Bates uniform Boots

[isuhawkeye]

I have worn, and observed Bates Enforcers worn in most all military environments. 

[afgeo4]

I'm not saying that your unit commanders wont let you wear them. I'm saying that these boots aren't milspec and thus do not conform to uniform regulations. Yes, boots are part of uniform, just like bdu blouses.

[Hawk200]

I'm not saying that your unit commanders wont let you wear them. I'm saying that these boots aren't milspec and thus do not conform to uniform regulations. Yes, boots are part of uniform, just like bdu blouses.

A lot of the higher quality boots on the market are very much Milspec.  There are things made to Mil Spec that aren't even used by the miltary. Yeah, it sounds funny, but it is fact.

However, I think your viewpoint is basically the same as what I've seen while I was active duty: "If it's not the same thing as what is sold in Military Clothing then you can't wear it."

I have a feeling that most people probably wouldn't have any objections if you bought them what you consider the proper footwear.

[afgeo4]

I'm not saying that your unit commanders wont let you wear them. I'm saying that these boots aren't milspec and thus do not conform to uniform regulations. Yes, boots are part of uniform, just like bdu blouses.

A lot of the higher quality boots on the market are very much Milspec.  There are things made to Mil Spec that aren't even used by the miltary. Yeah, it sounds funny, but it is fact.

However, I think your viewpoint is basically the same as what I've seen while I was active duty: "If it's not the same thing as what is sold in Military Clothing then you can't wear it."

I have a feeling that most people probably wouldn't have any objections if you bought them what you consider the proper footwear.

You're right, that is basically my stance and I know some items that were created as per milspec end up never to be contracted for production and are still quite okay to wear. However, tactical soft boots aren't one of them. I also know that special operations people wear whatever footwear that works best for them. They also cut up uniforms, sew on pockets everywhere, etc. They do it because everyone looks away understanding that these things are necessary to commandos.

I am one for letting cadets know that if they have a choice of what to buy, they should buy things that are specifically authorized and not take chances (unless they make enough money at their jobs to afford to take chances) because when they get to encampment, there may be people who wont care so much for their "improvised", technically sort of regulation gear.

[Hawk200]

You're right, that is basically my stance and I know some items that were created as per milspec end up never to be contracted for production and are still quite okay to wear. However, tactical soft boots aren't one of them. I also know that special operations people wear whatever footwear that works best for them. They also cut up uniforms, sew on pockets everywhere, etc. They do it because everyone looks away understanding that these things are necessary to commandos.

I am one for letting cadets know that if they have a choice of what to buy, they should buy things that are specifically authorized and not take chances (unless they make enough money at their jobs to afford to take chances) because when they get to encampment, there may be people who wont care so much for their "improvised", technically sort of regulation gear.

Special Ops practices aren't really relevant to us, and for the most part, I think that most people know that they can't do that. If they don't, it usually doesn't take too long for someone to tell them.

Playing Devils Advocate on the "specifically authorized": What specifically is authorized? Is it the issue speedlace boot? Are all Corcoran jump boots authorized? What about jungle boots? Are the $20 jungles you can get at a lot of surplus stores acceptable? What about all the SWAT boots? Don't some of those comply with the generally accepted view of what is an acceptable military boot?

Before you tell me that I ought to know all that, keep in mind: One, Devils Advocate. Two, the units out in the middle of nowhere that may not have a military person or exposure to the military.

If a bunch of folks in a rural area with a little dirt airfield get together and form a unit, how do they know all this stuff? What about the brand new member with no military history?

As aircrew, I'm only allowed certain boots. The list goes so far as manufacturer, their product ID, allowable colors, and a few other minor details. That's not the case when it comes to boots in general.

As far as boots in general go, the Army says this: "Optional boots are not authorized for wear when the commander issues and prescribes standard organizational footwear for safety or environmental reasons (such as insulated boots or safety shoes). Personnel may wear specialty boots authorized for wear by specific groups of soldiers, such as the tanker boot, only if the commander authorizes such wear. Soldiers may not wear optional boots in formation when uniformity in appearance is required."

They also say this: "Soldiers are not authorized to wear any boot with the brand name "Hi-Tech," or any other boot deemed to havea sneaker-type construction, unless they were authorized an exception to policy by  Headquarters, Department of the Army."

On boots, CAPM 39-1 says: "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."

Not a highly specific description, but that's only what you can expect people to comply with.

There are few other boot types that people in the Air Force wear. While I was in the Air Guard, I wore a set of Corcoran "Hi-Tech" style boots. Guess where I got them. An Air Force military clothing.

There is a lot of stuff on the open market that's actually more military than what's in Mil Clothing. Where's the definition for what is authorized? If it's not in the manual, you can't enforce it. If you're trying to enforce something else, you're wrong.

[afgeo4]

Well... 39-1 does say "combat boots" and it doesn't say "tactical boots", so I guess we can enforce that in this case.

[SarDragon]

Well... 39-1 does say "combat boots" and it doesn't say "tactical boots", so I guess we can enforce that in this case.

And the 39-1 definition of combat boots is:  "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."

IMHO, anything that fits those specs is allowed.

[afgeo4]

That isn't a definition. It is a description of they type of combat boot that is allowed. As in... brown jump boots aren't. Black high gloss with side zippers are. If you simply go along with the description then most black dress shoes can be called "combat boots" too.

[SARMedTech]

The ABU could be an opportunity to get everyone in the same style boots though... which would be a good thing IMO.

((*sigh*))

One more thing I hadn't considered with the ABU.  For those of us who swear by jump boots I guess our days are numbered...

As to the tactical boot above, I have those as well, and prefer them from an over-all comfort standpoint, but don't like the look in the uniform, then really don't blouse correctly, but with that said, there's nothing wrong with them from a reg standpoint.

I wear these boots for a variety of purposes, uniformed and un-uniformed. And generally is not the boots the dont blouse correctly, its the blouser...and I dont mean the elastic band. I blouse with these all the time and have no trouble getting a crisp, sharp looking blouse. And thats with the old green braid and hook blousers. That being said, I dont blouse my pants into my boots. To me, thats tucking them in, not blousing them. I put the pants on, then my boots. The blouser goes right above the top of the boot and the pant cuff is rolled up and under until you get enough of the fabric that the blousing looks proper. We've had informal classes on boot blousing and unless its a six inch boot or quarter boot, its usually not the fault of the boot, its the person wearing it not taking the time to correctly blouse their pants. Remember, blousing or tucking in (pegging) are not the same thing.

[Hawk200]

Well... 39-1 does say "combat boots" and it doesn't say "tactical boots", so I guess we can enforce that in this case.

Could be a slippery slope. What constitutes a "combat boot" in one persons eyes doesn't necessary follow somone elses opinion.

A lot of the "tactical boots" perform the same as any "combat boot". For the most part, that's keeping your feet dry, ankles supported, and either warm in the cold, or cooler in the heat. If they achieve the same results, what purpose does it really serve to require boot that's only sold out of mil clothing?

Then again, a lot of tactical boots actually surpass the military models in the purposes mentioned. It's an established fact that military items are made by the lowest bidder. Why settle for something inferior?

[SARMedTech]

The ABU could be an opportunity to get everyone in the same style boots though... which would be a good thing IMO.

((*sigh*))

One more thing I hadn't considered with the ABU.  For those of us who swear by jump boots I guess our days are numbered...

As to the tactical boot above, I have those as well, and prefer them from an over-all comfort standpoint, but don't like the look in the uniform, then really don't blouse correctly, but with that said, there's nothing wrong with them from a reg standpoint.

I wear these boots for a variety of purposes, uniformed and un-uniformed. And generally is not the boots the dont blouse correctly, its the blouser...and I dont mean the elastic band. I blouse with these all the time and have no trouble getting a crisp, sharp looking blouse. And thats with the old green braid and hook blousers. That being said, I dont blouse my pants into my boots. To me, thats tucking them in, not blousing them. I put the pants on, then my boots. The blouser goes right above the top of the boot and the pant cuff is rolled up and under until you get enough of the fabric that the blousing looks proper. We've had informal classes on boot blousing and unless its a six inch boot or quarter boot, its usually not the fault of the boot, its the person wearing it not taking the time to correctly blouse their pants. Remember, blousing or tucking in (pegging) are not the same thing.

THere is also an item out there called the Ultimate Blouser. It requires taking a little adhesive, attaching velcro to the inside of your boot, then a short "strap" of fabric which attaches to an elastic blouser. The strap inside the boot keeps the blouser in position and will keep you pants looking squared away all day long. They do take a little getting used to and experimenting with, but once you get them set up, you wont wear anything else.
ultimateblouser.com


Take a look. This is the result you will get. If I can make it work, so can you and you will be the envy and idol of every cadink on the parade ground.

[mikeylikey]

^ There are no need for boot blousers to begin with! 

[afgeo4]

Well... 39-1 does say "combat boots" and it doesn't say "tactical boots", so I guess we can enforce that in this case.

Could be a slippery slope. What constitutes a "combat boot" in one persons eyes doesn't necessary follow somone elses opinion.

A lot of the "tactical boots" perform the same as any "combat boot". For the most part, that's keeping your feet dry, ankles supported, and either warm in the cold, or cooler in the heat. If they achieve the same results, what purpose does it really serve to require boot that's only sold out of mil clothing?

Then again, a lot of tactical boots actually surpass the military models in the purposes mentioned. It's an established fact that military items are made by the lowest bidder. Why settle for something inferior?

Combat boots are certified by manufacturers to meet military specs. Tactical boots may meet same specs and may even exceed them, but are not certified or authorized by the military.

[Hawk200]

Combat boots are certified by manufacturers to meet military specs. Tactical boots may meet same specs and may even exceed them, but are not certified or authorized by the military.

Valid point. So how do people know they're certified? And you can't honestly tell me that the $20 jungles available just about everywhere are. They may look like military boots, but they fall apart rather quickly. The one pair I tried in the past were coming apart at the seams (literally) in just a few months.

Many of the tac boots are extremely durable, and last under all kinds of abuse. As for the certifications, how do you know they aren't built to milspec? Some are, but they don't put it on their label because they're marketed to the SWAT and other Special Response teams. With proper care they could last a decade easily. Why limit to a military looking boot when something else may be even better?

[SARMedTech]

^ There are no need for boot blousers to begin with! 

No, there isnt. If you want to peg you pants and have them look like garbage.

[Hawk200]

^ There are no need for boot blousers to begin with! 

No, there isnt. If you want to peg you pants and have them look like garbage.

Even pegging requires some kind of item to keep them looking "pegged" from what I've seen.

The AFI used to mandate blousers (of some kind), but no longer does. Currently, 36-2903 says this: "Blouse trousers over combat boots or tuck trousers into boots to give a bloused effect.  Blousing is defined as:  to gather in and drape loosely  (cannot be folded or have a tapered look)."

Personally, I prefer to use something, but 39-1 does not require it, and neither does the dress instruction of our mother branch. About the only thing we can expect of anyone is that it be a presentable appearance. We can't require anything not in the reg, or in the spirit of the reg.

Done properly, tucking them in can look perfectly presentable.

[afgeo4]

Combat boots are certified by manufacturers to meet military specs. Tactical boots may meet same specs and may even exceed them, but are not certified or authorized by the military.

Valid point. So how do people know they're certified? And you can't honestly tell me that the $20 jungles available just about everywhere are. They may look like military boots, but they fall apart rather quickly. The one pair I tried in the past were coming apart at the seams (literally) in just a few months.

Many of the tac boots are extremely durable, and last under all kinds of abuse. As for the certifications, how do you know they aren't built to milspec? Some are, but they don't put it on their label because they're marketed to the SWAT and other Special Response teams. With proper care they could last a decade easily. Why limit to a military looking boot when something else may be even better?

"Why limit..." is a question for our uniform committee, not me. I have no say on that. In terms of how do you know what's certified, there are certificate stamps/labels in all boots that are. Just like there are on uniforms. Now, according to regs, all USAF style uniforms worn must have USAF certification labels. That's how things are standardized (uniform). I haven't seen anything that talks about Corp style uniforms, so I guess one could wear non-certified items with BBDUs and Blue flight suits.

Now we all know that's not what goes on in units and part of that is that we don't have simple, reliable, and cost-friendly access to proper uniform items. IF we had online access to AAFES, it would be a huge step to relieving that problem, but I just don't think that can happen. At least not yet. I guess the real way to solve this issue is to purchase from approved vendor (Vanguard) and be mindful of what you're purchasing. The true way to avoid mistakes is to research and ask questions before you buy. However, our cadets don't always take that approach. Mostly because they're kids and haven't experienced the burdens of paying for their mistakes.

[Hawk200]

Combat boots are certified by manufacturers to meet military specs. Tactical boots may meet same specs and may even exceed them, but are not certified or authorized by the military.

Valid point. So how do people know they're certified? And you can't honestly tell me that the $20 jungles available just about everywhere are. They may look like military boots, but they fall apart rather quickly. The one pair I tried in the past were coming apart at the seams (literally) in just a few months.

Many of the tac boots are extremely durable, and last under all kinds of abuse. As for the certifications, how do you know they aren't built to milspec? Some are, but they don't put it on their label because they're marketed to the SWAT and other Special Response teams. With proper care they could last a decade easily. Why limit to a military looking boot when something else may be even better?

"Why limit..." is a question for our uniform committee, not me. I have no say on that. In terms of how do you know what's certified, there are certificate stamps/labels in all boots that are. Just like there are on uniforms. Now, according to regs, all USAF style uniforms worn must have USAF certification labels. That's how things are standardized (uniform). I haven't seen anything that talks about Corp style uniforms, so I guess one could wear non-certified items with BBDUs and Blue flight suits.

Now we all know that's not what goes on in units and part of that is that we don't have simple, reliable, and cost-friendly access to proper uniform items. IF we had online access to AAFES, it would be a huge step to relieving that problem, but I just don't think that can happen. At least not yet. I guess the real way to solve this issue is to purchase from approved vendor (Vanguard) and be mindful of what you're purchasing. The true way to avoid mistakes is to research and ask questions before you buy. However, our cadets don't always take that approach. Mostly because they're kids and haven't experienced the burdens of paying for their mistakes.

I guess it's time to be blunt, you don't seem to be following my reasoning. It seems more like you have the viewpoint that no one should buy anything without your specific say so. It's one thing to stick to the regs, which a lot of people are actually doing when they read the manual and purchase something that complies with it.

It's something else entirely to be dictatorial. If you're putting out a requirement that you cannot support with some type of official publication of the Civil Air Patrol, then you are wrong. When it comes to the pubs, your personal opinion is completely irrelevant. You don't have the authority, or the right, to add things.

The manual says nothing about "certified" boots. A defining document on "certified" would easily be as long as 39-1. There's common sense, but limiting to only a handful of "approved" boots is highly impractical (some people would call it completely ridiculous). I doubt you have any official publication to draw on, that it's only your personal opinion.

However, if you're willing to actually purchase all the items that you think people should be wearing for them, then I imagine that noone would really have any problem with your rigidity. But when it comes out of their pocket, the only thing you can expect is compliance with CAPM 39-1.

[afgeo4]

CAPR 39-1
1-8. Where to Purchase Uniform Items.
e. Commercial Sources. (page 10)

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. Members must be careful about buying from commercial sources. The articles may have been rejected by government buyers, may not conform to specifications, or may be in the process of being phased out. Uniform items that do not meet Air Force specifications are not authorized for wear. Each uniform item must have this label sewn or stamped on permanently: "USAF CERTIFICATE NO _______. A sample of this item has been inspected and meets or exceeds the quality prescribed by AF Specification _____."


Obviously, boots are a part of the uniform since they're covered in the UNIFORM regulation.

Hawk... please refrain from personal attacks. Your reasoning is YOUR reasoning and may not always be right.

[Hawk200]

CAPR 39-1
1-8. Where to Purchase Uniform Items.
e. Commercial Sources. (page 10)

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. Members must be careful about buying from commercial sources. The articles may have been rejected by government buyers, may not conform to specifications, or may be in the process of being phased out. Uniform items that do not meet Air Force specifications are not authorized for wear. Each uniform item must have this label sewn or stamped on permanently: "USAF CERTIFICATE NO _______. A sample of this item has been inspected and meets or exceeds the quality prescribed by AF Specification _____."


Obviously, boots are a part of the uniform since they're covered in the UNIFORM regulation.

Hawk... please refrain from personal attacks. Your reasoning is YOUR reasoning and may not always be right.

Not a personal attack, but an analysis based on experience with people that have your viewpoint.

Now, as to my point, prove to me that the boots you own and wear have an actual certification label as you have described. I have boots that have been issued, and boots that have been purchased from various AAFES military clothing stores. None of those have a label to that effect. I seriously doubt that yours do either. If they do, post a photo and show the proof.

The point I'm trying to make is that there are plenty of boots that meet specifications of both CAPM 39-1, and AFI 36-2903 that aren't the "standard" military style boot. Many of those boots have been worn by active duty military with neither saftey issues or issues with the chain of command.

Many of what you would not consider a "military" boot have actual NSN's, and have been obtained and issued by military logistics organizations. Some don't have those numbers, and have been purchased as "local purchase" items and those acquisitions have been approved by the military.

I've know people that thought jump boots and jungles were illegal because they weren't issued. Yours is the same view, only mildly expanded. Anything that complies with CAPM 39-1 is acceptable. Limiting what is allowed based on personal opinion isn't. You have no foundation in the pubs to tell anyone otherwise.