It's finally here!

[ranviper]

... Because DoD doesn't authorize CAP to wear ABUs. When/If DoD authorizes the wear of ABUs by us, then we can discuss that aspect. Until then, we are not authorized ABUs, so that shouldn't even be a matter of discussion in this topic.

Allowed or not, this is what they should have pursued from the beginning. This was my only point. I don't even like ABU's, but I do like looking the way we were originally intended too.

[NIN]

... Because DoD doesn't authorize CAP to wear ABUs. When/If DoD authorizes the wear of ABUs by us, then we can discuss that aspect. Until then, we are not authorized ABUs, so that shouldn't even be a matter of discussion in this topic.

Allowed or not, this is what they should have pursued from the beginning. This was my only point. I don't even like ABU's, but I do like looking the way we were originally intended too.

Don't think the discussions haven't been had for a lot longer than you think.

[RiverAux]

I wonder why they put the AF weight standards in the height-weight chart.  Is there any need for CAP members to see them?  I also wonder if those are actually the current AF standards for enlistment. 

[DrKem]

I wonder why they put the AF weight standards in the height-weight chart.  Is there any need for CAP members to see them?  I also wonder if those are actually the current AF standards for enlistment.

As far as I can tell, they are the current USAF standards.  I don't think that the Air Force offers any weight reduction programs for recruits.  I suspect that they are in the CAP regulations as an incentive to attain/maintain those standards.  From a health perspective, I would encourage everyone to reach towards that goal.

[arajca]

... Because DoD doesn't authorize CAP to wear ABUs. When/If DoD authorizes the wear of ABUs by us, then we can discuss that aspect. Until then, we are not authorized ABUs, so that shouldn't even be a matter of discussion in this topic.

Allowed or not, this is what they should have pursued from the beginning. This was my only point. I don't even like ABU's, but I do like looking the way we were originally intended too.

According to the information presented at the Nat Conf, the request has been submitted. This is also why there a couple of reserved sections/chapters in the draft 39-1. The proposal presented essentially applied the bdu decoration plan to the abu with the exception of dark blue backgrounds on the tapes and badges. This is thought to meet the "distinctive in low light" standard.

[AngelWings]

I'm happy the flag patch is going, but I'm not happy for the new patches that are going on the uniform. I was hoping to see a pull towards the basics. No flag, no wing, and no NCSA/activity patches. That way we would be going more in line with peer organizations and the USAF. Oh well, the point I've learned in my nearly 4 years of CAP is that we don't always get what we want, and you're a bigger person for not griping.

As for patriotism, I feel to see how the flag is going to make a member more or less of a patriot. Patriotism is about actions, not clothing accessories.

Ah.....but that's the cool part......if you want a sterile uniform.....it is easier now......Wing Patches, Activity Patches, Squadron Patches, the ES, Comm, etc patches......are all optional.   Either your squadron commander or your wing commander controls them.......so now it is much easier for YOU to influence your local commander to write the local supplement/OI not allowing them.

I didn't catch that, but that is great news. So, maybe the changes aren't so bad considering.

[winterg]

It looks like the current ABU doesn't include Wing or Squadron patches. 

As of this point, we are not authorized to wear ABUs, nor are they authorized in the draft 39-1, so the point is moot.

I disagree sir that we should not be influenced by the current USAF uniform standard regardless of whether we are approved to wear it or not.  As it stands, our current uniform as well as that proposed by the new draft does not mirror the USAF in its configuation.  My point was that our ideal should be to match our parent organization as closely as allowed.

[abdsp51]

The only H/W requirements that the AF has is for those entering into the AF.  There are no H/W once you are in and have completed BMT and Tech School. 

[RiverAux]

The only H/W requirements that the AF has is for those entering into the AF.  There are no H/W once you are in and have completed BMT and Tech School.

Understood and thats why I phrased my post the way I did.  Are those the requirements presented in the CAP chart? 

[LSThiker]

The only H/W requirements that the AF has is for those entering into the AF.  There are no H/W once you are in and have completed BMT and Tech School.

Understood and thats why I phrased my post the way I did.  Are those the requirements presented in the CAP chart?

No.  Here is the males H/W chart for the Air Force:

http://www.airforce.com/height-weight/

Was corrected, the chart is for all members regardless of age and gender.

[SarDragon]

You should have added that the CAP chart is more liberal than the AF chart in the AF column, and that the AF chart makes no mention of gender. The CAP numbers are AF plus 10%.

[RiverAux]

So, it appears that the CAP folks got a little lazy and used the AF chart that was in existence in the early 1980s when we adopted the height/weight standards.

That being the case, they should remove the AF information from this chart OR take the modern AF standards and add 10% (which looks like it would actually be more restrictive than the old ones). 

[abdsp51]

The only H/W requirements that the AF has is for those entering into the AF.  There are no H/W once you are in and have completed BMT and Tech School.

Understood and thats why I phrased my post the way I did.  Are those the requirements presented in the CAP chart?

No.  Here is the males H/W chart for the Air Force:

http://www.airforce.com/height-weight/

Was corrected, the chart is for all members regardless of age and gender.

Check again says all applicants,  not those already in.  There are no H/W for AF members once they have completed BMT and Tech School. 

[LSThiker]

Check again says all applicants,  not those already in.  There are no H/W for AF members once they have completed BMT and Tech School.

True, should have been applicants and not members. 

Odd enough that the USAF has no weight requirements but does have a BMI and percent body fat standard.  So do you think CAP should get rid of weight requirements and go with BMI and percent body fat standards?  Neither of those are any more complicated (in terms of knowledge) than weighing a person.  I have taped enough Soldiers that I know taping is not hard or complicated.

[abdsp51]

Check again says all applicants,  not those already in.  There are no H/W for AF members once they have completed BMT and Tech School.

True, should have been applicants and not members. 

Odd enough that the USAF has no weight requirements but does have a BMI and percent body fat standard.  So do you think CAP should get rid of weight requirements and go with BMI and percent body fat standards?  Neither of those are any more complicated (in terms of knowledge) than weighing a person.  I have taped enough Soldiers that I know taping is not hard or complicated.

Where are you getting your info?  Because BMI for the AF only comes into play when you flop your PT test because of the waist measurement.

[lordmonar]

I think the USAF is happy with the standards we have now.....they would just like us to enforce them (if they care about them at all).

[SarDragon]

I think the USAF is happy with the standards we have now.....they would just like us to enforce them (if they care about them at all).

+ 1000!

[LSThiker]

Where are you getting your info?  Because BMI for the AF only comes into play when you flop your PT test because of the waist measurement.

Oh I am fully aware of the 39" waist line measurement as apart of the PT test. 

[HGjunkie]

I submited the following:

Chapter 11 of the Draft section 11.1.1.1.2 specifies that cadets may remove all but the highest CP award or achievement to cut down on the amount of ribbons worn. For Cadet Officers who have gone to COS and have achieved a milestone past the Mitchell, they will be unable to wear the silver star for COS Completion until they become a senior member in accordance with CAPR 39-3: "Senior members who remove the Mitchell ribbon in order to wear the highest cadet program ribbon earned may move the silver star denoting Cadet Officer School from the Mitchell ribbon to the highest cadet program ribbon earned."
There should be an inclusion to either the uniform manual or R39-3 to clarify if cadets past the Mitchell award who choose to short-stack their ribbons can wear the silver star for COS attendance or not.

[Brad]

Found one in the giant table in Attachment 4. Left and right shoulders are reversed! The (now optional until 2017) American flag is specified for wear on "LS", the left shoulder, in the attachment, but 5.1.2.3.2 says an optional wing/region/national patch can go there. In fact look at that whole section of the table, the American flag patch is listed as LS but it's always been worn on the right shoulder, and the wing/region/national patches are supposed to be on the left shoulder, but it's backwards!