Flight Jacket without uniform??

[Major Carrales]

...like putting the proper creamer in their coffee by mistake...

There is a line...SIR...that should not be crossed by man nor beast.

Say what you want about uniform wear, but coffee is sacrosanct.

I regret that I have but one Latte a day to give for my school district and that it is a far, far, better thing I brew than I have ever brewed before.  (Ironcially, we have a 2d Lt Bru in our unit who brews one heck of a camp coffee at our monthly county airport camp outs.)

P.S. in my initial reading of your post I somehow imagined the portion read "There is a line...SIR...that should not be crossed by man nor beast." being spoken by Dr. Bones McCoy from Star Trek.

Maybe I've just been editing Memory Alpha a little too much this weekend.

[Eclipse]

[darn] it Jim!  I'm a Doctor not a Barrista!

[heliodoc]

Well well well

CAPTalk worrying about flight jackets.  Yep I remember the days of Active Army and RM about flight jackets and civilian clothes.

There were some reminders and some "UCMJ actions."  But now CAPtalkers are worrying about if we can trust the guys with the important stuff while ignoring the small stuff.

WOW

I bought my CWU45/P and my old MA-1's and I never decorated with the CAP decorations.  Wore 'em both in and out of CAP and the military with civilian clothes and sometimes on a military reservation.  Never got a whole lot of hard times from anyone on AD..'cuz there were plenty of flight jacket wearin fools in the RM.  Never saw a reason to clutter up a perfectly good 350 dollar CWU45/P with CAP banana republic show and tell patches.  Got my show me stuff on eServices to make those folks in CAP that are interested in what I KNOW and not what I wear for advertisement to show other CAPers how good and competent I am.

This is pretty foolish for CAP to tread and start putting the lecture on about flight jacket wear.  Next thing you know CAPers are going to pop off at some civilian helo operator with a Bambi Bucket and start making snide remarks about uniform wear. Some of those folks work in an environment that need a jacket to move around freely in.  So how about CAP rewrite a little blurb in 39-1 when it come for a rewrite and with the AF approval to wear it with the polo uniform?  Think CAP could show with a few facts that we could wear a flght jacket without all the CAP trinkets attached?  Maybe if we could live with that and the AF said...go ahead CAP flight jackets OK.......patches (ALLLLLL) a no go.

Maybe the 3 X 5 leather patch could be the ONLY symbol symbolizing CAP, many here probably would agree with me,  Be saving plenty of those pesky plastic encased thing a ma bobs that were so 1950's and 1960's.  Some thing that AF and other military service saw fit to get rid of

Think CAPTalkers could be happy with that?  If CAP could worry about flight jackets less and more about training  ...WOW what an organization this could be.

But then again my Father and my wife say......"If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, oh what a wonderful life this would be."

CAPTalkers  keep on keepin on to something so folks really have no control over until a big stick coomes from somewhere..... CAP NHQ? 

Don't think so....can't even get a new 39-1 updated let alone setting a "REAL" standard of no flight suits with civilian clothes, let alone one with CAP bling on it

[Major Carrales]

Heliodoc...

If it gets chilly (as it does after a Northern)  and all there was in the car was a a CAP jacket, guess what I'm gonna put on.

I remember a few years back when a photo of me drapped over with a trench coat someone let me use to avoid getting soaked to get to my car to get some article of necessary paper work during a South Texas downpour made incredulous noises on these forums echo.  I was accused of everything...because I put a trenchcoat over my person to go to the car I had to be disregarding CAPR 60-1, 60-3 and a whole host of other regulations.

[heliodoc]

I agree with you, Sir

Disregarding 60-1 and 60-3?  Regulations?

I see now...there are some CAPers and CAPtalkers who really need alife rather than spouting off some knowledge about regs

That IS why I luuuuuuv to come on this forum, as CAP member, just to get 'em going.

Some folks in CAP must think putting the uniform must provide some special powers or something that can JUST RAMBLE on

Ramble on about uniforms......WOW .... there really is more to CAP life than the threads we wear...oh so 1970's

[vento]

Actually it has a lot to do about how we as a group act professionally. In a survival situation, nobody will have a problem with a member using whatever cover he or she can find. The problem that I see in this thread is that members interpret regulations the way they want, and if a member can't even be disciplined enough to follow some basic regulations, how can we expect he or she to follow other regulations where a fellow member's life can be at stake?

Accident happens when a series of minor rules are ignored or bent. I am sure a flight jacket won't crash a plane, but the attitude for the occasional disregard of the rules will. We are civilian volunteers, but that doesn't give us any excuse to act any less professionally. IMHO, uniform wear is part of the image we project to the rest of the world, it would be really easy if the only required uniform item was a baseball cap or something...   

[Eclipse]

Actually it has a lot to do about how we as a group act professionally. In a survival situation, nobody will have a problem with a member using whatever cover he or she can find. The problem that I see in this thread is that members interpret regulations the way they want, and if a member can't even be disciplined enough to follow some basic regulations, how can we expect he or she to follow other regulations where a fellow member's life can be at stake?

Yep - there are people who don't know the difference between "field expedience" and "daily wear" - its the latter that usually causes us the issues, mostly because people "know better".

How many people were constantly in "discussions" before the Gore-Tex jackets were approved because they felt it was a "safety issue" to wear a jacket that wasn't included in our basic kit.

[Dracosbane]

I was trying earlier to put up a post that would give my opinion without sounding like I was picking a fight, or harshing on others about the whole deal. 

FWIW, and my opinion and all that, if I decide to wear a flight jacket with CAP patches, name badge and rank with my civilian clothes, well, so be it.  It's my choice, not CAPs.  For the argument leveled already that if the regs don't say you can then you can't, well, my civilian life isn't in the regs.  A piece of uniform does not a uniform make.  We have regulations as members that dictate what we do as members, while being members (i.e. on CAP time).  The 39-1 is silent on the issue.  I'm not about to go putting words in it's mouth (pages?) that don't exist.  There is no way for us as members to "read between the lines" of the regulations.  They're written specifically to dictate exactly what they mean.  Yes, I know they sometimes are wishy-washy and contradictory even unto themselves.  Yes, I know that some things should be re-written to make things more clear.  But as they are now, there's no way you can tell me to follow the regs as they're written if there's nothing written in the regs on the topic at all.  I can't (and won't) follow something that's not there, no matter how many people want it to be there.

Common sense dictates that my flight jacket with a CAP patch, etc., is not my uniform just as any article of clothing (hats, t-shirts, doodads) that has CAP on it is not a uniform.  Any or all of these articles can be worn outside of CAP, and should be worn with pride hopefully promoting CAP giving you a chance to engage the masses and enlighten them to the organization.  Even the patches are available for purchase or trade amongst non-members.  And if a non member decided to wear a patch on a jacket or bag, does that make it a uniform?  Or them a member?  Are they impersonating a member?  An officer?  Should they do something stupid while wearing a CAP patch, does that make CAP liable, or involved?  No, no more than CAP can say "we don't know who they are or why they're displaying our patch".   

Should I do something stupid while wearing something that says CAP, CAP Inc. has the right and the ability to cut all ties, label me a rogue, kick me out and keep their distance from me.  But it's the integrity that I have as a human and a member that would keep me from doing that.

As far as wearing the flight jacket (blue or green, not black leather) with the aviators/polos and grays, the 39-1 does say that the CAP sealed windbreaker or civilian outergarments are authorized only, with the ICL allowing the leather jacket.  Could they be worn with this uniform combination (especially the blue one as it's "distinctive")?  Yes.  These uniforms are allowed while flying just like the green and blue zipper bags.  Wearing the flight jackets with them could be no different than with the bags, even (or especially) if authorized at times other than just flight ops.  Are they allowed?  No.  Should they be allowed?  Probably, especially the blue one.  Why? They're a uniform jacket being worn over a uniform.  What's the difference?  Especially between a flight jacket and a windbreaker with the CAP seal?  I'm not in or out of uniform with those any more than I am with a civilian jacket.

I don't wear one right now, but I'll probably look into getting one.  And I'll wear it with my aviator/polo and grays, and put non CAP patches on it so it'll be civilian, until the regs authorize me wearing CAP patches instead.  My morale patches are cooler than most of the CAP patches anyway.

[Hawk200]

That strikes me as a SMSgt with a little too much time on his hands, and just had to show his tail. If I look at you, and I can tell they aren't uniform pieces, I wouldn't have even given a second look.

Do you use the 3' rule, the 8' rule, or the 25' rule?

You're kidding, right? "Oh, it looks like a uniform from 25 feet away, so you can't wear it." Is that what you truly believe?

Is the BDU jacket or CWU 45 authorized as "civilian outerwear"?

39-1 doesn't give many instances where it defines "civilian outerwear". There are a few, but to go through a list of what is would probably require a reference list the size of a town library.

So they bother to define it for the few, but allow it but do not define it for all the rest???

Once again, I have to ask: You're kidding right? You honestly want every single piece of existing clothing defined as either uniform or not? Really?

[MikeD]

I live with some great "fabric arts" people, so I have a wonderful variety of velcro "morale patches" that I wear on my A2, including logos for my favorite sports teams, etc.

I keep the CAP stuff in the pocket, and just wear the other stuff.  It's amazing how often I am asked "where can I get one of those team jackets" or something similar.

Can they make some Steelers patches, and are they available to help out on some work patches?

[Hawk200]

FWIW, and my opinion and all that, if I decide to wear a flight jacket with CAP patches, name badge and rank with my civilian clothes, well, so be it.  It's my choice, not CAPs.

It's CAP's choice what you're allowed to do with their uniforms. Wearing it whenever you want may be your personal choice, but it's wrong.

For the argument leveled already that if the regs don't say you can then you can't, well, my civilian life isn't in the regs.

True, but you make a point of this later.

A piece of uniform does not a uniform make.

There are differences in opinion on what constitutes a uniform piece. But wearing a properly configured piece of uniform in an inappropriate manner is disrespectful to the uniform. You may not agree, but agreement or disagreement doesn't alter the facts.

We have regulations as members that dictate what we do as members, while being members (i.e. on CAP time).  The 39-1 is silent on the issue.

It's not silent at all on it. You're choosing to call it silent so you can do whatever you feel like. 39-1 says if you're conducting CAP you will wear a uniform that is established in that manual. It shouldn't have to say "If you're not conducting CAP business, you don't wear a uniform".

Children use this kind of logic all the time: "You only said I couldn't do this!, you didn't say I couldn't do that".

I'm not about to go putting words in it's mouth (pages?) that don't exist.

You're focusing on what doesn't exist, and taking it as allowed since it's not specifically forbidden.

There is no way for us as members to "read between the lines" of the regulations.  They're written specifically to dictate exactly what they mean.

Yes, they are. So following it as written is the best policy. If there is something contradictory, then you request clarification. Pubs are written at a much higher level than the individual, it's not up to an individual to just discard what they don't feel like following.

I can't (and won't) follow something that's not there, no matter how many people want it to be there.

It's not a case of following something that's "not there". It's a case of you deciding to do whatever you wish when something isn't specifically mentioned.

Many people believe that "It's better to ask forgiveness than permission". Problem is that people think they're entitled to the forgiveness. You won't always get it.

Common sense dictates that my flight jacket with a CAP patch, etc., is not my uniform just as any article of clothing (hats, t-shirts, doodads) that has CAP on it is not a uniform.  Any or all of these articles can be worn outside of CAP, and should be worn with pride hopefully promoting CAP giving you a chance to engage the masses and enlighten them to the organization. Even the patches are available for purchase or trade amongst non-members.  And if a non member decided to wear a patch on a jacket or bag, does that make it a uniform?  Or them a member?  Are they impersonating a member?  An officer?  Should they do something stupid while wearing a CAP patch, does that make CAP liable, or involved?  No, no more than CAP can say "we don't know who they are or why they're displaying our patch".

Patches and insignia aren't "booster club" items to be done with as someone wishes. Any insignia designated as part of a uniform is to be worn properly by current members. It's not meant to be worn as "conversation pieces", or "recruiting material".

As to anyone just wearing them, there are directives out there concerning inappropriate wear. And anyone's action that creates problems while wearing insignia that indicates a membership claim (whether they intend it or not) is actually legally actionable.

Should I do something stupid while wearing something that says CAP, CAP Inc. has the right and the ability to cut all ties, label me a rogue, kick me out and keep their distance from me.  But it's the integrity that I have as a human and a member that would keep me from doing that.

Some might question that, since you choose to do as you wish.

I don't wear one right now, but I'll probably look into getting one.  And I'll wear it with my aviator/polo and grays, and put non CAP patches on it so it'll be civilian, until the regs authorize me wearing CAP patches instead.  My morale patches are cooler than most of the CAP patches anyway.

If your morale patches are so much cooler, why bother keeping the CAP ones? CAP is not going to authorize uniform items with civvies. Do you really not have the thirty seconds it takes to just change them out with your "so much cooler" patches?

If you're so concerned about the "I paid for it" aspect, then take it off your taxes and only wear the items in a proper manner.

If you want attention, find a better way to get it. Just because things are shown in the movies, it doesn't make you "cool" because you do the same thing. There's a word for that.

[Flying Pig]

I have a green nomex flight jacket that I wear my CAP black leather name patch on with no other CAP patches.  Looks good.  And people ask me what the wings are from.  I then begin explaining CAP to them.  You can all burn me at the steak at the next Wing Conference.  I could wear my Sheriff wings, but our wings are the gold badge with wings coming out of them.  A kid has to have something to wear instead of a blank piece of velcro.

A commander leading by example with a partial uniform only because it looks good?
Sir, you are joking, right? Too often I fail to catch the sarcasm here at CT...

Nope, not joking.  I guess Im a failure as a leader. 

[Short Field]

You're kidding, right? "Oh, it looks like a uniform from 25 feet away, so you can't wear it." Is that what you truly believe?

That is the whole crux of the USAF-Style uniform issues:  How close do you have to be to tell if a person is a USAF Officer or a CAP Officer.

Once again, I have to ask: You're kidding right? You honestly want every single piece of existing clothing defined as either uniform or not? Really?

No, but you seem to want every piece of existing clothing defined as either unifrom or not.  CAP has defined uniform items for wear with civilian clothing.  You want to believe that it is simply a oversight that the uniform item YOU want to wear as civilian clothing is not authorized.

[heliodoc]

Failure as leader, Rob?

No way!  CAP could use a few more helo types

[Short Field]

General U.S. Grant had a slight problem with wiskey...seems to have been there to win the Civil War. 

So he won battles because he was an alcoholic - or despite being an alcoholic?  Sorry, I don't think that would justify our ICs, GTLs, and MPs drinking on a mission.

General MacArthur was not in proper U.S. Army uniform wearing what I assume was a Phillipino Field Marshall's Uniform for the duration of WWII...yet "he did return." 

Take a look at the military regs on how far 3 & 4 stars can go to "personalize" their uniforms.  They had even more leeway prior to the Korean War. 

I would imagine that a person who forgot a little thing...like putting the proper creamer in their coffee by mistake...might just be trusted enough to fly a mission in a B-52s later that day.

We are not talking a mistake, we are talking a deliberate disregard of regulations simply for a personal preference.

The moral of this above rant...wearing a jacket with civian clothes has more to do with how cold it might be outside as than to how trustworthy a pilot, ground team, commander or the like might be. 

Wearing a military jacket with civilian clothes due to cold when you forgot your civilian jacket doesn't show how trustworthy you are - wearing it all the time because you like how it looks does reflect on your values.   Please tell me which regulations you have told your squadron members  they can ignore and which ones they have to follow.  I missed that class and would like to know.

[Major Carrales]

Please tell me which regulations you have told your squadron members  they can ignore and which ones they have to follow.  I missed that class and would like to know.

Your insult is beneath you.  The way you seem to have paintakenly replied to a "throw away" posting like the one I made shows that you have taken this to some personal level.  Heliodoc is correct, some people here do take it (uniform discussions) way beyond the point of reason on into the realm of the ridiculous.

It is plainly stupid to assume that because someone wore something, for what ever reason, they will not follow regulations simply based on that. 

Incredulous postings when none, few or only an incomplete smattering of the facts are known are the most sincere from of stupidity....as in everyone here should know better than to do it.

You would have to...
1) prove someone constantally wore some uniform item in direct violation of regulations showing a pattern of misuse,  isolated photographs taken out of context wouldn't count...

2) Present actual evidence that other CAP Regulations have been violated...

3) Develop a link between the two based on psycological tendencies...proving clinically that a person had a pathological disregard for following rules and regulations.

Unless you can do this making the statement you did is more of slander and libel (or down right opinion) rather than any form of fact.

As for MacArthur, I have studied the man and his papers. He was customizing his uniforms going back to his days at VMI, WEST POINT, WWII and on into WWII.  Even taking out the gromet in his service cap inventing the "crush cap."

So called "morale patches," improperly worn flight caps, boonie caps and a host of other things are worn system wide in CAP by persons doing the lion's share of work around here and you would dishonor their "by the book service" because they may or may not have worn a flight jacket with civilian clothes.   Poor...very poor indeed.

[Hawk200]

You're kidding, right? "Oh, it looks like a uniform from 25 feet away, so you can't wear it." Is that what you truly believe?

That is the whole crux of the USAF-Style uniform issues:  How close do you have to be to tell if a person is a USAF Officer or a CAP Officer.

The amount of distance to tell whether someone is an officer or not is a lot less than the distance needed to tell if they're in an actual uniform, and not an outfit that just has similar colors. That's a fail.

Once again, I have to ask: You're kidding right? You honestly want every single piece of existing clothing defined as either uniform or not? Really?

No, but you seem to want every piece of existing clothing defined as either unifrom or not.  CAP has defined uniform items for wear with civilian clothing.  You want to believe that it is simply a oversight that the uniform item YOU want to wear as civilian clothing is not authorized.

Completely wrong. Uniform items are designated in the manual. You're the one pushing that any flight jacket is a uniform item, and everything must be designated as either "uniform" or "civilian clothing" in the manual.

To be a uniform item, a flight jacket must have the designated insignia (leather nameplate, CAP seal, rank insignia, flag). It's not a uniform item if it doesn't have any of those items. It's a pretty simple concept. If you're not wearing all the required insignia, then it's an incomplete uniform item, but still a uniform item.

When it comes to utility uniforms, if there are no insignia on it whatsoever, it's not a uniform, uniform item, or even a piece of one.

[SarDragon]

WIWOAD, if it was a clothing item that we wore as a uniform part, then its wear off-duty with civilian clothes was restricted or forbidden. Certain outerwear items had no restriction, like the raincoat and the lightweight jacket, both sans insignia. Organizational items, including, and specifically, flight jackets, were in the forbidden category.

[Dracosbane]

And again, I have to point out that we are not active duty military.  We are not subject to the UCMJ nor big brother blue's manuals, we are subject to the CAP manuals as they are written.  The 39-1 does not state that articles of clothing with CAP seals, insignia, patches, or other identifying marks are in fact a uniform, except as part of a whole uniform as described within and in the ICLs.

I have an old encampment shirt with the CAP seal and the word CADRE on the back.  I could (or used to when it fit) wear it either under my BDUs as part of my uniform, making it a uniform piece, or with a pair of jeans as a civvie shirt.  It, in and of itself, is not a uniform, however, it does show something decidedly CAP.  Same with my old encampment hat from my first encampment that I still have and still wear, both in and out of uniform.  It is an authorized uniform piece, and yet is still not a uniform.  I am in no way violating the 39-1 by wearing these items. 

The flight jacket with CAP patches, name badge and insignia is not a uniform.  It is no more than a piece of a uniform than my hat or shirt.  I am not out of uniform by wearing it with civilian clothes, because I'm not wearing a uniform.  I would be out of uniform if I wore a USAF flight suit with flight jacket without proper patches, badges, insignia, rank, etc.  I would be out of uniform if I wore a flight jacket with the aviator/polo and grays, unless it were either stripped clean or with civilian or morale patches attached.

CAPR 39-1, especially Table 1-1, does not have any statement about what items are or are not authorized for wear with civilian clothes.  It does define several instances where the wear of a uniform (i.e. a complete 100% by the book uniform, not parts) is and is not allowed.  Specifically that one should not wear a uniform under any circumstance that would bring discredit or reproach upon the uniform.  You would be very hard pressed to define just wearing a flight jacket while wearing civvies as bringing discredit or reproach.  Committing a crime, or attempting to pass yourself off as something you're not, that might do it, but wearing it to the store or taking a walk or being a normal, upstanding, honorable human being who represents the core values of CAP won't.

As far as the 39-1 being silent on the issue, there cannot be an implied prohibition, simply by omission.  As there is no statement to either the positive or the negative as to the wear of uniform items outside of CAP, there cannot be a regulation to follow or ignore.  To believe that there is a violation of a non-existent regulation means you are putting a regulation in place where there is none. 

Again, a piece of a uniform is not a complete uniform, nor can it be considered a uniform.  It is only a part of a whole.

And why wouldn't anything connected with CAP be a possible point of recruiting or conversation starter?  How do you recruit when you're out of uniform and not on CAP time? 

Oh, and Hawk, thank you for taking those last two pieces you quoted and completely ignoring what I said, making your own context, adding something that wasn't there and attempting to insult me, twice.  I will continue to do as I wish outside of CAP and it's regulations while not acting as a member of CAP.  That's the lovely part of not being active duty military and being a volunteer.  I am not a hostage, nor am I subject to CAP regulations 24/7/365.  Especially when no regulation exists, meaning no regulation can be violated.  In those last section of quotes you used, not only did you not see that I said where I would be following the exact letter of the regulation if I were to buy a flight jacket, you accuse me of something that I in no way, shape or form implied, inferred or outright said was the reason for my opinion anywhere in my previous posting.

[Hawk200]

And again, I have to point out that we are not active duty military.  We are not subject to the UCMJ nor big brother blue's manuals, we are subject to the CAP manuals as they are written.  The 39-1 does not state that articles of clothing with CAP seals, insignia, patches, or other identifying marks are in fact a uniform, except as part of a whole uniform as described within and in the ICLs.

Therein lies your problem. "I'm not in the military, I'll do as I please". Up to you, but don't whine when there are consequences to you actions.

I have an old encampment shirt with the CAP seal and the word CADRE on the back.  I could (or used to when it fit) wear it either under my BDUs as part of my uniform, making it a uniform piece, or with a pair of jeans as a civvie shirt.  It, in and of itself, is not a uniform, however, it does show something decidedly CAP.  Same with my old encampment hat from my first encampment that I still have and still wear, both in and out of uniform.  It is an authorized uniform piece, and yet is still not a uniform.  I am in no way violating the 39-1 by wearing these items. 

Agreed.

The flight jacket with CAP patches, name badge and insignia is not a uniform.  It is no more than a piece of a uniform than my hat or shirt.  I am not out of uniform by wearing it with civilian clothes, because I'm not wearing a uniform.  I would be out of uniform if I wore a USAF flight suit with flight jacket without proper patches, badges, insignia, rank, etc.

Strange logic: If it isn't worn properly as an ensemble it's not a proper uniform, but pieces with proper insignia can be worn with whatever you like.

I would be out of uniform if I wore a flight jacket with the aviator/polo and grays, unless it were either stripped clean or with civilian or morale patches attached.

I would agree.

CAPR 39-1, especially Table 1-1, does not have any statement about what items are or are not authorized for wear with civilian clothes.  It does define several instances where the wear of a uniform (i.e. a complete 100% by the book uniform, not parts) is and is not allowed.  Specifically that one should not wear a uniform under any circumstance that would bring discredit or reproach upon the uniform.  You would be very hard pressed to define just wearing a flight jacket while wearing civvies as bringing discredit or reproach.  Committing a crime, or attempting to pass yourself off as something you're not, that might do it, but wearing it to the store or taking a walk or being a normal, upstanding, honorable human being who represents the core values of CAP won't.

As far as the 39-1 being silent on the issue, there cannot be an implied prohibition, simply by omission.  As there is no statement to either the positive or the negative as to the wear of uniform items outside of CAP, there cannot be a regulation to follow or ignore.  To believe that there is a violation of a non-existent regulation means you are putting a regulation in place where there is none.

I've stated this before, if the reg does not say you can, then it is not authorized. It's not that there isn't an implied prohibition, it's that there is not an expressed allowance. That's the difference. You're demanding a specific prohibition, but it doesn't work that way.

From 39-1, para 1-1. Policy: "COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY. Any variation from this publication is not authorized. Items not listed in this publication are not authorized for wear."

There may not be a specific prohibition that says "You can't wear this with that', but you are violating the above policy.

Again, a piece of a uniform is not a complete uniform, nor can it be considered a uniform.  It is only a part of a whole.

It's wearing pieces of a uniform in a manner not specified in the manual. See above.

And why wouldn't anything connected with CAP be a possible point of recruiting or conversation starter?

Calling it recruiting or a conversation starter does not justify it. A uniform associates you with a group or organization, it's not a billboard. 

How do you recruit when you're out of uniform and not on CAP time?

I've been doing it for years. When someone mentions an interest that coincides with CAP programs, you talk them about it, invite them. Not everyone is going to join CAP, or even be interested in it. Simply pushing it on everyone you meet isn't going to work. I've recruited a few dozen people over the years, and wasn't in a CAP uniform the first few, or even first several times, that I initially talked to them about it.

Oh, and Hawk, thank you for taking those last two pieces you quoted and completely ignoring what I said, making your own context, adding something that wasn't there and attempting to insult me, twice.  I will continue to do as I wish outside of CAP and it's regulations while not acting as a member of CAP.  That's the lovely part of not being active duty military and being a volunteer.  I am not a hostage, nor am I subject to CAP regulations 24/7/365.  Especially when no regulation exists, meaning no regulation can be violated.  In those last section of quotes you used, not only did you not see that I said where I would be following the exact letter of the regulation if I were to buy a flight jacket, you accuse me of something that I in no way, shape or form implied, inferred or outright said was the reason for my opinion anywhere in my previous posting.

I addressed specific points, and in this above paragraph, you again indicate that you will do as you please. Regs apply all the time when it comes to CAP business. You are rationalizing your willful non-compliance with "I'm not military, so I don't have to follow rules all the time".

You may somehow think that I'm somehow not allowed to make a judgement on your actions or your thoughts. In that you're wrong, I will consider your actions a violation of integrity, and of non-compliance.

I mentioned the child logic before that I see, and you aren't the first I've seen it, you won't be the last. In that case, you're nothing unique, just one example of a continuing problem.

You'll do as you see fit. Just don't whine about it when you suffer for your actions.