It's finally here!

[AlphaSigOU]

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?

Because the current 39-1 only allows CAP aeronautical ratings and specialty badges on the flight suit patch. Normally, I wouldn't have a problem with military wings and specialty badges on the name patch but this might give the proposal a fighting chance. Plus two wings (one military and one CAP) just looks clunky. I'd rather see one or the other, not both.

[Panache]

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.

In crayon.

[NIN]

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.

The NUC (and more specifically the rewrite committee) were told that suggesting FDU changes to the USAF was not preferred at this moment.

Thus, you will see, no changes to flight uniforms.

[AlphaSigOU]

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.

The NUC (and more specifically the rewrite committee) were told that suggesting FDU changes to the USAF was not preferred at this moment.

Thus, you will see, no changes to flight uniforms.

Oh well... at least we tried...

[Patterson]

The NUC (and more specifically the rewrite committee) were told that suggesting FDU changes to the USAF was not preferred at this moment.

Thus, you will see, no changes to flight uniforms.

Isn't this the right time to bring all "wanted changes to the Air Force style uniforms" to the Air Force.  Like submitting a six page list of wants with reasons (perhaps handed in with the CAP NCO proposal request). Asking for permission to wear embroidered grade insignia instead of plastic encased insignia on the Flightsuit seems minor compared to seeking permission to redesign NCO grade insignia.

This whole thing is a piecemeal mess!!  Instead of consolidation and streamlining, we get added bling and options of accessories that serve a very small percentage of the general membership. 

I'm sorry, but I absolutely dislike the regulation as written, disagree with the style and format and strongly believe that this project has veered off target. 

What about cost??  Not a single person in 14 pages of posts have stated the bottom line issue that impacts every single member.  It seems apparent that the uniform committee has been influenced by the special interest cliques within the organization.  Why would we allow Wing Commanders (who change every four years) the opportunity to dictate what type/color/design of hats, cords, accessories, etc are to be worn by members in their Wing?  Even after this draft regulation is published, each Wing will continue to do its own thing, continuing to keep the uniformed masses of the organization essentially non-uniform! 
EXAMPLE: Pennsylvania Wing orange ball caps will be worn by those members wearing BDUs, yet should they leave their wing to attend activities they must purchase the BDU cover so they are within current regulation.  How silly is that practice?  Shame on those leaders that continue that and similar practices.

It's time to write down exactly what will be worn by ALL members, instead what has been presented is a guidance that further increases member costs, continues elitist practices and allows deviation from a standard based on the principle of "I'm the leader and I can make changes because I can" ideology.

Sorry to be so negative, but I really expected a much better product than what has been drafted.  (Also, it wasn't cool to hold off on releasing the draft on the basis of "we need to take pictures", since some photos are either rehashed monstrosities or cut and pasted items from prior works). 

[Tim Day]

With regard to:

10.3.2 Military aviation badges (to include USAF air, space and cyberspace badges) may be worn when appropriate orders granted by competent military authority are present in the member's CAP personnel record.

Anyone know if a DD214 would suffice to document appropriate orders? In the current manual, military aviation badges are required to be "awarded in writing by competent authority" which is documented on my DD214. 10.3.2 of the new manual appears to impose a new records-keeping requirement, and I haven't been able to find any guidance on where this will be stored.

CAPR 10-2 addresses personnel records, but seems limited to CAPFs filed in one's paper record, and there doesn't seem to be an e-services capability to upload documents that would constitute "appropriate orders."

[NIN]

Isn't this the right time to bring all "wanted changes to the Air Force style uniforms" to the Air Force.  Like submitting a six page list of wants with reasons (perhaps handed in with the CAP NCO proposal request). Asking for permission to wear embroidered grade insignia instead of plastic encased insignia on the Flightsuit seems minor compared to seeking permission to redesign NCO grade insignia.

When CAP-USAF says "Now isn't the right time to ask for changes to flight uniforms," I bet they *might* know what they're talking about.  Call me crazy.

I agree: when you're already asking for a half-dozen uniform changes, why not a few more, right?  But I'm guessing that things like NCO stripes were coordinated 10-12 months ago or more (heck, some enterprising colonel at HAF may have created those insignia 5 years ago, for all we know!) and HAF was like "OK, got your current proposals and the ABU package from last year. No more uniform items for now."

This whole thing is a piecemeal mess!!  Instead of consolidation and streamlining, we get added bling and options of accessories that serve a very small percentage of the general membership. 

Could you be more specific about "options of accessories that serve a very small percentage of the general membership"?  I know the commander's badge is one item, likely, but are there others?

I'm sorry, but I absolutely dislike the regulation as written, disagree with the style and format and strongly believe that this project has veered off target. 

Considering that its style & format is designed to mirror the corresponding AFMAN, what style & format would you suggest?

What about cost??  Not a single person in 14 pages of posts have stated the bottom line issue that impacts every single member.  It seems apparent that the uniform committee has been influenced by the special interest cliques within the organization.  Why would we allow Wing Commanders (who change every four years) the opportunity to dictate what type/color/design of hats, cords, accessories, etc are to be worn by members in their Wing?  Even after this draft regulation is published, each Wing will continue to do its own thing, continuing to keep the uniformed masses of the organization essentially non-uniform!

"If Andrew gets to get up, we'll all get up, it'll be anarchy!"

What special interest cliques are you referring to? 

And I hate to break it to you, but wing commanders have had pretty much the same latitude in terms of the accessories they could authorize and specify for years.  Example: cords. For academics, drill team, color guard, etc.   

So yeah, when you get 10 cadets from across the region together, its probably going to be "corducopia" of colors.

"So, Timmy, what exactly is a blaze orange cord for?"

"Outstanding Honorable Excellence in Safety Guard Honor Patrol Aerospace, sir!"

"Thats so moto. I'm about to faint I'm so motivated by that!"

But a wing commander could come in and says "OK, no more wing patches. They were optional, and in this wing we're no longer going to opt for them wing wide."  OMG, $4.00, right down the tubes.   Thats *always* been that way.

EXAMPLE: Pennsylvania Wing orange ball caps will be worn by those members wearing BDUs, yet should they leave their wing to attend activities they must purchase the BDU cover so they are within current regulation.  How silly is that practice?  Shame on those leaders that continue that and similar practices.

Been like that for years.   Honestly, while I got that squadrons could have their own ball caps (for YEARS) my cadets still had BDU caps for encampments and whatever.   Personally, I subscribed to the KISS principal and just kept my troopers in BDU caps, but I've seen it done other ways.   The BDU cap is the "basic" part of the uniform.  A locally specified ball cap is the "add on". Why would you only possess the "add on"?

Sorry to be so negative, but I really expected a much better product than what has been drafted.  (Also, it wasn't cool to hold off on releasing the draft on the basis of "we need to take pictures", since some photos are either rehashed monstrosities or cut and pasted items from prior works).

Can't disagree with you about the photos.

[Tim Day]

It's time to write down exactly what will be worn by ALL members, instead what has been presented is a guidance that further increases member costs, continues elitist practices and allows deviation from a standard based on the principle of "I'm the leader and I can make changes because I can" ideology.

In my reading the uniform requirements seem pretty clear. I haven't found anything that will increase cost for me or my cadets, and I appreciate the new-to-CAP-but-true-to-AFI 36-2903 format. Though I think we should switch to the AF directives system entirely and call this document an instruction, not a manual.

Overall, I think this draft is a very positive improvement.

[Storm Chaser]

With regard to:

10.3.2 Military aviation badges (to include USAF air, space and cyberspace badges) may be worn when appropriate orders granted by competent military authority are present in the member's CAP personnel record.

Anyone know if a DD214 would suffice to document appropriate orders? In the current manual, military aviation badges are required to be "awarded in writing by competent authority" which is documented on my DD214. 10.3.2 of the new manual appears to impose a new records-keeping requirement, and I haven't been able to find any guidance on where this will be stored.

CAPR 10-2 addresses personnel records, but seems limited to CAPFs filed in one's paper record, and there doesn't seem to be an e-services capability to upload documents that would constitute "appropriate orders."

"[A]ppropriate orders" may be a copy of your aeronautical orders or DD214 documenting your aeronautical rating. Your unit personnel record should have a copy of this document. If your unit doesn't keep hardcopy personnel records (they should since eServices can't document all your personnel training and achievements at the moment), then you should still have a copy available in your own personal record to document your rating if/when needed.

[ranviper]

For those complaining about cost... This is a para-military organization, and you're a volunteer. If you want to participate, you need to follow the rules, and the rules require us to look professional. To look professional, one must spend money on the proper equipment. This is what has been decided by both the USAF and CAP by professionals. If you don't like it, many of the events allow you to wear civies as an alternative. Its like a job. Lots of jobs require you wear a suit and tie, but they don't give the suits and ties to you - it's your own responsibility to buy them. Same with a lot of military uniform stuff. I had to buy my dress blues in the Army after they phased out class a's. I'll sound like a bag, but IMHO suck it up.

[Devil Doc]

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."

So, your saying that NAVY Warefare Pins can be worn now?

[Papabird]

Hmm, I just realized this:

4.1.5.4.4.1 ... "The second badge will be centered ½ inch above the first badge." in relation to this, "If a military aviation badge (aeronautical, space or cyberspace) is worn, it will be worn in the second position." (emphasis mine)

Uh, am I reading this to say that military aviation goes in the second position, which is ABOVE the CAP wings?  If so, then what about this:

"Chaplain and CAP aviation badges are mandatory and will always be worn in the highest position."

I think the top "second" should be changed to first, but

[Storm Chaser]

Hmm, I just realized this:

4.1.5.4.4.1 ... "The second badge will be centered ½ inch above the first badge." in relation to this, "If a military aviation badge (aeronautical, space or cyberspace) is worn, it will be worn in the second position." (emphasis mine)

Uh, am I reading this to say that military aviation goes in the second position, which is ABOVE the CAP wings?  If so, then what about this:

"Chaplain and CAP aviation badges are mandatory and will always be worn in the highest position."

I think the top "second" should be changed to first, but

That's not what they mean. One is referring to the number of badges (i.e. second badge) and the other to the position or placement (i.e. second position). Perhaps a better way to express it would be "bottom" or "lower" position. That said, the intend is still clear; only two badges above the ribbons can be worn, CAP chaplain/CAP aviation goes on top, and two non-aviation badges may also be worn.

[UH60guy]

With regard to:

10.3.2 Military aviation badges (to include USAF air, space and cyberspace badges) may be worn when appropriate orders granted by competent military authority are present in the member's CAP personnel record.

Anyone know if a DD214 would suffice to document appropriate orders? In the current manual, military aviation badges are required to be "awarded in writing by competent authority" which is documented on my DD214. 10.3.2 of the new manual appears to impose a new records-keeping requirement, and I haven't been able to find any guidance on where this will be stored.

CAPR 10-2 addresses personnel records, but seems limited to CAPFs filed in one's paper record, and there doesn't seem to be an e-services capability to upload documents that would constitute "appropriate orders."

"[A]ppropriate orders" may be a copy of your aeronautical orders or DD214 documenting your aeronautical rating. Your unit personnel record should have a copy of this document. If your unit doesn't keep hardcopy personnel records (they should since eServices can't document all your personnel training and achievements at the moment), then you should still have a copy available in your own personal record to document your rating if/when needed.

It'll work sir- but be aware it says "competent" military authority, so the Navy guys are out of luck. BOOM, squid slam. 

On that note, here's a question I've been wondering about- do USCG aviators fall under competent "military" authorities as part of the Dept. of Homeland Security?

[Storm Chaser]

With regard to:

10.3.2 Military aviation badges (to include USAF air, space and cyberspace badges) may be worn when appropriate orders granted by competent military authority are present in the member's CAP personnel record.

Anyone know if a DD214 would suffice to document appropriate orders? In the current manual, military aviation badges are required to be "awarded in writing by competent authority" which is documented on my DD214. 10.3.2 of the new manual appears to impose a new records-keeping requirement, and I haven't been able to find any guidance on where this will be stored.

CAPR 10-2 addresses personnel records, but seems limited to CAPFs filed in one's paper record, and there doesn't seem to be an e-services capability to upload documents that would constitute "appropriate orders."

"[A]ppropriate orders" may be a copy of your aeronautical orders or DD214 documenting your aeronautical rating. Your unit personnel record should have a copy of this document. If your unit doesn't keep hardcopy personnel records (they should since eServices can't document all your personnel training and achievements at the moment), then you should still have a copy available in your own personal record to document your rating if/when needed.

It'll work sir- but be aware it says "competent" military authority, so the Navy guys are out of luck. BOOM, squid slam. 

On that note, here's a question I've been wondering about- do USCG aviators fall under competent "military" authorities as part of the Dept. of Homeland Security?

Yes, they do. Their aeronautical ratings are recognized by the Navy and they are part of the U.S. Armed Forces, just not the Department of Defense. In times of war, they may be placed under the Department of the Navy.

(edited for grammar)

[Hawk200]

On that note, here's a question I've been wondering about- do USCG aviators fall under competent "military" authorities as part of the Dept. of Homeland Security?

Coasties are generally considered military. How they report is rather unusual. They do answer to the Navy on some aspects, DHS in others, and still others to FEMA (that I've heard.)  Had a Coastie in AF weather school that told me much of this.

Considering that there were Coasties in Iraq, and that it is possible for some Coasties to attend SEAL training, and be operational with the Navy, I'd consider them very much military.

[Tim Day]

With regard to:

10.3.2 Military aviation badges (to include USAF air, space and cyberspace badges) may be worn when appropriate orders granted by competent military authority are present in the member's CAP personnel record.

Anyone know if a DD214 would suffice to document appropriate orders? In the current manual, military aviation badges are required to be "awarded in writing by competent authority" which is documented on my DD214. 10.3.2 of the new manual appears to impose a new records-keeping requirement, and I haven't been able to find any guidance on where this will be stored.

CAPR 10-2 addresses personnel records, but seems limited to CAPFs filed in one's paper record, and there doesn't seem to be an e-services capability to upload documents that would constitute "appropriate orders."

"[A]ppropriate orders" may be a copy of your aeronautical orders or DD214 documenting your aeronautical rating. Your unit personnel record should have a copy of this document. If your unit doesn't keep hardcopy personnel records (they should since eServices can't document all your personnel training and achievements at the moment), then you should still have a copy available in your own personal record to document your rating if/when needed.

It'll work sir- but be aware it says "competent" military authority, so the Navy guys are out of luck. BOOM, squid slam. 

On that note, here's a question I've been wondering about- do USCG aviators fall under competent "military" authorities as part of the Dept. of Homeland Security?

Yes, they do. They're aeronautical ratings are recognized by the Navy and they are part of the U.S. Armed Forces, just not the Department of Defense. In times of war, they may be placed under the Department of the Navy.

USCG aviators are Naval Aviators - they wear wings of gold authorized by competent authority (i.e. the Navy)...

[Tim Day]

So, your saying that NAVY Warefare Pins can be worn now?

The AFI 36-2904 authorizes other service aviation badges only (no non-aviation other service badges). See section 10 (of AFI 36-2903).

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Yes, they do. They're aeronautical ratings are recognized by the Navy and they are part of the U.S. Armed Forces, just not the Department of Defense. In times of war, they may be placed under the Department of the Navy.

Correct.  The USCG is considered "at all times an armed service of the United States," one of the five such entities.

They are not always under DoD, but their members are always subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

So are their Auxiliarists, when the Commandant USCG directs them to be called into the Temporary Reserve - something that does not happen with CAP.

You do salute their commissioned and warrant officers.

Their Aircrew wear the same "wings of gold" that Navy and Marine Aviators do and they go through the Naval Aviation training syllabus at NAS Pensacola.

One thing I'm curious about is if NOAA Commissioned Corps aviation wings are allowed.  They are a uniformed service (like the USPHS), wear uniforms almost identical to the Navy and the aviation wings are very similar, though not identical.

[VNY]

Whats this "Dark Blue Windbreaker"?  They have no photo and Vanguard does not carry such a product.  It sounds the same as the ultramarine windbreaker just in a darker color.