Remember that one uniform idea?

[Eclipse]

My vision:
"This is the uniform you need to be in for this mission/activity. There's no equivalent. This is what we're all wearing. If you don't like it, don't come."

[Spam]

My vision:
- The uniform is set by the activity based on safety and suitability, with affordability as an independent variable.
- Where there is no clear, driving safety or suitability need, "Any" is a valid option to maximize participation/affordability.
- Safety needs are not "I'm wearing a Steelers jacket over blues because its cold equals Safety".
- Suitability needs are not "I'm wearing an FDU to a Dining Out because I want to be stylin".
- Both safety, suitability, and affordability/availability were righteously considered a factor in the recent CP pub rewrite (e.g. commanders should allow for the wear of warm BDUs or civilian clothing (not mixed) in transit to a Wing Conference for warmth/safety, then wear blues in the hotel).

And the final thought:  if I had a SAR customer slowly dying in the field, and knew that someone had turned away a major fraction of trained potential searchers because they only had a polo shirt, that would earn the curses of my dying breath. It it fits and is oddball, but doesnt bust safety or suitability (e.g. mix USAF/civ), it is welcome with me.

R/s
Spam

[vorteks]

My vision:
"This is the uniform you need to be in for this mission/activity. There's no equivalent. This is what we're all wearing. If you don't like it, don't come."

So if the UOD is Blues or ABUs your "vision" would necessarily exclude many capable and willing volunteers who couldn't come even if they wanted to.

[TheSkyHornet]

My vision:
"This is the uniform you need to be in for this mission/activity. There's no equivalent. This is what we're all wearing. If you don't like it, don't come."

So if the UOD is Blues or ABUs your "vision" would necessarily exclude many capable and willing volunteers who couldn't come even if they wanted to.

I don't understand the all-sizes-fit-all approach here. If the UOD is ABUs, why would you be in Blues? If this is a formal awards banquet, and you show up in camo fatigues, something obviously went wrong here. You're not even in an appropriate equivalency.

So let's go back to the part about equivalent uniforms. The discussion was a single uniform, right? So why have an equivalent. If all we have is a set of Blue BDUs in CAPR 39-1 for a designated working uniform, I don't understand what that has to do with turning away someone. That would literally be the uniform combination for the utility environment. If it was the polo, and a BDU set didn't exist, same ordeal.

Why do we have all of these uniform combinations for the exact same function?

Someone shows up in "civies," they're out of uniform. That's fairly easy: they didn't wear one (for whatever reason). Someone wears a suit and tie versus a designated dress uniform, that's probably linked to cost in most cases. That's also pretty easy.

Someone shows up in a CAP 182 and steps out in a flight suit while another pilot steps out of another 182 in a polo with grey pants and another pilot steps out of another 182 in ABUs; then I'm a little confused. One ground team member is in full ABU battle rattle while another is wearing a polo; again, kind of lost.

I don't get why we have so many options to wear. Is it really cost, or is it comfort? Is it because there are people in the organization that don't want to wear A and would rather wear B, so we go "Okay, wear what you want so long as it falls within the realm of clothing?"

What's this turn away stuff? If the regulation actually stated what the appropriate uniform is, then that's what they should be expected to show up in if they're on CAP duty. If a cadet showed up in shorts and a t-shirt, are they still allowed to go on the O-Flight?

[arajca]

My vision:
"This is the uniform you need to be in for this mission/activity. There's no equivalent. This is what we're all wearing. If you don't like it, don't come."

So if the UOD is Blues or ABUs your "vision" would necessarily exclude many capable and willing volunteers who couldn't come even if they wanted to.

I don't understand the all-sizes-fit-all approach here. If the UOD is ABUs, why would you be in Blues? If this is a formal awards banquet, and you show up in camo fatigues, something obviously went wrong here. You're not even in an appropriate equivalency.

So let's go back to the part about equivalent uniforms. The discussion was a single uniform, right? So why have an equivalent. If all we have is a set of Blue BDUs in CAPR 39-1 for a designated working uniform, I don't understand what that has to do with turning away someone. That would literally be the uniform combination for the utility environment. If it was the polo, and a BDU set didn't exist, same ordeal.

Why do we have all of these uniform combinations for the exact same function?

Someone shows up in "civies," they're out of uniform. That's fairly easy: they didn't wear one (for whatever reason). Someone wears a suit and tie versus a designated dress uniform, that's probably linked to cost in most cases. That's also pretty easy.

Someone shows up in a CAP 182 and steps out in a flight suit while another pilot steps out of another 182 in a polo with grey pants and another pilot steps out of another 182 in ABUs; then I'm a little confused. One ground team member is in full ABU battle rattle while another is wearing a polo; again, kind of lost.

I don't get why we have so many options to wear. Is it really cost, or is it comfort? Is it because there are people in the organization that don't want to wear A and would rather wear B, so we go "Okay, wear what you want so long as it falls within the realm of clothing?"

What's this turn away stuff? If the regulation actually stated what the appropriate uniform is, then that's what they should be expected to show up in if they're on CAP duty. If a cadet showed up in shorts and a t-shirt, are they still allowed to go on the O-Flight?

Under your proposal, if the uniform specified is BLUES, I can't attend as I can't wear them. Ditto for ABUs. It's not a matter of preference or affordability. You're telling me I'm not welcome because I can't wear the uniform you specify.

[Eclipse]

The answer to every question you ask is...

"A compromise aimed at retention while avoiding making people sad."

[Eclipse]

Under your proposal, if the uniform specified is BLUES,

?  You're required to own them (or whites).

To be fair, part of the solution is the USAF getting over itself.

[arajca]

Under your proposal, if the uniform specified is BLUES,

?  You're required to own them (or whites).

To be fair, part of the solution is the USAF getting over itself.

True, and I do, but his vision says "there is no equivalent". Therefore, since I can't wear blues or ABUs, I am not welcome at those activities where BLUEs or ABUs are specified, only the specified uniforms are acceptable.

[Eclipse]

Under your proposal, if the uniform specified is BLUES,

?  You're required to own them (or whites).

To be fair, part of the solution is the USAF getting over itself.

True, and I do, but his vision says "there is no equivalent". Therefore, since I can't wear blues or ABUs, I am not welcome at those activities where BLUEs or ABUs are specified, only the specified uniforms are acceptable.

Well, OK.  But "there is no equivalent" literally would not work today, so either
the USAF caves or CAP goes with their own uniforms.

You'll always have people who can't or won't be bothered, but if you pick the bar
back up off the floor and reset the expectation, the exceptions will stand out all the more.

It will all continue to be academic until the National Leadership makes hard choices and
also starts enforcing proper wear.  I've said for years that if people started being held
to the actual standard, things would change quickly, if only because members who think
they are fooling everyone would suddenly find themselves on the corporate side of the house.

[Shuman 14]

To be fair, part of the solution is the USAF getting over itself.

And that is the nail being hit on the head.

The Coast Guard did that and the Auxiliary  does not seem to have nearly as many Uniform issues as CAP does.

[Fubar]

The Coast Guard did that and the Auxiliary  does not seem to have nearly as many Uniform issues as CAP does.

Nobody has the amount of uniform issues that CAP has.

[TheSkyHornet]

The Coast Guard did that and the Auxiliary  does not seem to have nearly as many Uniform issues as CAP does.

Nobody has the amount of uniform issues that CAP has.

That's because we have all of these optional equivalencies, and we don't enforce when to wear what uniform.

And this thread has now circled back to Page 1.

[UWONGO2]

So for what it's worth, uniforms came up during the command council meeting over the weekend during a Q&A with the national commander (uniforms were not part of any agenda items). Someone asked about the new Air Force uniform and I'm paraphrasing here but essentially it was he doesn't want to start a new uniform transition until the current one is over.

[PHall]

So for what it's worth, uniforms came up during the command council meeting over the weekend during a Q&A with the national commander (uniforms were not part of any agenda items). Someone asked about the new Air Force uniform and I'm paraphrasing here but essentially it was he doesn't want to start a new uniform transition until the current one is over.

So for what it's worth, uniforms came up during the command council meeting over the weekend during a Q&A with the national commander (uniforms were not part of any agenda items). Someone asked about the new Air Force uniform and I'm paraphrasing here but essentially it was he doesn't want to start a new uniform transition until the current one is over.

Problem is that the uniform we're transitioning to is being phased out and about the only place to get it is from Vanguard at Vanguard prices.

[Eclipse]

Problem is that the uniform we're transitioning to is being phased out and about the only place to get it is from Vanguard at Vanguard prices.

So?

That's how the majority of organizations that are similar (at least in regards to membership) to CAP function.

[Capt Thompson]

For most Cadets it's not an issue, they'll outgrow their ABU's and then transition to OCP's when the time comes. It's hard to suggest a new Senior spend Vanguard prices on ABU's though knowing they may soon transition out. Not so big a deal if they can find the ABU's on eBay cheap though.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

Problem is that the uniform we're transitioning to is being phased out and about the only place to get it is from Vanguard at Vanguard prices.

So?

That's how the majority of organizations that are similar (at least in regards to membership) to CAP function.

It's new to CAP. The BDU was and still is readily available from multiple sources. I think the situation was the same for the OD uniform before the BDU. As Eclipse said we now have one expensive source for the ABU. And if Vanguard decides that carrying the ABU sizes at the ends of the bell curve for those who can wear it they are just plain out of luck.

[Eclipse]

One could certainly draw lines between the shared uniform components from other organizations
and the current state of the multiform, and its proper wear.

The decision makers about the uniform generally have ready-access to those parts
either from their closets or from the store on the base they have access to, while
the rank and file generally have not.

By far the majority of members will never set foot on a military base, and of course we
all know about AAFES, so commercial sources have been the only place to get
uniforms for these members, anyway.  This alone is responsible for the consistent
issues with proper outerwear for the USAF-style uniforms, especially for cadets.

It's easy to say "you will" when you can just walk over to the store, or click a few buttons
and get what you need (or already have it).

[Shuman 14]

So for what it's worth, uniforms came up during the command council meeting over the weekend during a Q&A with the national commander (uniforms were not part of any agenda items). Someone asked about the new Air Force uniform and I'm paraphrasing here but essentially it was he doesn't want to start a new uniform transition until the current one is over.

Truthfully, that's really NOT a problem.

GTS: "ocp uniforms for sale" ... 300,000 results in less than half a second.

So no worries about having to go to the Exchange to get them or worries that Soldiers, Airmen and Spacemen not being able to get them because CAP is draining the supply system. You can get them almost anywhere and at reasonable costs.

The simple answer is to issue a policy letter authorizing a CAP version of OCPs, put in a wear-out date for ABUs and have done with it.

That or pick a Corporate Field (Blue, OD, Orange, etc.) and say this is it and put a wear-out date for everything else.

Personally I like the OD uniform on Page One of this Thread. Tactical enough for Cadets and those Seniors with Martial expectations to still be a recruiting draw, functional in the Field and not an USAF item so everyone can wear it.

Uniformity at last.   

[Spam]

For most Cadets it's not an issue, they'll outgrow their ABU's and then transition to OCP's when the time comes. It's hard to suggest a new Senior spend Vanguard prices on ABU's though knowing they may soon transition out. Not so big a deal if they can find the ABU's on eBay cheap though.

I most strongly disagree, this IS an issue.

"When the time comes"... the decision point is upon us right now, this fall, for at least a bunch of our cadets (spend/quit).

I have a cadet dependent in that situation right now, and he has friends discussing their similar conclusions. Grew out of his BDUs, growing out of his ABUs, and really no ABUs to be had. I don't have much of a solution for him other than for him to pay hundreds from his allowance/earnings to reequip (if he wants full sets to serve multi day activities like Encampment), or quit. On top of a half year now with no meetings or activities other than WebEx he is finding it hard to justify the cost (and hard to mention his waning interest to me). I find his attitude understandable, even for a formerly hard charging 15 year old GTM3 C/MSGT with actual missions under his belt. No activities, obsolete unavailable uniforms... why stay in, again?

So, NHQ had better think more quickly. The problem is already on us, not five years away.

V/r
Spam