27:01 AM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 24, 2008, 11:42:59 PM

For instance, if all seniors wore BBDU now, there might have been less of an argument for creating a new combination for the VSAF missions.

Why is that?  The BBDU still has rank on it, which was a point of notice in the VSAF uniform.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ZigZag911 on January 25, 2008, 05:21:59 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on January 25, 2008, 02:27:01 AM

Why is that?  The BBDU still has rank on it, which was a point of notice in the VSAF uniform.

True, but it so obviously not an Air Force uniform that it might have been deemed suitable....then again, maybe not.

Edit: Tags -TA
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on January 25, 2008, 06:48:21 AM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 24, 2008, 11:42:59 PM
... it is unlikely they will be taken by the public for Real AF....

...it might lessen some of the tension with our parent service, and end a lot of confusion....

I realize there's some confusion on this issue, but that's not what's going on.

CAP represents AF in the public eye, very true. That is true because we are affiliated with them, regardless of what we're wearing. It's more accutely true when in a uniform that looks similiar to theirs - which includes the new corporate-style service dress. CAP does have a responsibility to uphold the AF's image of excellence to the public, and AF does care about that.

However, that has nothing to do with why our uniforms are made distinctive. That is not done for PUBLIC recognition. That is done for MILITARY recognition. It is essential for legal & real practical reasons that military personnel that may not be familiar with CAP understand that we are not military officers with legal authority over their personnel.

We wear AF-style uniforms for a couple primary reasons. First, so surplus supplies & economies of scale from mass manufacture can keep membership costs low. And second, to reinforce solidarity in both directions for them as our parent/patron service. The AF stated CAP will transition to ABUs, that CAP will always wear what the AF wears, but the AF takes priority.

Rank is not on VSAF shirts cause that is commonly done by mil personnel & would cause mil & associated personnel to confuse our folks w/ mil officer when operating in or around a mil base.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on January 25, 2008, 07:53:42 AM
Quote from: DNall on January 25, 2008, 06:48:21 AM
Rank is not on VSAF shirts cause that is commonly done by mil personnel & would cause mil & associated personnel to confuse our folks w/ mil officer when operating in or around a mil base.

Rank is not on the shirt because we will be filling in for civilians who have no rank, or AGR personell who wear civvies to the office on a daily basis.  Once NHQ comes down and says what specific jobs CAP'ers will perform, then it will be clear "no rank needed"!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on January 25, 2008, 08:28:30 AM
^ I'm not doubting that's the case as well.

AGR/ADSW is active duty. I thought miltech & similiar though had to be in uniform during the week while on civil service status. That's how it is here. I thought that was regs. And  civilians have GS rank, that is meaningful.

I think you're right though that we're, at least initially, going to be filling what would otherwise be (and still are) volunteer positions. CAP is just being used as a vehicle for the insurance/legal coverage, and as a potential volunteer pool. I think it'll grow beyond that after it gets a foot in the door though. We've identified some real good potential opportunties w/ good response. There's a couple old thread from the Spring about some of those.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on January 25, 2008, 03:16:50 PM
DNall:

You omitted from your list of reasons why we wear the AF uniform the principal reason:  Tradition.  We are the only military auxiliary that saw combat in World War II, and as such we are a part of the Air Force heritage. 

I agree that, based on the NHQ message, rank as officers may be counterproductive to the mission.  Unfortunately, that fails to justify a new uniform for this mission when the golf shirt was already in the CAP wardrobe closet.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: afgeo4 on January 26, 2008, 01:12:39 PM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 24, 2008, 11:42:59 PM
I still think all seniors should go to the Blue BDUs, or some other color if there is concern about confusing us with law enforcement.

I will readily grant that the cammys (and down the line, ABU), are enticements for cadet recruiting.....so be it, it is unlikely they will be taken by the public for Real AF.

Realistically, much of our day to day work is done in utility uniforms......if the seniors wore something that did not mirror the AF ABU/BDU series so closely, it might lessen some of the tension with our parent service, and end a lot of confusion.

For instance, if all seniors wore BBDU now, there might have been less of an argument for creating a new combination for the VSAF missions.
I'd be more worried that CAP members in BBDUs will be confused for USCG officers. The uniforms look almost identical at short distances.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: ZigZag911 on January 26, 2008, 07:19:21 PM
Good point about CG officers, I had not considered that.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: MIKE on January 26, 2008, 07:30:48 PM
I dunno, I think there are some pretty obvious differences between both ODU 1.0 and 2.0 when compared to the Field Uniform.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: brasda91 on January 26, 2008, 07:54:07 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 23, 2008, 07:08:19 AM

In 19 years, I've never had a t-shirt collar gap open. Ever.


So that means it shouldn't happen?  After a few months wearing the brown t-shirt in the Army, I had to reverse my shirts also.  It wasn't because I was doing someting to them, they just wore out.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on January 26, 2008, 09:52:15 PM
Quote from: brasda91 on January 26, 2008, 07:54:07 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 23, 2008, 07:08:19 AM

In 19 years, I've never had a t-shirt collar gap open. Ever.


So that means it shouldn't happen?  After a few months wearing the brown t-shirt in the Army, I had to reverse my shirts also.  It wasn't because I was doing someting to them, they just wore out.

Guess everybody I knew always got lucky that they got only the best. I've never seen a stretched out T.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: piperl4 on January 27, 2008, 07:42:02 PM
Sir
Question of the Day, I attended the Royal Thai Air Force Parachutist school in Thailand and completed training and was awarded my Thai Free Fall Parachutist wings. I have all the documentation including logs and certificates. Can they be worn on the Air Force Style Uniforms?
Officers and Enlisted USAF and ARMY personal who attend are authorized to wear them.

Regards
Capt. Dave
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on January 27, 2008, 07:58:33 PM
Quote from: piperl4 on January 27, 2008, 07:42:02 PM
Sir
Question of the Day, I attended the Royal Thai Air Force Parachutist school in Thailand and completed training and was awarded my Thai Free Fall Parachutist wings. I have all the documentation including logs and certificates. Can they be worn on the Air Force Style Uniforms?
Officers and Enlisted USAF and ARMY personal who attend are authorized to wear them.

Regards
Capt. Dave

Army personnel are permitted to wear them on Class A, and now Class B uniforms.

As for Air Force, AFI 36-2903 says this: " Foreign badges (aviation, medical insignia, parachutist badges) : only in the conferring country  or while attending official and social functions hosted by the awarding government.  Do not wear foreign aviation badges unless wearing a US aviation badge. "

CAPM 39-1 says: "Foreign Aviation Badge (Awarded in writing by foreign military authority.) : centered 1/2 inch above the pocket or ribbons on left breast.  CAP aviation badges are worn 1/2 inch above other aviation badges."

The question that usually gets thrown in the mix is whether or not para wings are an "aviation" badge. In the past, the Air Force used to consider a para badge as an "aeronautical" rating, and it was mandatory for wear. It's no longer mandatory. Not sure how National looks at it. Then again, not sure if they really know how they look at it either.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: pixelwonk on January 28, 2008, 06:35:24 PM
Topic split.  See "Uniforms, AFAMS, and Health Insurance, Oh My!" (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=4172.0) for said posts

Last warning about drift.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on January 29, 2008, 02:43:56 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 25, 2008, 03:16:50 PM
DNall:

You omitted from your list of reasons why we wear the AF uniform the principal reason:  Tradition.  We are the only military auxiliary that saw combat in World War II, and as such we are a part of the Air Force heritage. 

I agree that, based on the NHQ message, rank as officers may be counterproductive to the mission.  Unfortunately, that fails to justify a new uniform for this mission when the golf shirt was already in the CAP wardrobe closet.
I agree but above my paygrade. Polo w/ grade &/or wings/etc are similiar to items worn by off-duty mil officers. That might have been considered. Polo w/ just name would have been most appropriate for this program, at very least in the test phase. I think more likely the AF didn't know that option was out there & unneccessarily reinvented the wheel. Just need to get teh word across to them & I think that'd resolve.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on January 30, 2008, 06:28:44 PM
Something to include on the next revision of the uniform manual: Length of ties.

Something was said last night at our meeting that I wasn't certain about, so I looked it up. CAPM 39-1 does not specify how long a tie should be.

Checked AFI 36-2903. It says: "Tip of tie must cover a portion of the belt buckle but cannot extend below the bottom of belt buckle. "

It seems minor, but it's an example of 39-1 not being entirely clear on some of the little things. With a lot of our members not being military, this is stuff that needs to be spelled out.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on January 30, 2008, 06:47:08 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 30, 2008, 06:28:44 PM
It seems minor, but it's an example of 39-1 not being entirely clear on some of the little things. With a lot of our members not being military, this is stuff that needs to be spelled out.
Or rather with our units not having NCOs to conform troops to the expected standard.

I'm of the belief that 39-1 has to go a bit further than the AFMAN to spell out some of those things that aren't written or written clearly as worn in the AF version, but are universally corrected to the custom. It should be written so martians (folks w/ no mil exposure) can read it & do it right from that alone.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on January 30, 2008, 07:08:07 PM
Quote from: DNall on January 30, 2008, 06:47:08 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 30, 2008, 06:28:44 PM
It seems minor, but it's an example of 39-1 not being entirely clear on some of the little things. With a lot of our members not being military, this is stuff that needs to be spelled out.
Or rather with our units not having NCOs to conform troops to the expected standard.

I'm of the belief that 39-1 has to go a bit further than the AFMAN to spell out some of those things that aren't written or written clearly as worn in the AF version, but are universally corrected to the custom. It should be written so martians (folks w/ no mil exposure) can read it & do it right from that alone.

You can't call it a standard if it's not spelled out. The AFI does spell it out, the CAPM doesn't. You can't expect a standard to be met if noone knows what it is. I know of units that don't have any kind of military member there, and the whole squadron is composed of people with no military background.

A lot of the things that we have in writing in the military are not done so in CAP. That's only one thing that I found, there are probably numerous things that need to be that aren't.

Seems like an easy and smart thing to do is to start with the AFI as the basic outline, then write it for CAP. Just use the format, and crosscheck everything.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on January 30, 2008, 08:01:04 PM
right, I agree with you. I'm saying we need to take it one step beyond that in two aspects.

1) user-friendly & spell things out that aren't clear in the AFMAN either (requiring that corrective environment/NCO), and...

2) There's uniform standards in the AF that exceed the AFMAN min requirements. That's customs & gets enforced strictly by that same enviro/NCO. Some of that should be written in as well since we don't have that corrective influence in most cases.

You don't want people showing up looking silly cause they followed the book & didn't understand what was really expected of them.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on January 30, 2008, 08:29:08 PM
I don't know if this has been addressed before.  54 pages get a bit confusing, especially as I rapidly approach the Age of Senility.  But...

Wing and other unit patches.  The current wing patch seems to be a throwback to the Army Air Corps.  Many unit-level patches do not meet USAF Heraldry standards.

I suggest:

1.  Elimination of all wing and unit patches.  This is the easiest solution, but may be unpopular.

or

2.  Establish that ALL wing and unit patches meet USAF Heraldry guidance, and USAF guidance for placement on uniforms.  That is, IF the ABU is even going to have wing and unit patches.

This means that all Wing and Group patches would have to be re-designed to be a shield shape and all Squadron patches would have to be round with a scroll at the top and bottom.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on January 30, 2008, 08:57:05 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 30, 2008, 08:29:08 PMThat is, IF the ABU is even going to have wing and unit patches.

Everything that keeps coming up on this issue says that the ABU most definitely will not have patches.

Then again, the AF BDU went to a leather nameplate, and back to the tapes and patches. Different reasons, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was because it may have been harder to track down people. Lot easier when people got unit ID on their uniform.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on January 30, 2008, 10:29:58 PM
^ Whatever the AF does regarding wearing of patches on the ABU's we SHOULD follow!  That is simple right?  That means no American flag, no special activity patches, no ranger tabs, no unit patches.  We can have our ground team, and pilot bling though!

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on January 31, 2008, 12:27:28 AM
exactly.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: notaNCO forever on January 31, 2008, 12:54:33 AM
I agree with doing what th AF does with there patches even though I like our squadron patch
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on January 31, 2008, 11:31:22 AM
Yes, those issues have been addressed. IIRC...

AF heraldry standards would be applied nationwide to new designs, current stocks could be used up then would need to change as neccessary.

BDUs would stay mostly as is, accept to the extent it becomes necessary to set the stage for transition to ABUs (tape colors for instance). Item wear policy on ABUs would be aligned w/ AF. In fact the CAP reg would be authoritatively linked to the AF reg, so that if the AF changed patch policy later, that would automatically apply to CAP w/o need of NB/NEC action.



Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jason.pennington on January 31, 2008, 02:21:05 PM
By now everyone knows that we are back to wearing "Civil Air Patrol" tapes instead of "US Civil Air Patrol".  Although I may be happy with the decision, I think someone (NHQ) should consider reimbursing those of us who had to purchase the new tapes for about 6 months of wear.   I don't know, offer each member a new tape.  And I say "had to" because that was what was offered by Vanguard during that time.

I had regular tapes, but because of the uniform change I could not use them.  Thus, I ended up buying the new ones.  I'm not whinning here, but all of these changes have got to stop for a few years at least.

I see that there are 54 pages here, and maybe this was addressed somewhere before, but when are the recommendations going to be presented to NHQ?  I understand that there is a bona fide committee revewing these inputs, so when is it planned to actually take these recommendations/complaints and move on them?

I ask this, even knowing that the wheels of change turn slow.....
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on January 31, 2008, 02:28:05 PM
Quote from: jason.pennington on January 31, 2008, 02:21:05 PM
By now everyone knows that we are back to wearing "Civil Air Patrol" tapes instead of "US Civil Air Patrol"..

No.  We're not.

No change has been made at this time to the uniforms with regards to the NEC decision to drop "USCAP".

As the iCC's letter of a couple of days ago indicated, USCAP tapes are still completely authorized.  Further, there will most likely be a phase-out on those tapes if they are reverted as well.

The winter board meets in a few weeks to consider the proposals submitted by Lt. Col. White, as well as about 100 other issues regarding uniforms imposed by HWSRN.

Quote from: jason.pennington on January 31, 2008, 02:21:05 PM
I had regular tapes, but because of the uniform change I could not use them.  Thus, I ended up buying the new ones.  I'm not whining here, but all of these changes have got to stop for a few years at least.

The sundown for USCAP tapes was/is 2010, so there was/is no reason not to use existing uniforms and tapes.

Plenty of members hadn't troubled themselves to even think about it yet, and I'd be willing to bet a (not) small (enough) percentage are unaware of the issue at all.

And if you take care changing them, the original tapes remain serviceable.  I just swapped his originals back for a friend who got recently promoted.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: capmaj on January 31, 2008, 03:09:38 PM
It may already have been mentioned somewhere in here, but how about adding a 'Tall' or 'Long' category to whatever shirt/s National settles on. A lot of members are well over 6'0" and have a difficult time getting polo shirts, aviators, whatever, long enough to stay tucked in and looking neat.

Allowances are already in place for 'extra' size shirts, how about 'extra' length shirts?  Remember, males must tuck in their shirt (polo) unless working a flight line in hot weather.

Just a thought.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jimmydeanno on January 31, 2008, 03:15:12 PM
Quote from: capmaj on January 31, 2008, 03:09:38 PM
A lot of members are well over 6'0" and have a difficult time getting polo shirts...long enough to stay tucked in and looking neat.

I don't think it is so much the length of the shirt, but the girth.  I'm 6'1" and the 'medium' polo shirt I wear, the bottom edge of the trim for the buttons is right at the bottom of my sternum.  I have more shirt than I know what to do with.  However, I think if I weighed another 100 lbs + it might be a problem.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jason.pennington on January 31, 2008, 03:33:00 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 31, 2008, 02:28:05 PM
Quote from: jason.pennington on January 31, 2008, 02:21:05 PM
By now everyone knows that we are back to wearing "Civil Air Patrol" tapes instead of "US Civil Air Patrol"..

No.  We're not.

No change has been made at this time to the uniforms with regards to the NEC decision to drop "USCAP".

As the iCC's letter of a couple of days ago indicated, USCAP tapes are still completely authorized.  Further, there will most likely be a phase-out on those tapes if they are reverted as well.

The winter board meets in a few weeks to consider the proposals submitted by Lt. Col. White, as well as about 100 other issues regarding uniforms imposed by HWSRN.

Quote from: jason.pennington on January 31, 2008, 02:21:05 PM
I had regular tapes, but because of the uniform change I could not use them.  Thus, I ended up buying the new ones.  I'm not whining here, but all of these changes have got to stop for a few years at least.

The sundown for USCAP tapes was/is 2010, so there was/is no reason not to use existing uniforms and tapes.

Plenty of members hadn't troubled themselves to even think about it yet, and I'd be willing to bet a (not) small (enough) percentage are unaware of the issue at all.

And if you take care changing them, the original tapes remain serviceable.  I just swapped his originals back for a friend who got recently promoted.

From what I read from Nov's BOG, (I think it was), Vanguard has been told to stop offering the US CAP tapes.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on January 31, 2008, 03:34:56 PM
Quote from: jason.pennington on January 31, 2008, 03:33:00 PMFrom what I read from Nov's BOG, (I think it was), Vanguard has been told to stop offering the US CAP tapes.

Wouldn't surprise me. I didn't see them the other day when I made an order.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on January 31, 2008, 03:38:39 PM
Quote from: capmaj on January 31, 2008, 03:09:38 PM
It may already have been mentioned somewhere in here, but how about adding a 'Tall' or 'Long' category to whatever shirt/s National settles on. A lot of members are well over 6'0" and have a difficult time getting polo shirts, aviators, whatever, long enough to stay tucked in and looking neat.

Allowances are already in place for 'extra' size shirts, how about 'extra' length shirts?  Remember, males must tuck in their shirt (polo) unless working a flight line in hot weather.

Just a thought.

I ordered my blues shirts (I am over 6-4) custom from AAFES.  There are plenty of commercial vendors that sell tall size aviator shirts.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Eclipse on January 31, 2008, 03:40:53 PM
Quote from: jason.pennington on January 31, 2008, 03:33:00 PM
From what I read from Nov's BOG, (I think it was), Vanguard has been told to stop offering the US CAP tapes.

I don't doubt that for a second, and have no doubt a phase out will be announced this month.  My issue is that I have had my own unit CC's issuing directives based solely on the NEC meeting that their members are to remove USCAP from everything "within 30 days", or some equally arbitrary number.

Its hard enough on our members to keep up with things without making it more difficult with incorrect assumptions or trying to game the system by figuring out what NHQ "might" do next.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Timothy on January 31, 2008, 07:28:06 PM
I'm a new member... still waiting for my temporary ID card to show, as a matter of fact. But I had 4 yrs in JROTC and 2 yrs in ROTC, so I've worn both the new and old Service Dress, as well as BDU's. I like all the changes listed; I can only wish that the SMwoG changes had already happened.

I'm in exact agreement on the service dress recommendations: the brushed steel nametag and use of blue slip-on CAP sliders. I like the sage green/white tapes for the ABU, though the navy blue would be ok as well. Regarding all these proposed changes, I think if a clear, and lengthy sunset date is presented they should cause no undue financial stress to members. As I look at buying all my marine blue bdu insig, and flight suit insig (especially the leather name tag) I find myself wishing
the uniform board had already met... and wishing that the BDU nametape colors proposed would be an option for the woodlands... but I just happen to be joining at a transitional period, and I understand that.

We should be as similar as possible to our parent unit... we aren't the boy scouts; we are an official auxilliary, work hand-in-hand with Federal authorities, and should not be ashamed of our AF uniforms. The same mis-interpretation of uniforms happens with ROTC and even JROTC cadets quite often.

While on active AFB's we were saluted all the time by enlisted men... we had officers braid and "some kind of silver shiny object" on our flight caps.... even with no sleeve braid on the service coat, and black shoulder slip-ons people made the mistake, or were just being cautious. You simply smile, salute, greet, and move on. If they stopped to chat we would explain who we were in as nice a way as possible, and no one ever got upset.

The AF never made us wear giant signs that said "Cadet," I suppose because we never took advantage of the similarity of our uniforms to those of officers. If I was on-base and thought I was mistaken for something other than what I was, I would do the same as listed above... smile, salute, greet, and if time and situation allowed, inform. No matter what we wear, you are still going to have the same journey of discovery by AF personnell: contact - curiosity - inquiry - understanding. If the CAP member has their wits about them it is an easy task.




Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: tjaxe on February 01, 2008, 03:21:09 PM
About a half a zillion pages back in this thread there was a sum-up of things that were going to be (may be?) suggested re: uniform changes.  Does anyone know if that's the current summary or if there have been modifications / additions made?  I'm just curious about what decisions - in general - will be presented by the committee at the winter Board meeting.  Thanks!!  8)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on February 01, 2008, 03:46:10 PM
^ That was the summary.  We have yet to hear from the creator of this thread as to when the list will officially be compiled and presented.  I am wondering if it will be this month or not.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on February 01, 2008, 06:15:04 PM
Earlier, he said his goal was to have proposals for the corporate uniforms ready for the March NB meeting.  The proposals for USAF uniforms have to go up to the Big Blue Vatican for approval, and probably will not be ready in time, but can be voted on in March 2009.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: teesquared on February 01, 2008, 08:20:47 PM
Anybody know what page the last summary was on?  :-\
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on February 01, 2008, 08:28:19 PM
Quote from: SStradley on January 13, 2008, 11:27:25 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 13, 2008, 06:34:30 AM
Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on January 13, 2008, 06:10:03 AM
After 49 pages of not reading anymore, I ask the following:

If you had to go to National Boards right now, what are you asking for uniform changes?

Good Question!

  Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
« Reply #844 on: December 27, 2007, 10:47:56 PM »   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Refresher to get us back on track, and to help those that just joined us (so they don't have to read all 41 pages!)   


Quote from: mikeylikey on December 07, 2007, 09:17:01 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 05, 2007, 09:07:17 AM
Could I take a moment to review what we have so far?

1.  AF Blues:

- No change likely on weight requirements.
- Switch from gray to blue epaulet sleeves, with "CAP" identified.

2.  TPU:

- Switch from silver braid to same blue as on AF coat.
- Lose silver chinstrap from flying saucer cap.
- Switch from hard rank to blue epaulet sleeve, same as AF coat.
- Shirt to have same blue epaulet with "CAP."
- "CAP" lapel brass to remain.
- Allow neatly-trimmed beards, but NOT long hair.
- Not resolved:  wear of military ribbons and badges... Same rules as on AF coat?

3.  White and Grays:

- History.

4.  Flight Suits:

- Retain dual flight suits, sage green and dark blue.
- Sew-on bright rank for both shoulders.
- Sage green background for AF flight suit, dark blue for blue flight suit.
- Not resolved:  embroidered name badges?

5.  BDU's:

- Retain BDU for time being.
- Introduce ABU on a schedule driven by the AF logistical chain.
- No change to BDU during phase-out period.
- Retain blue BDU for the fats and fuzzies.
- Switch to dark blue nametapes and rank background for BBDU.
- Unresolved:  Dark blue or sage green background for ABU tapes and rank?

6.  Golf Shirt:

- Retain as a casual uniform.
- Switch to khaki trousers (Is this correct, or unresolved?)
- Establish a single authorized golf shirt.

7.  Blazer Uniform:

- Retain for IACE and as an alternate dress uniform.
- Switch to khaki trousers (Again, was this resolved?)

Does this summarize what has been discussed and decided, or do I have something wrong?




So we all don't have to read back to page 24 to catch up. 





Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: teesquared on February 02, 2008, 04:09:56 AM
Thanks, that saves me tons of scanning.  :)

I would like to put in a plug that we NOT switch to khaki trousers on the blue blazer uni. Grey dress slacks are a much more formal looking attire. (IMHO)  ;)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: afgeo4 on February 02, 2008, 07:33:20 AM
I agree...


I think dark blue background for sew-on insignia should work for all field uniforms, BBDU and ABU. In order to make the item easier to procure and keep costs down.

Khaki pants with CAP polo and/or Blazer would be great Corp uniforms for those out of grooming standards. It's also inexpensive.

As far as ABU transitioning, I'd still like to see some provision for transition boots... as in allowance of Sage Green boots to be worn with BDU from date of ABU phase-in to date of BDU phase-out as to lower burdens to membership.

Authorize Sage Green boots to be worn with USAF style flight suit same time as Phase-in for ABU.

For TPU... change current black (US Army) lightweight jacket to blue (USAF) lightweight jacket to be worn with new blue epaulets with CAP on them. NCOs wold wear blank blue epaulets with CAP and metal NCO grade on them. Create and authorize optional CAP emblem to be embroidered on the left breast of jacket to align with USAF. Also, authorize wear of embroidered chevrons to be worn on sleeves for NCOs and blue epaulets with embroidered grade and CAP for Flight Officers.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on February 02, 2008, 03:25:59 PM
A couple of points on afge's comment:

Good idea to authorize sage green boots with the flight suit, once SG boots are brought in with the ABU.  No reason to buy two sets of $150 boots.

I recommend against using pin-on grade with epaulet slides.  The Army did that back in the 60's and it sucked.  The slide got tore up to the point that it was unusable within a few weeks.  And the Army slides were of far better quality than the CAP slides Vanguard sells us.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: afgeo4 on February 02, 2008, 03:38:13 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on February 02, 2008, 03:25:59 PM
A couple of points on afge's comment:

Good idea to authorize sage green boots with the flight suit, once SG boots are brought in with the ABU.  No reason to buy two sets of $150 boots.

I recommend against using pin-on grade with epaulet slides.  The Army did that back in the 60's and it sucked.  The slide got tore up to the point that it was unusable within a few weeks.  And the Army slides were of far better quality than the CAP slides Vanguard sells us.
Do you suggest slides with embroidered NCO chevrons and CAP on them?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on February 02, 2008, 05:55:53 PM
^ I would love to suggest no slides at all.  But that would never fly.  I say leave the metal rank on the windbreaker and Corporate Jacket.  IT is not hurting anyone is it?  PLUS slides on the windbreaker is stupid (rain, snow, any weather really tears them up)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: afgeo4 on February 02, 2008, 06:42:21 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on February 02, 2008, 05:55:53 PM
^ I would love to suggest no slides at all.  But that would never fly.  I say leave the metal rank on the windbreaker and Corporate Jacket.  IT is not hurting anyone is it?  PLUS slides on the windbreaker is stupid (rain, snow, any weather really tears them up)

First, metal grade on USAF lightweight jacket (windbreaker) won't be authorized by USAF as it will be identical in appearance to the Air Force one.

Second, we wear slides on all USAF style outergarments and have for years. I haven't experienced terrible wear and tear (I don't wear blues in the field or every day.)

Also, metal pin on rank on slides work just fine for cadets and has for generations. I think you're confusing CAP use of uniforms with military use. Our members wear blues maybe.... 15 days a year?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on February 02, 2008, 06:53:43 PM
^ Sorry I meant the "Army Windbreaker". 

I was "Rained on and snowed on" while wearing blues, and the slides from CAPMART years ago faded where the water touched.  It looked terrible. 

I guess everyone's experience is different. 

If we are going to wear slides on everything, I would suggest embroidered, to include cadets.  Once enough cadet embroidered slides hit the SQD's cadets can just "trade up" their old slides when being promoted.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: afgeo4 on February 02, 2008, 07:04:10 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on February 02, 2008, 06:53:43 PM
^ Sorry I meant the "Army Windbreaker". 

I was "Rained on and snowed on" while wearing blues, and the slides from CAPMART years ago faded where the water touched.  It looked terrible. 

I guess everyone's experience is different. 

If we are going to wear slides on everything, I would suggest embroidered, to include cadets.  Once enough cadet embroidered slides hit the SQD's cadets can just "trade up" their old slides when being promoted.
Cadet officers DO wear the said slides already, but with pin-on rank. It works quite well for them. Cadet Airmen and NCOs don't wear any slides at all.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jayleswo on February 02, 2008, 07:12:56 PM

Quote
Cadet officers DO wear the said slides already, but with pin-on rank. It works quite well for them. Cadet Airmen and NCOs don't wear any slides at all.

Cadet Officers do not wear the epaulet slides on outerwear, such as the service jacket, windbreaker, etc. they pin their grade onto either the shoulderboards for the service jacket or directly to the epaulet for the lightweight jacket. Since the cadet epaulet slides are not exposed to the elements I don't think you can compare the wear experience of epaulet slides to seniors in the same way.

However, I do agree with afgeo4's suggestion to allow the blue lightweight jacket to be worn with the corporate uniform with epaulet slides vs. pin on grade. I have seen quite a few senior member officers do this regardless of the regularion and this would be a good fix.

John Aylesworth, Lt Col, CAP
Commander, PCR-CA-151
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: afgeo4 on February 02, 2008, 09:53:00 PM
Quote from: jayleswo on February 02, 2008, 07:12:56 PM

Quote
Cadet officers DO wear the said slides already, but with pin-on rank. It works quite well for them. Cadet Airmen and NCOs don't wear any slides at all.

Cadet Officers do not wear the epaulet slides on outerwear, such as the service jacket, windbreaker, etc. they pin their grade onto either the shoulderboards for the service jacket or directly to the epaulet for the lightweight jacket. Since the cadet epaulet slides are not exposed to the elements I don't think you can compare the wear experience of epaulet slides to seniors in the same way.

However, I do agree with afgeo4's suggestion to allow the blue lightweight jacket to be worn with the corporate uniform with epaulet slides vs. pin on grade. I have seen quite a few senior member officers do this regardless of the regularion and this would be a good fix.

John Aylesworth, Lt Col, CAP
Commander, PCR-CA-151
Cadets DO wear pin on rank on slides. They wear it on soft slides on their blouses. The subject here wasn't outerwear.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on February 02, 2008, 10:44:11 PM
^ Sorry again, I was referring to all outerwear.

Quote
I have seen quite a few senior member officers do this regardless of the regulation and this would be a good fix.

That is exactly the reason we are in the MESS we are in.  That is a blatant violation of published rules.  Senior Members making up their own rules as they go along.  I would say the blue AF windbreaker would be best with the Corporates, but it was not included.

As far as slides go, I could care one way or another, but if we go to slides on everything, I hope they are embroidered with rank and are blue for both Cadets and Officers. 

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: teesquared on February 03, 2008, 05:10:50 AM
Quote from: mikeylikey on February 02, 2008, 10:44:11 PM

Quote
I have seen quite a few senior member officers do this regardless of the regulation and this would be a good fix.

That is exactly the reason we are in the MESS we are in.  That is a blatant violation of published rules.  Senior Members making up their own rules as they go along. 


I agree. I don't think we should rewrite the rules to conform to the violators. Seniors should be required to follow the rules or wear a different uniform.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: SStradley on February 03, 2008, 11:09:24 AM
Quote from: teesquared on February 03, 2008, 05:10:50 AM
Quote from: mikeylikey on February 02, 2008, 10:44:11 PM

Quote
I have seen quite a few senior member officers do this regardless of the regulation and this would be a good fix.

That is exactly the reason we are in the MESS we are in.  That is a blatant violation of published rules.  Senior Members making up their own rules as they go along. 


I agree. I don't think we should rewrite the rules to conform to the violators. Seniors should be required to follow the rules or wear a different uniform.

Except in this discussion where we are discussing changes to the uniforms and uniform regulations.  Allowing the blue windbreaker with the TPU makes sense.  It still has "CAP Slides" and is over a white shirt.  It does not make the Fat & Fuzzy look (any more) like a USAF Officer. This change allows a member to have one windbreaker that he can use for two uniforms.  For example my Son can't make up his mind about a beard.  He  grows one, and then he shaves it off.  So some times he is in "Blues" and some times he is in "White & Grays".  One windbreaker makes good sense and saves money.  (I am not trying to change the regs for my son, just using him as an example.)
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: RiverAux on February 04, 2008, 11:05:33 PM
Too lazy to check the thread....

Have CAP ribbons reviewed and approved by the AF using the same process they use for their own ribbons to ensure that we don't accidentally use some other design.  Properly register them with whoever in the AF is responsible for them. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: BillB on February 05, 2008, 12:37:05 AM
I believe that ribbons are approved by the Air Force Heraldry office. At least they used to be. That's why some of the old ribbons are no longer authorized, or new designs came about.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: afgeo4 on February 05, 2008, 06:12:10 AM
Quote from: SStradley on February 03, 2008, 11:09:24 AM
Quote from: teesquared on February 03, 2008, 05:10:50 AM
Quote from: mikeylikey on February 02, 2008, 10:44:11 PM

Quote
I have seen quite a few senior member officers do this regardless of the regulation and this would be a good fix.

That is exactly the reason we are in the MESS we are in.  That is a blatant violation of published rules.  Senior Members making up their own rules as they go along. 


I agree. I don't think we should rewrite the rules to conform to the violators. Seniors should be required to follow the rules or wear a different uniform.

Except in this discussion where we are discussing changes to the uniforms and uniform regulations.  Allowing the blue windbreaker with the TPU makes sense.  It still has "CAP Slides" and is over a white shirt.  It does not make the Fat & Fuzzy look (any more) like a USAF Officer. This change allows a member to have one windbreaker that he can use for two uniforms.  For example my Son can't make up his mind about a beard.  He  grows one, and then he shaves it off.  So some times he is in "Blues" and some times he is in "White & Grays".  One windbreaker makes good sense and saves money.  (I am not trying to change the regs for my son, just using him as an example.)
The proposal wasn't for "white & grays", but for the corporate service uniform (TPU). "White & Grays" are a civilian option and any outerwear may be worn.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: SStradley on February 05, 2008, 10:34:56 AM
Quote from: afgeo4 on February 05, 2008, 06:12:10 AM
Quote from: SStradley on February 03, 2008, 11:09:24 AM
Quote from: teesquared on February 03, 2008, 05:10:50 AM
Quote from: mikeylikey on February 02, 2008, 10:44:11 PM

Quote
I have seen quite a few senior member officers do this regardless of the regulation and this would be a good fix.

That is exactly the reason we are in the MESS we are in.  That is a blatant violation of published rules.  Senior Members making up their own rules as they go along. 


I agree. I don't think we should rewrite the rules to conform to the violators. Seniors should be required to follow the rules or wear a different uniform.

Except in this discussion where we are discussing changes to the uniforms and uniform regulations.  Allowing the blue windbreaker with the TPU makes sense.  It still has "CAP Slides" and is over a white shirt.  It does not make the Fat & Fuzzy look (any more) like a USAF Officer. This change allows a member to have one windbreaker that he can use for two uniforms.  For example my Son can't make up his mind about a beard.  He  grows one, and then he shaves it off.  So some times he is in "Blues" and some times he is in "White & Grays".  One windbreaker makes good sense and saves money.  (I am not trying to change the regs for my son, just using him as an example.)
The proposal wasn't for "white & grays", but for the corporate service uniform (TPU). "White & Grays" are a civilian option and any outerwear may be worn.

George,

I know that the proposal was for.  If you recall (and with 56 pages it can be a chore) the White & Grays are proposed to be eliminated, and replaced with the TPU (White & Blues) with blue "CAP" rank.  Therefore, it is an appropriate suggestion to eliminate the Black (Army) Windbreaker for the Blue (USAF) Windbreaker with the blue CAP rank.  This reduces the CAP uniform closet by one item (black windbreaker), does not lead to confusion of CAP members with real USAF members (blue CAP rank). 

Do you have an objection of substance to the proposal of eliminating the Black (Army) Windbreaker for the Blue (USAF) Windbreaker with the appropriate CAP markings for the TPU?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: CS on February 05, 2008, 01:41:12 PM
I don't understand what the 'rush' is to make more changes to the uniforms.  IT COSTS MEMBERS MONEY!  I propose that the constitution be amended to allow for changes to occur only once every three years.  The rational behind this is the same as the AF, there is time to review whether change is good or whether it is for the sake of change.  I will challenge anyone that has been is CAP more than 20 years to tell me how any of the proposals being slated make us a better organization.  Let's focus our attention on becoming better with higher retention and participation rates.  There are current members that have seen uniforms change every six months since joining, this is a non-motivator.  Let us be reminded that AF has not asked us to change anything, we are doing this to ourselves!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jb512 on February 05, 2008, 06:36:54 PM
Well, this frenzied thread is slowly dying out....

We saw lots of good ideas, and lots of crazy ones.  If LtCol White will just keep us updated on the progress and what to look forward to, it looks like it will have all paid off.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: arajca on February 05, 2008, 07:44:12 PM
On a slightly different note...

Kill the white helmet liner for ES! Replace it with an OSHA compliant hard hat, preferably in a high vis color - day-glo neon lime green, anyone. Authorize a MANDATORY CAP decal (ES patch, Majcomm, CAP seal, pick one in the manual) with OPTIONAL member's last name in contrasting lettering on the back.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on February 05, 2008, 08:05:53 PM
Quote from: arajca on February 05, 2008, 07:44:12 PM
On a slightly different note...

Kill the white helmet liner for ES! Replace it with an OSHA compliant hard hat, preferably in a high vis color - day-glo neon lime green, anyone. Authorize a MANDATORY CAP decal (ES patch, Majcomm, CAP seal, pick one in the manual) with OPTIONAL member's last name in contrasting lettering on the back.

Lime green? Why do you want to look like a lollipop?

Usually, all the "white helmet liners" I've seen were simply the same hard hats used by construction crews. They're protective, and seem to have worked fine for those crews for decades.

As far as protective equivalents go, Pro-Tec helmets would probably be more appropriate. I don't think I've seen any need to avoid falling debris, even while I was doing quake relief in Cali. And they look better.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: arajca on February 05, 2008, 09:20:42 PM
Quote from: Dictionary.comhelmet liner
–noun 1. a soft or padded lining for a helmet. 
2. Military. a stiff, plastic head covering designed to be worn alone or under a steel helmet for protection.
All the helmet liners I have seen look like the old steel Army helmet, just in plastic. I can easily see someone banning conventional hard hats because they are not helmet liners. (BTST).

Specifying OSHA compliant leaves some flexibility as to exactly what hard hat someone gets, while ensuring an appropriate standard is followed.

As for the color, it was either that or International Orange, and I didn't feel like being called a HAWK Mountain stooge. The point is that the helmet used for ES be a high-vis color.

Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: davedove on February 05, 2008, 09:23:19 PM
Quote from: arajca on February 05, 2008, 09:20:42 PM
Quote from: Dictionary.comhelmet liner
–noun 1. a soft or padded lining for a helmet. 
2. Military. a stiff, plastic head covering designed to be worn alone or under a steel helmet for protection.
All the helmet liners I have seen look like the old steel Army helmet, just in plastic. I can easily see someone banning conventional hard hats because they are not helmet liners. (BTST).

Specifying OSHA compliant leaves some flexibility as to exactly what hard hat someone gets, while ensuring an appropriate standard is followed.

As for the color, it was either that or International Orange, and I didn't feel like being called a HAWK Mountain stooge. The point is that the helmet used for ES be a high-vis color.



The helmet liners are just what they're called, liners for helmets.  In this case, they were worn with the old "steel pot" helmets, that went out of use about 20 years ago.  There is some protection from them, but I have no idea how they measure up to OSHA.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: Hawk200 on February 05, 2008, 09:39:54 PM
Quote from: davedove on February 05, 2008, 09:23:19 PM
The helmet liners are just what they're called, liners for helmets.  In this case, they were worn with the old "steel pot" helmets, that went out of use about 20 years ago.  There is some protection from them, but I have no idea how they measure up to OSHA.

I've never actually seen those helmet liners used in CAP (yes, I know what they are). I've only ever seen the OSHA hard hat used by construction crews, usually in white, yellow or orange. They would would fine, I'd imagine. Personally, I don't care for them, the inside adjuster is usually plastic, just tightened up. They usually give me headaches from the oddball pressure points.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on February 06, 2008, 12:24:16 AM
The steel helmet became a museum piece years ago.  Helmet liners, once common, are now museum pieces too.  I have never seen helmet liners worn as protective headgear in the field.  They do not actually protect anything, as they are made of fiberglass, not plastic.

The only helmet liners I have ever seen in CAP were painted and used by color guards.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: arajca on February 06, 2008, 03:46:54 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on February 06, 2008, 12:24:16 AM
The steel helmet became a museum piece years ago.  Helmet liners, once common, are now museum pieces too.  I have never seen helmet liners worn as protective headgear in the field.  They do not actually protect anything, as they are made of fiberglass, not plastic.

The only helmet liners I have ever seen in CAP were painted and used by color guards.
This is the part that needs to be changed:
Quote from: CAPM 39-1, Table 1-3, Item 3
Color to be determined by wing commander except that helmet liners authorized for wear by members participating in emergency services missions will be white and will be worn with the decal depicted in Figure 6-20.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: CASH172 on February 06, 2008, 06:14:22 AM
I know for CERT in NJWG, they use the standard green helmet that comes with the new equipment package.  Not sure what specs are on the helmet. 
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: afgeo4 on February 06, 2008, 03:19:42 PM
Quote from: SStradley on February 05, 2008, 10:34:56 AM
Quote from: afgeo4 on February 05, 2008, 06:12:10 AM
Quote from: SStradley on February 03, 2008, 11:09:24 AM
Quote from: teesquared on February 03, 2008, 05:10:50 AM
Quote from: mikeylikey on February 02, 2008, 10:44:11 PM

Quote
I have seen quite a few senior member officers do this regardless of the regulation and this would be a good fix.

That is exactly the reason we are in the MESS we are in.  That is a blatant violation of published rules.  Senior Members making up their own rules as they go along. 


I agree. I don't think we should rewrite the rules to conform to the violators. Seniors should be required to follow the rules or wear a different uniform.

Except in this discussion where we are discussing changes to the uniforms and uniform regulations.  Allowing the blue windbreaker with the TPU makes sense.  It still has "CAP Slides" and is over a white shirt.  It does not make the Fat & Fuzzy look (any more) like a USAF Officer. This change allows a member to have one windbreaker that he can use for two uniforms.  For example my Son can't make up his mind about a beard.  He  grows one, and then he shaves it off.  So some times he is in "Blues" and some times he is in "White & Grays".  One windbreaker makes good sense and saves money.  (I am not trying to change the regs for my son, just using him as an example.)
The proposal wasn't for "white & grays", but for the corporate service uniform (TPU). "White & Grays" are a civilian option and any outerwear may be worn.

George,

I know that the proposal was for.  If you recall (and with 56 pages it can be a chore) the White & Grays are proposed to be eliminated, and replaced with the TPU (White & Blues) with blue "CAP" rank.  Therefore, it is an appropriate suggestion to eliminate the Black (Army) Windbreaker for the Blue (USAF) Windbreaker with the blue CAP rank.  This reduces the CAP uniform closet by one item (black windbreaker), does not lead to confusion of CAP members with real USAF members (blue CAP rank). 

Do you have an objection of substance to the proposal of eliminating the Black (Army) Windbreaker for the Blue (USAF) Windbreaker with the appropriate CAP markings for the TPU?
Negative. In fact, I'm the one who proposed it in this thread. However, do you feel that members not in compliance with grooming standards will be authorized the wear of Corp Dress Uniform or do you think they're going to keep the white and grays for them?
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on February 06, 2008, 04:23:01 PM
Grooming and Weight standards should fall under the same "you can't wear AF-style, but can wear the Corporate Blue and White Uniform".  It is silly to have 3 different distinctions.  So CAP needs to come out and say "Everyone who is clean-shaven, and within AF mandated Height/Weight are permitted to wear AF style, for everyone else, your in the Blue/White corporates. 

^ The proposal for the AF windbreaker will never PASS AF for fatties or beardies.  IT is a distinctive AF uniform, and AF has for years said no FAT or un-shaven people may wear AF style.  That is why the TPU came with the Black windbreaker.  Perhaps, we should mandate the Black windbreaker for the AF style, and get rid of the blue windbreaker......thus only one choice for outerwear.  That is what was proposed up above.....eliminating the black jacket, I just reversed the thinking on it!
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on February 06, 2008, 04:28:26 PM
Quote from: afgeo4 on February 06, 2008, 03:19:42 PM
...do you feel that members not in compliance with grooming standards will be authorized the wear of Corp Dress Uniform...
As I understand it, wht/gry would be gone. Then one of two things would happen: 1) exactly what you said, the grooming standards would be dropped for alt service dress; or, 2) the alternative would be the polo/khakis or blazer combination.

I understand there's mixed feelings, even within individuals. It does take compromise to acomplish something like this, and I think we're about there. At this point we're talking about things to be considered at a paygrade above our own. All of this is being presented with primary & alternative options. We can only hope the decision makers follow the guidance we're giving them from the field & do what's best for CAP.
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: mikeylikey on February 06, 2008, 05:05:00 PM
Lt Col White?? 

Anyone on this Uniform Committee have a black and white proposal on paper yet??  I think we have surely reached the end of suggestions, and we are starting to drift into things that were said on pages 4 through 38 again.

Perhaps one final summary of what the committee got from all of our suggestions and a LOCK on this??
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: DNall on February 06, 2008, 06:41:16 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on February 06, 2008, 05:05:00 PM
Perhaps one final summary of what the committee got from all of our suggestions and a LOCK on this??
2nd
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: notaNCO forever on February 06, 2008, 07:09:38 PM
Quote from: DNall on February 06, 2008, 06:41:16 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on February 06, 2008, 05:05:00 PM
Perhaps one final summary of what the committee got from all of our suggestions and a LOCK on this??
2nd
3rd
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: jeders on February 06, 2008, 07:45:08 PM
Quote from: NCO forever on February 06, 2008, 07:09:38 PM
Quote from: DNall on February 06, 2008, 06:41:16 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on February 06, 2008, 05:05:00 PM
Perhaps one final summary of what the committee got from all of our suggestions and a LOCK on this??
2nd
3rd
4th
Title: Re: NHQ Uniform Committee
Post by: pixelwonk on February 06, 2008, 08:09:57 PM
If members of the committee wish, they can post a separate announcement.