It's finally here!

[Panache]

3. Transition to dark blue insignia for BBDU. I know this is in preparation for ABU, but either way it is an unnecessary change. Ultramarine and white has served CAP for years with no problems.

I disagree.  I think the dark (navy?) blue is aesthetically better and nicer on the Blue BDU's.  I'm happy for this change.

Read the dark blue insignia carefully:
- Dark blue and white for name and CAP tapes
- Dark blue and silver for badges
- Dark blue and undefined for SM Officer insignia (either silver/gold or white/yellow)
- Dark blue and full color for Cadet Officers (silver or white?)

I'm assuming these variations are just things that slipped through on the first draft, and will be ironed out.

4. Expenses for SMWOG. Glad the flight cap issue has been resolved, but there's no reason to wear blank CAP epaulets. Their intended purpose was for pin-on NCO insignia. This is an unnecessary purchase for SMWOG, when most of these members wearing Blues will be in Cadet/Composite units, which should have a host of metal CAP cutouts dating back years to when cadets wore one chevron/one cutout.

It's not unreasonable for the local squadron to have a set or three of "loaner" blank rank slides for new SMWOG.  They only cost a couple of bucks.  I don't see this being an issue.

5. Compliance for all wing and unit patches with USAF Heraldry Guidelines. Most Wing patches and many unit patches will have to be redone. And guess what? Under those guidelines, they must feature the colors Gold and Ultramarine. Why have dark blue and ultramarine blue on a uniform. Talk about clown suiting the whole uniform!

I completely missed the section in the draft 39-1 that said that everybody would have to redesign their patches.  Could you point me to it?

[ProdigalJim]

The patch being described is the National SAR School patch.  There is no patch specific to the Inland SAR Planner's Course.  The Inland SAR Planner's Course is just one on the classes taught by the National SAR School.  Completion of the Inland SAR Planner's Course, means you are a graduate of the National SAR School.  I can see why that would be misinterpreted as the National SAR School Patch being the Inland SAR Planner's Course patch though.

Yup. They told us, "you can buy this patch and wear it, now that you've finished this course." And yet, the patch, as you say, is not specific to the SAR Planner's Course. Here's what it looks like:

[kd8gua]

3. Transition to dark blue insignia for BBDU. I know this is in preparation for ABU, but either way it is an unnecessary change. Ultramarine and white has served CAP for years with no problems.

I disagree.  I think the dark (navy?) blue is aesthetically better and nicer on the Blue BDU's.  I'm happy for this change.

Read the dark blue insignia carefully:
- Dark blue and white for name and CAP tapes
- Dark blue and silver for badges
- Dark blue and undefined for SM Officer insignia (either silver/gold or white/yellow)
- Dark blue and full color for Cadet Officers (silver or white?)

I'm assuming these variations are just things that slipped through on the first draft, and will be ironed out.

4. Expenses for SMWOG. Glad the flight cap issue has been resolved, but there's no reason to wear blank CAP epaulets. Their intended purpose was for pin-on NCO insignia. This is an unnecessary purchase for SMWOG, when most of these members wearing Blues will be in Cadet/Composite units, which should have a host of metal CAP cutouts dating back years to when cadets wore one chevron/one cutout.

It's not unreasonable for the local squadron to have a set or three of "loaner" blank rank slides for new SMWOG.  They only cost a couple of bucks.  I don't see this being an issue.

5. Compliance for all wing and unit patches with USAF Heraldry Guidelines. Most Wing patches and many unit patches will have to be redone. And guess what? Under those guidelines, they must feature the colors Gold and Ultramarine. Why have dark blue and ultramarine blue on a uniform. Talk about clown suiting the whole uniform!

I completely missed the section in the draft 39-1 that said that everybody would have to redesign their patches.  Could you point me to it?

2.8.3 - Wing Commanders must ensure all wing/unit patches follow USAF Heraldry Guidelines. That means shield shaped wing patches and circular squadron patches, and use of gold borders and ultramarine within the design.

The rules for blank CAP epaulets and Command Badges seem to be fueled only by poorly selling stock at Vanguard.

[Panache]

2.8.3 - Wing Commanders must ensure all wing/unit patches follow USAF Heraldry Guidelines. That means shield shaped wing patches and circular squadron patches, and use of gold borders and ultramarine within the design.

Aaaaah.  Thanks.  Hmmm.

[DennisH]

Does anyone know what happened to table 6-5 from the old manual ? I don't see it in the new one.

[abdsp51]

In regards to the wing and unit patches that is for all new patches, not for those that are already in place.

[Panache]

Does anyone know what happened to table 6-5 from the old manual ? I don't see it in the new one.

Page 120:

"11.2.1.1  -  US Awards. Federal awards awarded by competent authority may be worn on USAF-style uniforms in accordance with instructions contained in AFI 36-2903. National Guard awards will not be worn."

I take that as we will follow whatever guidelines that are in AFI 36-2903 for ribbon wear, so that table is no longer needed.

[DennisH]

Thanks, I went through the AF manual and it is about as clear as the Army one, clear as mud:)

[Panache]

Thanks, I went through the AF manual and it is about as clear as the Army one, clear as mud:)

I believe that what you're looking for is here.  Go to page 144. (Section 11.3)

[kd8gua]

I know that most of the tables from the 2005 edition just copied the same information under each specific header, but it was extremely convenient to be able to reference a table at a glance for uniform and insignia wear. I know there aren't any tables in 36-2903, but does the 39-1 have to follow the 36-2903? Seems like tables would be helpful to the wide age range of CAP members.

[Panache]

I know that most of the tables from the 2005 edition just copied the same information under each specific header, but it was extremely convenient to be able to reference a table at a glance for uniform and insignia wear. I know there aren't any tables in 36-2903, but does the 39-1 have to follow the 36-2903? Seems like tables would be helpful to the wide age range of CAP members.

I guess they thought that "refer to 36-2903" would be better than putting a table in 39-1, and having to update 39-1 (or issuing an IICL) whenever Ma Blue changed 36-2903. 

[DennisH]

Thanks, I went through the AF manual and it is about as clear as the Army one, clear as mud:)

I believe that what you're looking for is here.  Go to page 144. (Section 11.3)

Thanks, but actually no, looked it over doesn't answer the question, in table 6-5 it states badges from sister services allowed to be worn in a simple list. The new reg doesn't do anything but point at the Big Blue Reg, sorta like " go ask dad" then Dad tells you to " go ask Mom"

[LSThiker]

The rules for blank CAP epaulets and Command Badges seem to be fueled only by poorly selling stock at Vanguard.

Actually the proposal for continued wearing of the command badge after leaving squadron commander has been around ever since the command badge was created (August 2003 {CAPMart days}).  Also, the wear of the command insignia is mandatory in the USAF, so again no surprise that it finally became mandatory in CAP.  Sorry, no Vanguard conspiracy on this. 

Air Force Command Insignia: Current commander center 1/2 inch above nametag; graduated commander center 1/2 inch below nametag. If duty badges are worn with the command insignia (graduated commander), center the duty badge 1/2 inch below command insignia. AF Command insignia is mandatory.

[Tim Day]

7. Sleeve crease on the Blues shirt. The only reference is in the Honor Guard section. Ma Blue creases at the back edge of the epaulet, where the material naturally allows for a crease. CAP has maintained this more difficult standard of "centered on epaulet."

Actually Ma Blue's manual says nothing about where the crease should be and in the absence of any guidance the crease goes where it falls naturally. "Centered on the epaulet" made sense when we had a wing patch on the sleeve - the natural crease would have divided the patch asymmetrically. When the wing patch was removed, the "centered on the epaulet" language remained, or at least that's my theory.

The verbiage in the draft's honor guard section about the crease being centered on the epaulet is probably an oversight.

[Panache]

Thanks, I went through the AF manual and it is about as clear as the Army one, clear as mud:)

I believe that what you're looking for is here.  Go to page 144. (Section 11.3)

Thanks, but actually no, looked it over doesn't answer the question, in table 6-5 it states badges from sister services allowed to be worn in a simple list. The new reg doesn't do anything but point at the Big Blue Reg, sorta like " go ask dad" then Dad tells you to " go ask Mom"

11.3. Non-Air Force Service Awards. ANG members wear state decorations when serving in state status, but not while on federal active duty.
11.3.1. Wear other military service department awards not included in paragraph 11.5 below in the order the awarding Service prescribes.
11.3.2. Air Force awards take precedence over equal awards from other Services.
11.3.3. Wear awards for wars, campaigns and expeditions in the order earned.
11.3.4. The Army Valorous Unit and Meritorious Unit Commendation awards are larger than Air Force ribbons. When members wear these awards (Army version) with their Air Force ribbons, they must purchase ribbons that are the same size as their Air Force ribbons.

I read this as "everything by the other branches are allowed, except National Guard."

[LSThiker]

5. Compliance for all wing and unit patches with USAF Heraldry Guidelines. Most Wing patches and many unit patches will have to be redone. And guess what? Under those guidelines, they must feature the colors Gold and Ultramarine. Why have dark blue and ultramarine blue on a uniform. Talk about clown suiting the whole uniform!

Might want to reread that again and quote correctly.  It does not say patches will need to be redesigned:

2.8.3 The wing commander is the approval authority for organizational patches worn by subordinate units within the wing and will ensure that new patches meet the intent of the USAF heraldic guidelines published by the Air Force Historical Research Agency and the CAP National Historian Program.

and

10.7.8 Organizational Patch. Emblem approved by the wing commander for wear by subordinate unit (group, squadron, flight) personnel. Patches designed after the date of this manual will meet the intent of the USAF heraldic guidelines published by the Air Force Historical Research Agency.

It does not say:

2.8.3 - Wing Commanders must ensure all wing/unit patches follow USAF Heraldry Guidelines. That means shield shaped wing patches and circular squadron patches, and use of gold borders and ultramarine within the design.

Therefore, depending on how the regulations are written on the CAP National Historian Program this might be different.  However, according to this they are only required to meet those guidelines if you redesign the patch.

7. Sleeve crease on the Blues shirt. The only reference is in the Honor Guard section. Ma Blue creases at the back edge of the epaulet, where the material naturally allows for a crease. CAP has maintained this more difficult standard of "centered on epaulet."

Actually that requirement came only with the publishing of the current CAPM39-1 (2005).  The previous 1997 edition never once stated where the crease should be.  Therefore, I wore it where the crease naturally fell on all the shirts I bought.  That would be behind my epaulet.  Removing this requirement was a good and the correct thing to do.

[kd8gua]

5. Compliance for all wing and unit patches with USAF Heraldry Guidelines. Most Wing patches and many unit patches will have to be redone. And guess what? Under those guidelines, they must feature the colors Gold and Ultramarine. Why have dark blue and ultramarine blue on a uniform. Talk about clown suiting the whole uniform!

Might want to reread that again and quote correctly.  It does not say patches will need to be redesigned:

2.8.3 The wing commander is the approval authority for organizational patches worn by subordinate units within the wing and will ensure that new patches meet the intent of the USAF heraldic guidelines published by the Air Force Historical Research Agency and the CAP National Historian Program.

and

10.7.8 Organizational Patch. Emblem approved by the wing commander for wear by subordinate unit (group, squadron, flight) personnel. Patches designed after the date of this manual will meet the intent of the USAF heraldic guidelines published by the Air Force Historical Research Agency.

It does not say:

2.8.3 - Wing Commanders must ensure all wing/unit patches follow USAF Heraldry Guidelines. That means shield shaped wing patches and circular squadron patches, and use of gold borders and ultramarine within the design.

Therefore, depending on how the regulations are written on the CAP National Historian Program this might be different.  However, according to this they are only required to meet those guidelines if you redesign the patch.

7. Sleeve crease on the Blues shirt. The only reference is in the Honor Guard section. Ma Blue creases at the back edge of the epaulet, where the material naturally allows for a crease. CAP has maintained this more difficult standard of "centered on epaulet."

Actually that requirement came only with the publishing of the current CAPM39-1 (2005).  The previous 1997 edition never once stated where the crease should be.  Therefore, I wore it where the crease naturally fell on all the shirts I bought.  That would be behind my epaulet.  Removing this requirement was a good and the correct thing to do.

The "new patches only" portion was an oversight on my part. Good catch. I hope the Honor Guard section is an oversight!

[a2capt]

Will comments submitted online be viewable by the vast unwashed massesgeneral membership?

If that's anything like the governance study comments, even if "they" say so, don't hold your breath on it. Though OTOH, there's probably more comments in this thread right here than any where else, period. These are visible.

Interesting find and it fits the description from the draft reg.http://www.militaryuniformsupply.com/rothco-generation-3-ecwcs-fleece-jacket-blackI might pick one up just because $35.00 isn't bad for a coat like this.

It's Rothco.. $35 is too much.


On the whole heraldry, patch design, and the historian guidelines.. If their intention is to force everyone into a redesign phase.. I see it as nothing more than a historian program gone amok. Beating the "Look at the power I have" drum. I'm not happy with any of it. As a "from here on out going forward" thing, I'd see a lot less problem with it, and I don't mean "until reordering", I mean leave everyones stuff alone. It hasn't caused problems in 70+ years, channel that energy somewhere else.
This is really for the other thread anyway.

[unmlobo]

Now that CAPM 39-1 is under review and comment, I would like to propose the wear of cloth name patches in addition to the leather name patch on the USAF-style FDU and CAP CFDU. They are currently prohibited by the regulation, and if I remember correctly a cloth name patch was approved by the NB/NEC but was apparently pigeonholed into a quiet death some years ago. So don't put me in stocks or tar and feather me for bringing up a heretical uniform subject...

You will notice that this proposal standardizes the name patch format across the board. The current name patch format was originally designed for the green bag when it was allowed for those who did not meet weight and grooming standards (and wore no grade insignia on the shoulders).

I welcome any comments on this proposal on CAPTalk.

I like this proposal and it would be more in line with Big Blue plus it does look nicer than the leather one IMHO.  However, I am curious why you feel that military badges should not be worn on them?  If they are okay by the 39-1 on uniforms then why not the Aircrew Name-tags?

[DennisH]

Thanks, I went through the AF manual and it is about as clear as the Army one, clear as mud:)

I believe that what you're looking for is here.  Go to page 144. (Section 11.3)

Thanks, but actually no, looked it over doesn't answer the question, in table 6-5 it states badges from sister services allowed to be worn in a simple list. The new reg doesn't do anything but point at the Big Blue Reg, sorta like " go ask dad" then Dad tells you to " go ask Mom"

11.3. Non-Air Force Service Awards. ANG members wear state decorations when serving in state status, but not while on federal active duty.
11.3.1. Wear other military service department awards not included in paragraph 11.5 below in the order the awarding Service prescribes.
11.3.2. Air Force awards take precedence over equal awards from other Services.
11.3.3. Wear awards for wars, campaigns and expeditions in the order earned.
11.3.4. The Army Valorous Unit and Meritorious Unit Commendation awards are larger than Air Force ribbons. When members wear these awards (Army version) with their Air Force ribbons, they must purchase ribbons that are the same size as their Air Force ribbons.

I read this as "everything by the other branches are allowed, except National Guard."

Having come from the big green Weenie I and many others have a special kind of hate for AR 670-1 which seems to have been written by 1000 lawyers and 500 preschool children.  Whenever something is written that can be interpreted in more than one way it will be. If I go with how you read it then army CAB's, EIB's, AirAssualt wings ect are now permitted. I don't think it will be worked out that way but it could be interpreted that way. I know it's asking for much, but I would like to see one regulation written in such a way that there is no grey area or area that can be stretched to fit all meanings.

Also in my view which may be wrong I think 11.3 deals with ribbons and such not badges.