How Soon Will We see This New Style?

[etodd]

What will the Cadet CAP version be?

The Army has granted Capt. Singh, a Sikh, permission to serve while wearing a turban over his long hair and a beard with his uniform.
He is the first active duty soldier to be given such permission, according to The Sikh Coalition, the largest Sikh American advocacy organization in the United States.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/04/us/sikh-army-captain-simratpal-singh-beard-turban/index.html

[Eclipse]

CAP has a process to request a waiver for religious accommodation with the corporate uniforms when necessary,
which would generally only be for cadets, as beards are already allowed (for adults), and headgear is not required / specified.

[ProdigalJim]

CAP also has a process to ask the USAF for waivers to the USAF-style uniform, through CAP channels and then USAF channels.

[THRAWN]

Gadzooks, this is still in the news? I've seen waivers a few times. It takes a bit of patience, but it usually ends up mutually beneficial.

[THRAWN]

What will the Cadet CAP version be?

The Army has granted Capt. Singh, a Sikh, permission to serve while wearing a turban over his long hair and a beard with his uniform.
He is the first active duty soldier to be given such permission, according to The Sikh Coalition, the largest Sikh American advocacy organization in the United States.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/04/us/sikh-army-captain-simratpal-singh-beard-turban/index.html

Not true. It is good to see that he is allowed to continue to serve. The Army invested a lot to train him.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Yea, IIRC, there's been at least 2 others?

[ProdigalJim]

Yea, IIRC, there's been at least 2 others?

I haven't looked closely, but perhaps the distinction is Regular vs. Reserve commission or something like that. He may be the first Regular officer to receive such a waiver on a permanent basis. I dunno.

[Holding Pattern]

This is worth reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhs_in_the_United_States_military

[Eclipse]

^ From the above.


Second Lieutenant Tejdeep Singh Rattan, US Army dentist in 2010. (Dude's a pretty hardcore dentist!)

The earth has, apparently, continued to spin despite the non-standard head-covering.

Wondering - is the "gas mask issue" a legit concern or a red herring?

[Holding Pattern]

http://indefinitelywild.gizmodo.com/canada-s-badass-new-defense-minister-patented-this-gas-1741012986

[Holding Pattern]

Also, is it just me, or would a gas attack on our troops anywhere pretty much result in an overwhelming retaliatory strike?

[Storm Chaser]

The concerns regarding the beard had to do with being able to wear a gas mask safely. The turban could also affect the ability to wear a gas mask and helmet. Those may still be valid concerns.

[USACAP]

I have no problem with it. Good for him.
We like Sikhs anyway.

So - Yep.
PPE not sealing/fitting is a pretty big concern.
The Army has plenty of soldiers who, for one reason or another, are non-deployable.
If you can't wear PPE, you're non-deployable.
As a dentist or professional, he doesn't necessarily need to.

CPT Singh, in the original picture, has a Ranger tab and a bunch of other hero badges.
Clearly, he's done alright for himself - in a deployed environment too since I see a CAB.
How does the Indian Army manage the matter of a good seal on PPE?
Not a problem I have ever had to deal with under my command.

Wondering - is the "gas mask issue" a legit concern or a red herring?

[Spam]

I have Muslim cadets, one of whom wears a head scarf (blue or black varying by the UOD, although she bought a woodland camo one too - hooah).

I have had cadets who wear the kippah (two of them are at USAFA now) and have another prospective recruit who is Orthodox.

Business as usual and complete acceptance here in the great state of Georgia.

.., Not a "thing".

V/R
Spam

[abdsp51]

There was a waiver granted for a Sikh Cadet in CAWG.

[Eclipse]

I have no issue as well, it certainly doesn't impact mission ability for CAP, nor is it anything but a random anomaly,
frankly I think those guys look bad-ass, and their reputation has always been as fierce and loyal fighters.

However with that said, any allowances made should be formally approved by whatever level is required, in writing,
and not allowed until that waiver or authorization is approved.

The problem comes during the first activity they attend outside the squadron.  You can't write checks for
other people, nor is it fair for that member, especially if it's a cadet, to be told he's breaking regs by someone he doesn't even know.   

Dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" and there should be no issues.

[PHall]

Sikhs have been serving in the military, especially the British military, for about 200+ years.
They are a very martial minded people.

[Brit_in_CAP]

Sikhs have been serving in the military, especially the British military, for about 200+ years.
They are a very martial minded people.

Indeed...I had a Sikh Chief Technician (E-6) working with me years ago, deep in the Cold War when PPE was tested near monthly.

I gently and politely enquired...he smiled (very tolerantly), demonstrated and we moved on!

Like Eclipse said...dot the 'i', cross the 't' and all will be well!

[Bryce7454]

Hopefully this will lead to even more lax regulations for everyone.

[lordmonar]

Hopefully this will lead to even more lax regulations for everyone.

How so?

CAP uses the same exact process as does the military.

If you want a religious exception to the reg....you request it through channels where it is give to the USAF for approval or denial.

Does not mean anything is lax.

[Bryce7454]

Hopefully this will lead to even more lax regulations for everyone.

How so?

CAP uses the same exact process as does the military.

If you want a religious exception to the reg....you request it through channels where it is give to the USAF for approval or denial.

Does not mean anything is lax.

Well it kind of looks bad if you ask me. The reason there are regulations like that is partly for uniformity and a professional look. Some of them a little insane if you ask me. Like the tattoo policy(which I believe is being changed and or looked at by many branches). But I think if people want to wear their religious items they should not join the military unless lax regulations will apply to everyone(within reason).   

[SarDragon]

It's not being lax. It's making an exception, in order to accomodate cultural differences. Rejecting an otherwise qualified person due to religious beliefs and customs is no longer a norm. I see this as an advance in cultural equality.

[Bryce7454]

It's not being lax. It's making an exception, in order to accomodate cultural differences. Rejecting an otherwise qualified person due to religious beliefs and customs is no longer a norm. I see this as an advance in cultural equality.

It is being lax to that specific person who does not have to follow the same regulations as everyone else. They have rejected plenty of qualified people in the past do to things meant to keep a professional look and neat appearance. I'm not saying we should not accommodate things like that, I'm saying if these "exceptions" are going to be made it should lead to more lax regulations for the rest of the men and women in the armed forces.

[Holding Pattern]

It's not being lax. It's making an exception, in order to accomodate cultural differences. Rejecting an otherwise qualified person due to religious beliefs and customs is no longer a norm. I see this as an advance in cultural equality.

It is being lax to that specific person who does not have to follow the same regulations as everyone else. They have rejected plenty of qualified people in the past do to things meant to keep a professional look and neat appearance. I'm not saying we should not accommodate things like that, I'm saying if these "exceptions" are going to be made it should lead to more lax regulations for the rest of the men and women in the armed forces.

Individuals with religious exemptions to regulations tend to be more serious about following the regulations and maintaining a professional appearance, since not doing so can be grounds for revocation of the exemption.

This is also the first time I've heard of regulation variance requests called "laxity."

In point of fact, the dentist in question that sparked this whole kerfluffle wasn't allowed a determination on his exemption until after he passed his exam boards.

[ironputts]

We had a Sikh cadet 6-7 years ago. He was a junior in high school. We allowed him to wear the standard cadet uniform and he wore the dastaar instead of the bdu or service caps. We sent the request up the chain requesting a waiver and it took 6-8 months. The answer was the cadet cannot wear the air force style cadet uniform and had to wear the blue fatigues. He had progressed quickly in all phases of the cadet program and was going to be the first sergeant. We met with the cadet and his parents about the decision. They made no comment and handed in his gear the next meeting. I would hope CAP regulations would eventually be modified to allow this to not happen in the future. It is good to see the military branches see the importance to adapt.

[PHall]

Hopefully this will lead to even more lax regulations for everyone.

How so?

CAP uses the same exact process as does the military.

If you want a religious exception to the reg....you request it through channels where it is give to the USAF for approval or denial.

Does not mean anything is lax.

Well it kind of looks bad if you ask me. The reason there are regulations like that is partly for uniformity and a professional look. Some of them a little insane if you ask me. Like the tattoo policy(which I believe is being changed and or looked at by many branches). But I think if people want to wear their religious items they should not join the military unless lax regulations will apply to everyone(within reason).

Nope, there are no pending changes to any of the services tattoo policies.

[Майор Хаткевич]

We had a Sikh cadet 6-7 years ago. He was a junior in high school. We allowed him to wear the standard cadet uniform and he wore the dastaar instead of the bdu or service caps. We sent the request up the chain requesting a waiver and it took 6-8 months. The answer was the cadet cannot wear the air force style cadet uniform and had to wear the blue fatigues. He had progressed quickly in all phases of the cadet program and was going to be the first sergeant. We met with the cadet and his parents about the decision. They made no comment and handed in his gear the next meeting. I would hope CAP regulations would eventually be modified to allow this to not happen in the future. It is good to see the military branches see the importance to adapt.

That's some bull right there.

[Storm Chaser]

We had a Sikh cadet 6-7 years ago. He was a junior in high school. We allowed him to wear the standard cadet uniform and he wore the dastaar instead of the bdu or service caps.

Units should not make exceptions to the regulations without clearing it through the appropriate channels first. There's a process to request waivers for a reason.

We sent the request up the chain requesting a waiver and it took 6-8 months. The answer was the cadet cannot wear the air force style cadet uniform and had to wear the blue fatigues. He had progressed quickly in all phases of the cadet program and was going to be the first sergeant. We met with the cadet and his parents about the decision. They made no comment and handed in his gear the next meeting.

The member was already wearing a different uniform in the form of his headgear, so the blue corporate BDUs shouldn't have been a deterrent to being a part of CAP. If the expectations were made clear from the beginning instead of circumventing the process, then perhaps the cadet wouldn't have quitted.

I would hope CAP regulations would eventually be modified to allow this to not happen in the future. It is good to see the military branches see the importance to adapt.

CAP doesn't have control over the AF-style uniform, so unless a provision is made in the AFI, things like this will continue to happen. If we all move to a single corporate uniform, then CAP would have more flexibility in making accommodations for our members.

[Eclipse]

We had a Sikh cadet 6-7 years ago. He was a junior in high school. We allowed him to wear the standard cadet uniform and he wore the dastaar instead of the bdu or service caps. We sent the request up the chain requesting a waiver and it took 6-8 months. The answer was the cadet cannot wear the air force style cadet uniform and had to wear the blue fatigues. He had progressed quickly in all phases of the cadet program and was going to be the first sergeant. We met with the cadet and his parents about the decision. They made no comment and handed in his gear the next meeting.

The "we" above didn't have the authority to permit that allowance.  You wrote a check NHQ had no interest in cashing, and
set up this situation.  Perhaps if the regs had been followed from day-1, he would have accepted the situation and never spoken of
it again, or maybe he would have joined and requested a waiver, wearing the proper uniform until and if a waiver was granted, but regardless, there would have been no sense of "changing the rules".

The assumption here is that this cadet never did anything outside of the squadron, since someone should have raised the issue before then.
This is what happens when people make allowances outside their authority.  I've seen this a number of times, with righteous indignation
on the tail end and no acceptance of responsibility for creating the situation to start with.

Also, how do you go from "zero" to C/MSgt in 8 months?

[vorteks]

Also, how do you go from "zero" to C/MSgt in 8 months?

JRROTC?

[Майор Хаткевич]

[Eclipse]

Also, how do you go from "zero" to C/MSgt in 8 months?

JRROTC?

Without doing the math I'd say it's possible, but if so the cadet would have already encountered the dress issues there, so wouldn't have been surprised.

[ProdigalJim]

I had hoped to wait to weigh in here until I could get to a real computer instead of my iPhone, but here we are...please forgive any typos...

The recent CAPM39-1 update (the CAP Uniform Manual) includes a religious accommodation section similar to that in AF Instruction 36-2903, Dress and Appearance of Air Force Personnel.

CAPM39-1's language on Religious Accommodation includes the following: "CAP does not have waiver authority of this type for USAF-style uniforms. Members requiring a waiver should consider wearing the Corporate-style uniform. Commanders who have identified a cadet with a potential requirement for a waiver should contact NHQ/DP for direction....The request letter should include a photo or description of the requested waiver, any comments from the unit commander, and an explanation of the religious need for the item. Parents must endorse memoranda submitted by cadets."

These waivers have nothing to do with "laxity." As the official auxiliary of the United States Air Force, the Civil Air Patrol honors the spirit of inclusiveness and religious tolerance, in policy and in practice. I have personal experience with this process as a commander and I can assure you, having successfully won the waiver, there was a rigorous process followed and in the end everyone was served well.

Last fall a young woman who is an observant Muslim joined our squadron with the intention of seeking an eventual USAF career. As an expression of her religious faith, she sought permission to wear a hijab – a modest traditional headscarf – with her cadet uniform. Although CAP Corporate uniforms are available for those unable or unwilling to meet USAF appearance and grooming standards, a key component of the cadet program is the proper wear of the USAF-style uniform. I believed then and believe now that asking this cadet to participate in a corporate uniform would single her out and prevent her from participating fully in cadet life.

Based on NHQ's advice, we wrote up the package and sent it through channels. We did it in two parts: first was a corporate uniform waiver, because we felt that this would get done more quickly than the USAF waiver, and then a second longer-term request for this cadet to wear the AF-style uniform.

Commanders at all levels concurred that wearing the uniform like her peers was the best way to honor the commitment both the CAP and the USAF have made to freedom of religious expression and equal opportunities for all cadets. It went from Squadron to Group to Wing to Region then NHQ, and then through USAF channels after that. The Wing Chaplain had to interview the family to attest that this was requested out of sincerely held belief.

The hijab this cadet intends to wear as a uniform item will not affect operational effectiveness, does not have a negative safety impact and is neat and conservative (i.e., discreet, tidy, and not dissonant or showy in style, size, design, brightness, or color), as required per CAPM39-1. She wears hijab as a committed part of her faith tradition and practice. I'm fully supportive of that, as are the regs and as is our Command.

The CAPM39-1 itself counsels that CAP supports the right of free exercise of religion because "it directly relates to our Core Values and the ability to maintain an effective team." Our Nondiscrimination Policy, found in CAPR 36-1, holds explicitly that "It is Civil Air Patrol policy that no member shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination in any CAP program or activity on the basis of race, sex, age, color, religion, national origin, or disability (formerly handicap)."

The waiver process has been in place throughout the U.S. military since January of 2014, when the Department of Defense issued an instruction directing the services to honor religious accommodation requests when those requests reflect "sincerely held religious belief" and do not degrade safety. That directive followed congressional direction contained in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act.

Bottom line: there's a process, both ours and the AF's, it's grounded in regs and law and if you pay attention to detail and follow the steps it can get done. Ours took three months.

[Garibaldi]

I had hoped to wait to weigh in here until I could get to a real computer instead of my iPhone, but here we are...please forgive any typos...

The recent CAPM39-1 update (the CAP Uniform Manual) includes a religious accommodation section similar to that in AF Instruction 36-2903, Dress and Appearance of Air Force Personnel.

CAPM39-1's language on Religious Accommodation includes the following: "CAP does not have waiver authority of this type for USAF-style uniforms. Members requiring a waiver should consider wearing the Corporate-style uniform. Commanders who have identified a cadet with a potential requirement for a waiver should contact NHQ/DP for direction....The request letter should include a photo or description of the requested waiver, any comments from the unit commander, and an explanation of the religious need for the item. Parents must endorse memoranda submitted by cadets."

These waivers have nothing to do with "laxity." As the official auxiliary of the United States Air Force, the Civil Air Patrol honors the spirit of inclusiveness and religious tolerance, in policy and in practice. I have personal experience with this process as a commander and I can assure you, having successfully won the waiver, there was a rigorous process followed and in the end everyone was served well.

Last fall a young woman who is an observant Muslim joined our squadron with the intention of seeking an eventual USAF career. As an expression of her religious faith, she sought permission to wear a hijab – a modest traditional headscarf – with her cadet uniform. Although CAP Corporate uniforms are available for those unable or unwilling to meet USAF appearance and grooming standards, a key component of the cadet program is the proper wear of the USAF-style uniform. I believed then and believe now that asking this cadet to participate in a corporate uniform would single her out and prevent her from participating fully in cadet life.

Based on NHQ's advice, we wrote up the package and sent it through channels. We did it in two parts: first was a corporate uniform waiver, because we felt that this would get done more quickly than the USAF waiver, and then a second longer-term request for this cadet to wear the AF-style uniform.

Commanders at all levels concurred that wearing the uniform like her peers was the best way to honor the commitment both the CAP and the USAF have made to freedom of religious expression and equal opportunities for all cadets. It went from Squadron to Group to Wing to Region then NHQ, and then through USAF channels after that. The Wing Chaplain had to interview the family to attest that this was requested out of sincerely held belief.

The hijab this cadet intends to wear as a uniform item will not affect operational effectiveness, does not have a negative safety impact and is neat and conservative (i.e., discreet, tidy, and not dissonant or showy in style, size, design, brightness, or color), as required per CAPM39-1. She wears hijab as a committed part of her faith tradition and practice. I'm fully supportive of that, as are the regs and as is our Command.

The CAPM39-1 itself counsels that CAP supports the right of free exercise of religion because "it directly relates to our Core Values and the ability to maintain an effective team." Our Nondiscrimination Policy, found in CAPR 36-1, holds explicitly that "It is Civil Air Patrol policy that no member shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination in any CAP program or activity on the basis of race, sex, age, color, religion, national origin, or disability (formerly handicap)."

The waiver process has been in place throughout the U.S. military since January of 2014, when the Department of Defense issued an instruction directing the services to honor religious accommodation requests when those requests reflect "sincerely held religious belief" and do not degrade safety. That directive followed congressional direction contained in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act.

Bottom line: there's a process, both ours and the AF's, it's grounded in regs and law and if you pay attention to detail and follow the steps it can get done. Ours took three months.

Sounds like what we did for our Muslim cadet.

[Storm Chaser]

We want to accommodate all of our members, but we need to make sure we do so while following the applicable guidelines and procedures.

[NIN]

Are you guys kidding ?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[ProdigalJim]

CAP doesn't have control over the AF-style uniform, so unless a provision is made in the AFI, things like this will continue to happen. If we all move to a single corporate uniform, then CAP would have more flexibility in making accommodations for our members.

That's true, but the previous post said this was 6-7 years ago. Fortunately, after the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, the AFI *was* modified (in 2014) to include both religious accommodation language AND a waiver process for getting religious uniform accommodations approved through channels.

AFI 36-2903's language on Religious Accommodation includes:

"Commanders must grant requests for accommodation of religious practices unless they determine and articulate that a compelling (i.e., especially important) governmental (not just Air Force) interest takes precedence over the requested accommodation." (Para. 9.12.1)

"Recommendations for disapproval should be unusual unless for safety or when precluded by a compelling (i.e., especially important) governmental (not just Air Force) interest that takes precedence over the requested accommodation. Requests should normally be recommended for approval unless approval would have an adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, standards, or discipline." (Para. 9.12.3.3).

"Religious head covering waiver requests for outdoor wear and wear of items not concealed under headgear, or those impacting grooming standards and/or personal appearance (e.g., hair length and style, tattoos, body art) require endorsement from the unit commander, installation chaplain, appropriate installation commander, and the MAJCOM, FOA, or DRU A1." (Para. 9.12.5)

So the flow goes like this: CAPM 39-1 waiver procedure > (Sq>Gp>Wg Chaplain>Wg>Reg>NHQ) then, if an AF-style uniform waiver is requested, the package continues through AF channels shepherded by CAP-USAF.

I'm actually quite proud that CAP and the USAF did the right thing in this instance. It's becoming "business-as-usual" which can only make us better without forcing us to go "all-Corporate."

[Bryce7454]

Hopefully this will lead to even more lax regulations for everyone.

How so?

CAP uses the same exact process as does the military.

If you want a religious exception to the reg....you request it through channels where it is give to the USAF for approval or denial.

Does not mean anything is lax.

Well it kind of looks bad if you ask me. The reason there are regulations like that is partly for uniformity and a professional look. Some of them a little insane if you ask me. Like the tattoo policy(which I believe is being changed and or looked at by many branches). But I think if people want to wear their religious items they should not join the military unless lax regulations will apply to everyone(within reason).

Nope, there are no pending changes to any of the services tattoo policies.

The navy.

[Storm Chaser]

CAP doesn't have control over the AF-style uniform, so unless a provision is made in the AFI, things like this will continue to happen. If we all move to a single corporate uniform, then CAP would have more flexibility in making accommodations for our members.

That's true, but the previous post said this was 6-7 years ago. Fortunately, after the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, the AFI *was* modified (in 2014) to include both religious accommodation language AND a waiver process for getting religious uniform accommodations approved through channels.

AFI 36-2903's language on Religious Accommodation include...

The AFI I was referring to is AFI 10-2701, which governs our uniform and the process in which CAP can request changes, which the Air Force must approve before they can be implemented.

[lordmonar]

Which goes back to old old old argument.

What damages will CAP incur if it does away with the USAF style uniform?

The status quo is the status quo because it is a compromise between two competing ideas.

On the one side....we should all be in USAF style uniforms.....which excludes the fat and fuzzies and those who don't want to be "in the military".
On the other side is the "we should all be in corporates"....which would bring the wrath of a good sized portion of the members who joined to be part of the USAF.

CAP is what it is.   Sure we can change it.   But like most everything in a volunteer organizations baby steps and the long haul is the way to make those changes.

[Spam]

We went through this should-we-seek-a-waiver thrash exactly one year ago now. I did the full research drill, including the 39-1 Section 1.5.1.6. process, the AFI cited above, and also including the OSD level policy the AFI fulfills, and including the "will normally approve / must forward for higher review any cases of disapproval" language. Heck of a food chain, and we all agreed that our cadet should be able to wear her hijab, but we were stuck in a do loop of regulatory brain freeze.


The bottom line for us was that by May 2015, NHQ/DP refused to rule, citing that it wasn't in their swim lane, suggesting that she should wear the corporate uniform, and kicking it to CP for further suggestion, from whom I got no reply. My Wing/CC (Col Greenwood, the NHQ Uniform Chair) commented to me that we seem to have stumped the experts. I went back to the then-new issue reg, and found this:

CAPM 39-1 26 JUNE 2014
6.3.1.6. Religious Apparel. Members may wear certain visible items of religious apparel
while in uniform. Religious apparel is defined as articles of clothing or dress that are part of the doctrine
or traditional observance of the religious faith practiced by the member. Hair and grooming practices are
not included in the meaning of religious apparel. Jewelry of a religious nature must conform to standards
set forth in this regulation for wear of non-religious jewelry. Head coverings must be plain dark blue or
black without adornment. In addition, they may be worn underneath military headgear if they do not
interfere with the proper fit or appearance of the headgear. For example, Jewish yarmulkes meet this
requirement if they do not exceed 6 inches in diameter.


Sooo...Done.  I dropped the exemption request through DP, documented via an email to the DCP, encampment/CC and copying the Wing/CC, and sent her to encampment, where she had zero issues at all.


Recommendation 1: don't fret like I did with four page exemption requests. They would be good only for Corporate uniforms any way. So, just cite this para for HEAD GEAR, if your member needs to wear USAF style, and go.

Recommendation 2: note however that the current language specifically does not cover GROOMING. If you have a male who requires a beard, long hair, or forelocks, etc. they must wear corporate. An adult (post pubescent) male Sikh is not apparently authorized to grow and wear a beard with a USAF style uniform, even if they are authorized to wear headgear by 39-1 6.3.1.6. Religious Apparel. If they must wear such, they must wear corporate only, period.


Warning: National HQ/DP then, based on our experience from mid 2015, was unprepared for the topic (of seeking uniform waivers, and of the 39-1 6.3.1.6 head gear reference even), so I would not hold hopes that you'd get much support from NHQ on seeking a CAP/USAF endorsement for a beard waiver, to then send up through the MAJCOM for approval (that would be ACC) per the AFI.


Upcoming "fun":
I have an Orthodox Jew brother and sister cadet recruit pair interested right now, whom I'm anticipating having to have a discussion with their Dad over this issue. The male cadet won't be able to wear a USAF style uniform (and have his hair in forelocks or wear a beard when of age), and the female cadet should be able to wear USAF style (either BDUs or Blues or even PT) as Kiddush Hashem* requires that she not wear trousers, nor expose skin other than face and hands... and the USAF style skirt isn't ankle length. I am concerned that she wont be able to perform PT, as well. Can't pass a PT run running in an ankle length skirt.


V/R
Spam


*sanctifying the name of God (Hashem) through speech, deeds and looks. This isn't unique to Orthodox Jews or Muslims... I've had several conservative Christian families who departed the pattern over the years rather than require their daughters to wear running shorts around boys. My female Muslim cadet runs (and passes) our 3 mile run PT in a workout body suit (black) and the woodland camo head scarf, which actually looks pretty bad-ahem, like some ninja warrior suit (except she is always grinning widely). I don't think the Orthodox Jewish folks would approve the full coverage workout suit, though I will offer it as a suggestion.

[Garibaldi]

Spam, I'm wondering, in this case, if we should find an Orthodox rabbi to give some guidance on what she can/cannot wear with regards to exercise clothing.

[PHall]

Which goes back to old old old argument.

What damages will CAP incur if it does away with the USAF style uniform?

The status quo is the status quo because it is a compromise between two competing ideas.

On the one side....we should all be in USAF style uniforms.....which excludes the fat and fuzzies and those who don't want to be "in the military".
On the other side is the "we should all be in corporates"....which would bring the wrath of a good sized portion of the members who joined to be part of the USAF.

CAP is what it is.   Sure we can change it.   But like most everything in a volunteer organizations baby steps and the long haul is the way to make those changes.

Which goes back to your same old argument that you've been making ever since you joined CAP Pat.
Why do you want CAP to not wear the USAF style uniforms? 

[ProdigalJim]

Warning: National HQ/DP then, based on our experience from mid 2015, was unprepared for the topic (of seeking uniform waivers, and of the 39-1 6.3.1.6 head gear reference even), so I would not hold hopes that you'd get much support from NHQ on seeking a CAP/USAF endorsement for a beard waiver, to then send up through the MAJCOM for approval (that would be ACC) per the AFI.

I hear ya. I think your experience may have paved the way to educate them, because we got support from NHQ/DP and from CAP-USAF for the hijab waiver for the USAF-style uniform and we got the waiver done in a shade over three months. Maybe things have changed... 

[Spam]

Spam, I'm wondering, in this case, if we should find an Orthodox rabbi to give some guidance on what she can/cannot wear with regards to exercise clothing.

HER Rabbi. You don't want to get started on a Rabbinical debate! (grin)

V/R
Spam

[USACAP]

The Navy just allowed full sleeves and neck tats...
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/03/31/navy-just-approved-militarys-best-tattoo-rules/82425974/

Nope, there are no pending changes to any of the services tattoo policies.

[Eclipse]

Which goes back to your same old argument that you've been making ever since you joined CAP Pat.
Why do you want CAP to not wear the USAF style uniforms? 

Not presuming to speak for Lord, but I think the issue is that "A" uniform does not automatically equal "not the USAF style", however
given the posture of the USAF in regards to CAP's wear, and the organization's inability to enforce its standards properly,
the only way CAP is going to ever get to a uniform, is by moving to something that does not concern the USAF.

The organization as a whole would be much better served, internally and externally, by a single uniform that
presents a consistent identity and message regarding the membership, vs. the perceived value of the affinity the USAF
uniform provides.

A simplified uniform, especially for non-formal operations, would remove an unnecessary distraction from the real problems
CAP is facing.

What the organization has today is divisive, dilutes the brand and identity, and cause more issues then it solves.

If it neither "efficient" nor "effective".

[PHall]

Which goes back to your same old argument that you've been making ever since you joined CAP Pat.
Why do you want CAP to not wear the USAF style uniforms? 

Not presuming to speak for Lord, but I think the issue is that "A" uniform does not automatically equal "not the USAF style", however
given the posture of the USAF in regards to CAP's wear, and the organization's inability to enforce its standards properly,
the only way CAP is going to ever get to a uniform, is by moving to something that does not concern the USAF.

The organization as a whole would be much better served, internally and externally, by a single uniform that
presents a consistent identity and message regarding the membership, vs. the perceived value of the affinity the USAF
uniform provides.

A simplified uniform, especially for non-formal operations, would remove an unnecessary distraction from the real problems
CAP is facing.

What the organization has today is divisive, dilutes the brand and identity, and cause more issues then it solves.

If it neither "efficient" nor "effective".

Bob, I think Pat can speak for himself. But thank you for your interest.

[Holding Pattern]

Which goes back to old old old argument.

What damages will CAP incur if it does away with the USAF style uniform?

This is a topic for a different thread.

But I found someone that answered it:

I still say if we are going to go to an updated or different uniform then we need to go to one that ALL members can wear and not a select few.  If not all members can wear the BDU or the ABU then we all need to go to one that we can.  BBDU fits that bill.

Or......we could just tell those who refuse to meet standards "thanks for playing", 

The problem is......looking like the USAF IS  important to our rank and file.   And doing away with the USAF style uniforms will affect the membership and the nature of CAP.

The status quo is and always has been a compromise between these two issues.

If we went all corporate a not insignificant number of members would quit.
The USAF says you must meeting weight and grooming standards to wear their uniform.....so we would have to kick out a not insignificant number of members to go all USAF uniforms.

If you can figure out how to solve one or the other of these problems.....I'm all ears.

[Storm Chaser]

Which goes back to your same old argument that you've been making ever since you joined CAP Pat.
Why do you want CAP to not wear the USAF style uniforms? 

Not presuming to speak for Lord, but I think the issue is that "A" uniform does not automatically equal "not the USAF style", however
given the posture of the USAF in regards to CAP's wear, and the organization's inability to enforce its standards properly,
the only way CAP is going to ever get to a uniform, is by moving to something that does not concern the USAF.

The organization as a whole would be much better served, internally and externally, by a single uniform that
presents a consistent identity and message regarding the membership, vs. the perceived value of the affinity the USAF
uniform provides.

A simplified uniform, especially for non-formal operations, would remove an unnecessary distraction from the real problems
CAP is facing.

What the organization has today is divisive, dilutes the brand and identity, and cause more issues then it solves.

If it neither "efficient" nor "effective".

Eclipse is absolutely right. Except for wearing the corporate working uniform (polo) on occasion, all my uniforms (and I have a lot of uniforms) are AF-style uniforms. I like the AF-style uniform and wear it professionally and with pride. But given the circumstances surrounding CAP uniforms and the present policies excluding a large portion of our membership from being able to wear it, I would gladly give up all my AF-style uniform sets to replace them with a single, professional-looking uniform that all our members can could wear.

Heck, National made us change our e-mail signature blocks with an ugly thing full of pictures, a departure from AF-style signature blocks, in the name of corporate identity and brand. I say there's nothing more visible that conveys our corporate identity and brand than the uniforms we wear.

[Brit_in_CAP]

(snipped) I like the AF-style uniform and wear it professionally and with pride. But given the circumstances surrounding CAP uniforms and the present policies excluding a large portion of our membership from being able to wear it, I would gladly give up all my AF-style uniform sets to replace them with a single, professional-looking uniform that all our members can wear.

Heck, National made us change our e-mail signature blocks with an ugly thing full of pictures, a departure from AF-style signature blocks, in the name of corporate identity and brand. I say there's nothing more visible that conveys our corporate identity and brand than the uniforms we wear.

+1

[FW]

(snipped) I like the AF-style uniform and wear it professionally and with pride. But given the circumstances surrounding CAP uniforms and the present policies excluding a large portion of our membership from being able to wear it, I would gladly give up all my AF-style uniform sets to replace them with a single, professional-looking uniform that all our members can wear.

Heck, National made us change our e-mail signature blocks with an ugly thing full of pictures, a departure from AF-style signature blocks, in the name of corporate identity and brand. I say there's nothing more visible that conveys our corporate identity and brand than the uniforms we wear.

+1

Considering what we already deal with, I agree.  IMHO, we do need a single style  uniform for all members, giving us a professional uniform appearance.  We should be consistent in branding...
CAP has a proud history of service.  We can show our Air Force ties in other ways than the uniform (for senior members).  It just might be the straw that helps break years of stagnation; letting qualified and motivated members to join and stay without regard to height. weight, and grooming issues.

That said, will we really lose a significant portion of our membership if we drop the AF style uniforms? We really have no idea.  I don't remember the question ever asked of the membership.  I haven't seen a poll, questionnaire, or ballot on the subject; just some "talk" on forums and meetings.  Maybe this is a question which needs to be officially dealt with; once and for all.  At least, then, we will be able to make decisions based on real data...

[arajca]

To those pining for a single uniform, we did have one. While the AF style service uniforms were not removed, I had noticed a number of folks who could wear the AF style adopting the white/blue corporate style. I think, if it had remained, a significant number of seniors would have adopted it - both those who met h/w and those who didn't - leading to a drop in the percentage of seniors wearing the AF service uniforms. Those who protested grooming, were not permitted to wear it, but that could have been changed.

However, for reasons unknown to the general membership, that uniform no longer exists.

I do not see ANY potential for a single senior uniform to arise.

I also noticed, after the white/blue uniform was removed, a large increase in the number of seniors wearing the golf shirt. After being burned for a few hundred dollars, I think many decided the heck with dress uniforms of any type.

[Storm Chaser]

That said, will we really lose a significant portion of our membership if we drop the AF style uniforms? We really have no idea.  I don't remember the question ever asked of the membership.  I haven't seen a poll, questionnaire, or ballot on the subject; just some "talk" on forums and meetings.  Maybe this is a question which needs to be officially dealt with; once and for all.  At least, then, we will be able to make decisions based on real data...

You're probably right. But how many members would we lose and whether the number is significant enough to impact the organization is yet to be determined. Some will say that due to our small active membership base, which is much smaller than the numbers published by NHQ, the impact would be large; that we can't afford to lose a single member. I don't know. CAP is a very cyclical organization and members come and go all the time. If that wasn't the case, our numbers would be larger.

Either way, while I wouldn't want to lose any active, contributing members, someone who leaves the organization strictly because we can't wear the AF-style uniform anymore is probably not someone we want to keep anyway. The reason is simple. Members set the culture of the organization. A culture focused on uniforms and "bling" is not what we need to be successful and relevant. The other factor to consider is how many new members would join and stay as a result of a uniform policy that doesn't exclude or single out those who cannot meet the weight/height or grooming standards to wear the AF-style uniform. Of course, we don't know for sure what that impact would be either. But I suspect over time we would be much better off.

[Spam]

Chaser, I'd tend to agree.

If your goal is to serve as a DoD funded program effectively providing lead-in recruiting for USAF (via a Cadet Program), then a USAF style uniform as close as possible to current USAF is indicated for success, with fairly rigid enforcement of height/weight and grooming standards. That should be blues and ABUs with distinctive CAP elements.


If your goal is to maximize the number of members (of all physical types and shapes, of all financial backgrounds and inclinations) who can take part in ES and AE missions, then something else might be in order - as low cost, as informal, as suitable as possible for field/ES use, and as easily purchased the better, with zero height/weight and grooming standards.


If you can't meet standards for the former, just wear the latter. Don't fake it, try to rationalize it, or lie about it. If you're fat, don't buy or don USAF style. If you have a beard or long hair, don't wear USAF style.


Just my thoughts.
Spam

[Eclipse]

If your goal is to serve as a DoD funded program effectively providing lead-in recruiting for USAF (via a Cadet Program), then a USAF style uniform as close as possible to current USAF is indicated for success, with fairly rigid enforcement of height/weight and grooming standards. That should be blues and ABUs with distinctive CAP elements.

This would seem to be the stated mission of JROTC / ROTC, even to the degree that CAP makes a fair point about not being a career exploration organization, not a recruiting arm.

If your goal is to maximize the number of members (of all physical types and shapes, of all financial backgrounds and inclinations) who can take part in ES and AE missions, then something else might be in order - as low cost, as informal, as suitable as possible for field/ES use, and as easily purchased the better, with zero height/weight and grooming standards.

This would seem to the be stated goal of CAP as a whole.

[Spam]

Yep, I agree. The only caveat I omitted is that the cadets can meet the more restrictive standards of case 1, and still participate in case 2.

Agreed...
Spam

[Eclipse]

Yep, I agree. The only caveat I omitted is that the cadets can meet the more restrictive standards of case 1, and still participate in case 2.

And if the USAF uniform is actually a draw, allow it for cadets as-is, with the totality of the leadership in corporate.

This is not unheard of in similar organizations, and ends the conversation quickly and easily.

And as I've said 100 times before, institute a mandatory annual weigh-in for anyone who wants to wear the USAF combos
and this problem will evaporate in a year.

Either A: those not in spec will be unable to pretend anymore.

B: Those charged with making the decisions will be held to the standard, and will push for a consolidated uniform.

Either way, big wing CAP, end of decades of problems.  Zero mission-centric cost.

Safe, Effective, efficient.

[Brit_in_CAP]

Yep, I agree. The only caveat I omitted is that the cadets can meet the more restrictive standards of case 1, and still participate in case 2.

And if the USAF uniform is actually a draw, allow it for cadets as-is, with the totality of the leadership in corporate.

This is not unheard of in similar organizations, and ends the conversation quickly and easily.

Nailed it.

[Fubar]

And as I've said 100 times before, institute a mandatory annual weigh-in for anyone who wants to wear the USAF combos and this problem will evaporate in a year.

But then we'll have complaints about buddies doing weigh-ins for buddies and fudging the paperwork. Then you'll end up with some new form and a requirement to be seen by your doctor for an official weight. Or only having one woman in your squadron and nobody to weigh her, or whatever.

It's a great idea, but those who intentionally and willfully ignore the rules will always find a way.

[Майор Хаткевич]

And as I've said 100 times before, institute a mandatory annual weigh-in for anyone who wants to wear the USAF combos and this problem will evaporate in a year.

But then we'll have complaints about buddies doing weigh-ins for buddies and fudging the paperwork. Then you'll end up with some new form and a requirement to be seen by your doctor for an official weight. Or only having one woman in your squadron and nobody to weigh her, or whatever.

It's a great idea, but those who intentionally and willfully ignore the rules will always find a way.

Public weigh in, clothes on...

[Holding Pattern]

Yep, I agree. The only caveat I omitted is that the cadets can meet the more restrictive standards of case 1, and still participate in case 2.

And if the USAF uniform is actually a draw, allow it for cadets as-is, with the totality of the leadership in corporate.

This is not unheard of in similar organizations, and ends the conversation quickly and easily.

And as I've said 100 times before, institute a mandatory annual weigh-in for anyone who wants to wear the USAF combos
and this problem will evaporate in a year.

Either A: those not in spec will be unable to pretend anymore.

B: Those charged with making the decisions will be held to the standard, and will push for a consolidated uniform.

Either way, big wing CAP, end of decades of problems.  Zero mission-centric cost.

Safe, Effective, efficient.

You think the uniform isn't a draw for SMs?

[Storm Chaser]

Yep, I agree. The only caveat I omitted is that the cadets can meet the more restrictive standards of case 1, and still participate in case 2.

And if the USAF uniform is actually a draw, allow it for cadets as-is, with the totality of the leadership in corporate.

This is not unheard of in similar organizations, and ends the conversation quickly and easily.

And as I've said 100 times before, institute a mandatory annual weigh-in for anyone who wants to wear the USAF combos
and this problem will evaporate in a year.

Either A: those not in spec will be unable to pretend anymore.

B: Those charged with making the decisions will be held to the standard, and will push for a consolidated uniform.

Either way, big wing CAP, end of decades of problems.  Zero mission-centric cost.

Safe, Effective, efficient.

You think the uniform isn't a draw for SMs?

It is for some. It shouldn't be for most. Or do you really think we would lose half of our senior members because of a uniform?

[RogueLeader]

Is it the uniform, or what the uniform represents that makes the difference?

[Holding Pattern]

Yep, I agree. The only caveat I omitted is that the cadets can meet the more restrictive standards of case 1, and still participate in case 2.

And if the USAF uniform is actually a draw, allow it for cadets as-is, with the totality of the leadership in corporate.

This is not unheard of in similar organizations, and ends the conversation quickly and easily.

And as I've said 100 times before, institute a mandatory annual weigh-in for anyone who wants to wear the USAF combos
and this problem will evaporate in a year.

Either A: those not in spec will be unable to pretend anymore.

B: Those charged with making the decisions will be held to the standard, and will push for a consolidated uniform.

Either way, big wing CAP, end of decades of problems.  Zero mission-centric cost.

Safe, Effective, efficient.

You think the uniform isn't a draw for SMs?

It is for some. It shouldn't be for most. Or do you really think we would lose half of our senior members because of a uniform?

As someone who doesn't wear the AF uniform, I would see a shift away from it as a further distancing of CAP from the AF. And if getting rid of uniforms for SMs was that high on the priority list instead of taking the time to solve any number of our outstanding problems in CAP as an org that have nothing to do with uniform debates that no one outside of captalk ever seriously entertain, I would personally view CAP as having their priorities so broken as to leave.

Not because of the uniform in and of itself, but of the intent to further distance CAP from the AF.

Thankfully, NHQ doesn't take its talking points from captalk, the uniform isn't going away, real issues are being solved, and because of that I'll keep volunteering time, money, and resources to the programs.

While I think that there are some parts of our strategic plan that could be better, there is nothing in it I objected to, and it is overall quite good.

[Storm Chaser]

Is it the uniform, or what the uniform represents that makes the difference?

Our uniform represents Civil Air Patrol and members should be proud of that and our heritage, which predates the U.S. Air Force. And while our AF-style uniform also represents our status as the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary, a large number of our members can't wear that uniform. Are they any less part of the Air Force Auxiliary and Total Force?

[Storm Chaser]

Yep, I agree. The only caveat I omitted is that the cadets can meet the more restrictive standards of case 1, and still participate in case 2.

And if the USAF uniform is actually a draw, allow it for cadets as-is, with the totality of the leadership in corporate.

This is not unheard of in similar organizations, and ends the conversation quickly and easily.

And as I've said 100 times before, institute a mandatory annual weigh-in for anyone who wants to wear the USAF combos
and this problem will evaporate in a year.

Either A: those not in spec will be unable to pretend anymore.

B: Those charged with making the decisions will be held to the standard, and will push for a consolidated uniform.

Either way, big wing CAP, end of decades of problems.  Zero mission-centric cost.

Safe, Effective, efficient.

You think the uniform isn't a draw for SMs?

It is for some. It shouldn't be for most. Or do you really think we would lose half of our senior members because of a uniform?

As someone who doesn't wear the AF uniform, I would see a shift away from it as a further distancing of CAP from the AF. And if getting rid of uniforms for SMs was that high on the priority list instead of taking the time to solve any number of our outstanding problems in CAP as an org that have nothing to do with uniform debates that no one outside of captalk ever seriously entertain, I would personally view CAP as having their priorities so broken as to leave.

Not because of the uniform in and of itself, but of the intent to further distance CAP from the AF.

Thankfully, NHQ doesn't take its talking points from captalk, the uniform isn't going away, real issues are being solved, and because of that I'll keep volunteering time, money, and resources to the programs.

While I think that there are some parts of our strategic plan that could be better, there is nothing in it I objected to, and it is overall quite good.

I agree that the uniform should not be a priority in CAP. Yet, the fact that we continue to debate this subject leads me to believe that the sooner we resolve this uniform disparity the sooner we'll be able to move on and focus on what really matters, our mission.

[yuccakev]

Can anyone cite an example where the AF uniform has detracted from a mission?

[Storm Chaser]

Can anyone cite an example where the AF uniform has detracted from a mission?

Other than members who continue to wear the AF-style uniform even though they don't meet the weight and height standards, or members who wear insignias not authorized by CAPM 39-1 or AFI 36-2903, or wear their uniforms improperly giving CAP a bad name, or don't follow proper customs and courtesies giving our cadets a poor example to follow, I really can't think of one. But I do have plenty of examples of members who are active contributors, follow the rules, make a difference to the organization, yet are still excluded from wearing the AF-style uniform.

[Holding Pattern]

Yet, the fact that we continue to debate this subject leads me to believe that the sooner we resolve this uniform disparity the sooner we'll be able to move on and focus on what really matters, our mission.

We continue to debate this subject on captalk because there is nothing better for us to do on captalk.

Discuss the finer points of missions? FOUO.
After action reports? FOUO.
SUI? FOUO.
Build a knowledgebase from CAP resources! FOUO.
Discuss better recruiting strategies? Too much work, unless you are NIN.
Discuss cyberpatriot programs? All the IT people are still in hiding.
etc.

And then of course we have new people who come to CAPTALK with a question that gets usually a "Did you Read That Fine Manual/Regulation?" type of response.

So it is entirely unsurprising to me that captalk talks so much about uniforms.

It can't do anything else.

[Holding Pattern]

Can anyone cite an example where the AF uniform has detracted from a mission?

Other than members who continue to wear the AF-style uniform even though they don't meet the weight and height standards,

Last time I saw a photo the bigger issue was people complaining that they thought someone didn't meet the h/w standards when they did.

[Eclipse]

Last time I saw a photo the bigger issue was people complaining that they thought someone didn't meet the h/w standards when they did.

Actually, some thought they didn't, some thought they did.  Which is still an issue, since the USAF-style, especially service dress is
very unforgiving.  A lot of members seem to think that if they can find a jacket that fits, they are still OK.  A 52-Long on someone 5-8
doesn't fly, so to speak. If you're close, you're likely walking the line on the tables on a given day.

The shirts are tapered and the jacket is a drape cut, if it doesn't look right, you're likely over or really close.  Either way the impression is the same.

However no one needs to use marginal examples when so many blatant ones are regularly posted in the NHQ flicker pool and the
new release page(s).

[USACAP]

Citadel Considering Allowing Hijab w/Uniform
http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/the-citadel-considers-first-ever-uniform-exception-allowing-a-muslim-hijab-1395734?site=full
The Citadel is considering a request from an admitted student that she  be allowed to wear a hijab in keeping with her Muslim faith, a move that  would be an unprecedented exception to the school's longstanding  uniform requirements.

If the request for the traditional Muslim hair covering is granted, it  apparently would be the first exception made to the Citadel's uniform,  which all cadets at the storied public military college in South  Carolina are required to wear at nearly all times.