It's finally here!

[GroundHawg]

I wear one of these daily in OD. I'm thinking this in black would be really nice with the BBDU.

http://www.condoroutdoor.com/601_fleece_jacket.aspx

[Storm Chaser]

Well, it's now been two months since the draft 39-1 has been released....

Thirty two days does not two months make. The release date was 12/31/13.

Patience, grasshopper.

After all the feedback they've received (I know I submitted several), I hope they issue a second draft soon so that we can wrap up this process and finally get our new uniform manual (in my opinion this should be an instruction or regulation, not a manual). I hope this second draft have all the pictures/graphics, so that we can review and comment on those as well.

[ol'fido]

Well, it's now been two months since the draft 39-1 has been released....

Thirty two days does not two months make. The release date was 12/31/13.

Patience, grasshopper.

After all the feedback they've received (I know I submitted several), I hope they issue a second draft soon so that we can wrap up this process and finally get our new uniform manual (in my opinion this should be an instruction or regulation, not a manual). I hope this second draft have all the pictures/graphics, so that we can review and comment on those as well.

I think having it as a manual is just fine. I, however, am a traditionalist. I like the old style of manual and reg writing. This AF style with the 1.2.3.4. stuff looks just goofy to me.

[Luis R. Ramos]

I think I liked the style you mentioned as well. I think it was easier to read than the new way. The 1.2.3.4 way looks unbalanced, and well, sort of... goofy.



Flyer

[VNY]

I wear one of these daily in OD. I'm thinking this in black would be really nice with the BBDU.
http://www.condoroutdoor.com/601_fleece_jacket.aspx

I`m surprised nobody has mentioned this - but on the majority of the potential "black fleeces" I've seen there are pockets right where the manual says to sew on insignia.

[SarDragon]

Well, it's now been two months since the draft 39-1 has been released....

Thirty two days does not two months make. The release date was 12/31/13.

My dog says it's been seven and a half months...

That first version was not an "official" draft, and was not formally presented for comment.

[a2capt]

Not formally, no. Just a big juicy link smack in your face on eServices.

[Panache]

That first version was not an "official" draft, and was not formally presented for comment.

CAPM 39-1, Uniforms, Draft for Comment

The draft CAPM 39-1 is available for comment as promised.

NHQ disagrees with your assessment.

[ralovick]

I would like to suggest that we return to wearing CAP on the left collar as it was before 2005.

This would be in recognition of our heritage of being originally attached to the Army Air Corps / Army Air Forces. The Army wears the Insignia of branch on the left collar and would also serve to trigger a discussion of our heritage.

[LSThiker]

I would like to suggest that we return to wearing CAP on the left collar as it was before 2005.

This would be in recognition of our heritage of being originally attached to the Army Air Corps / Army Air Forces. The Army wears the Insignia of branch on the left collar and would also serve to trigger a discussion of our heritage.

Good try on that comment.  By the way, the Army does not wear the branch insignia on the left collar any more.  In fact, since the ACUs were created, the Army does not wear branch insignia.

[HGjunkie]

I would like to suggest that we return to wearing CAP on the left collar as it was before 2005.

This would be in recognition of our heritage of being originally attached to the Army Air Corps / Army Air Forces. The Army wears the Insignia of branch on the left collar and would also serve to trigger a discussion of our heritage.

If that were to happen, then the positioning of the insignia would have to change to the slanted style instead of straight and parallel.

[NIN]

Good try on that comment.  By the way, the Army does not wear the branch insignia on the left collar any more.  In fact, since the ACUs were created, the Army does not wear branch insignia.

The wing patch speaks back to that Army Air Corps heritage, anyway.

[LSThiker]

The wing patch speaks back to that Army Air Corps heritage, anyway.

True.  And our US Flag 

[Storm Chaser]

The wing patch speaks back to that Army Air Corps heritage, anyway.

True.  And our US Flag 

The wing patch has several decades of history within CAP; the reversed U.S. flag patch doesn't.

[NIN]

The wing patch has several decades of history within CAP; the reversed U.S. flag patch doesn't.

Yep.  The reverse flag is 7 years young, and not in keeping with the CONUS USAF uniform wear of the last 7-10 years.

[LSThiker]

The wing patch has several decades of history within CAP; the reversed U.S. flag patch doesn't.

Yes I know.  The  was supposed to represent a snarky comment about the US flag patch.  I was fully around when the US flag came into existence for our uniforms and have hated it since.

[Eclipse]

Wait...we're supposed to have a US Flag on our uniforms?

[UH60guy]

Wait...we're supposed to have a US Flag on our uniforms?

It's the only way to tell this CAP apart from the Canadian Air Pirates.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

I'm surprised that the Incident Commander badge still ranks lower than the Observer badge. Even the Air Force have given equal standing to some non-aeronautical badges, such as the Space and Cyberspace badges.

Easy. The aviation badges come first. Think of it in terms of altitude. God's at a much higher altitude than we are, so the chaplain's cross has precedence over aviation ratings. An IC doesn't fly. The Air Force's space badge replaces the astronaut wings, if I remember right, and is spread to several other spaceflight-related specialties. Cyberspace, I'm not familiar with.

[SarDragon]

That first version was not an "official" draft, and was not formally presented for comment.

CAPM 39-1, Uniforms, Draft for Comment

The draft CAPM 39-1 is available for comment as promised.

NHQ disagrees with your assessment.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, since two of of the quotes aren't tagged, but I'll give it a shot.

The first "draft" hit the streets a while back, in what was a limited release. Comments were accepted. On 31 December 2013, the "official" draft was posted for comment in eServices, as noted in the screen grab above. That's also when this thread started.

What's your point and what end is served by arguing this any further? The comment period was one month. When those comments get reviewed and incorporated, and the graphics are done, it will be released.