Uniform Phasing out

[Dutchboy]

When does the corporate uniform ( blue coat w/ white shirt, blue pants, that looks alot like the AF blues) phase out. it was recinded last year I think, but I forgot the phase out date.

[Eclipse]

Jan 2011.

[Dutchboy]

I don't wear it, but what is the correct name for it?

[Eclipse]

Corporate Service Uniform (CSU).

[FW]

Yes, right now the end date is 1 Jan 2011.  However, there are 2 agenda items for the NB meeting to extend it.  Even CAP-USAF is willing to extend the date to 1 Jan 2012.  I just love this stuff

[Spike]

^ Wait....CAP-USAF will agree to extend the phase out date??  That means all of the reasons to get rid of it (supposedly) coming from the USAF is outrageous. 

If it was such a big concern as many make it out to be, they would have immediately suspended wear of said uniform. 

[ColonelJack]

It was interesting to note that the NB agenda item about extending the phase-out asked for 31 Dec 2012, and the AF pretty much said the absolute latest you can have it is 1 Jan 2012. 

Which put the kibosh on that other agenda item, which would've let the CSU run on until an overall senior member uniform was created -- which AF said only those who meet height/weight guidelines would be able to wear anyway.

Jack

[Rotorhead]

^ Wait....CAP-USAF will agree to extend the phase out date??  That means all of the reasons to get rid of it (supposedly) coming from the USAF is outrageous. 

If it was such a big concern as many make it out to be, they would have immediately suspended wear of said uniform.

Maybe they're trying to take into consideration the number of people who have spent money on it and are trying to give them some more wear.

[Eclipse]

^ Wait....CAP-USAF will agree to extend the phase out date??  That means all of the reasons to get rid of it (supposedly) coming from the USAF is outrageous. 

If it was such a big concern as many make it out to be, they would have immediately suspended wear of said uniform.

Maybe they're trying to take into consideration the number of people who have spent money on it and are trying to give them some more wear.

That's clearly one of the discussion points, as is the intent to once and for all establish the ground rules, longevity, and authority for uniform changes. 

Its a lot to try and do in one meeting.

[lordmonar]

^ Wait....CAP-USAF will agree to extend the phase out date??  That means all of the reasons to get rid of it (supposedly) coming from the USAF is outrageous. 

If it was such a big concern as many make it out to be, they would have immediately suspended wear of said uniform.

Maybe they're trying to take into consideration the number of people who have spent money on it and are trying to give them some more wear.

And they have to give members a grace period to buy a new uniform.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

And I have also heard that it is not a done deal until there is an ICL and/or a new edition of 39-1 (fat chance on that one).

[Hawk200]

And I have also heard that it is not a done deal until there is an ICL and/or a new edition of 39-1 (fat chance on that one).

Probably fat chance on either. 

[Eclipse]

And I have also heard that it is not a done deal until there is an ICL and/or a new edition of 39-1 (fat chance on that one).

What's not a done deal? 

Decisions by the NEC and BoG are binding and immediate within their respective authority.  Publishing the decisions to the field and updating regulations are administrative processes not related to their authority.

[Pumbaa]

And I have also heard that it is not a done deal until there is an ICL and/or a new edition of 39-1 (fat chance on that one).

Seems a bit fuzzy to me too....

[JoeTomasone]

And I have also heard that it is not a done deal until there is an ICL and/or a new edition of 39-1 (fat chance on that one).

What's not a done deal? 

Decisions by the NEC and BoG are binding and immediate within their respective authority.  Publishing the decisions to the field and updating regulations are administrative processes not related to their authority.

Not this again....

Per CAPR 5-4, BoG POLICIES become regulations after going through a process that involves a membership comment period and publication.

ICLs can be issued to implement policies in extraordinary circumstances pending incorporation into a regulation (or temporarily until a stated expiration date).

Per the CAP Constitution, members are bound by REGULATIONS, not BoG Policies.   The fact that one is supposed to inevitably lead to the other does not obviate the fact that they are not the same thing and do not carry the same authority.   A BoG policy carries no more weight than a Congressional bill does until it goes through the CAPR 5-4 process, just like that bill carries no weight until and unless signed into LAW by the President.

[Eclipse]

Yes, this again.

5-4 outline administrative processes, and cannot limit the powers of the NEC and BOG, which are specifically spelled out in the CAP constitution.

When the gavel falls, the decision is made and is binding, until another body with higher authority usurps that decision.  Whether its ever published to the field is irrelevant to that part of the conversation.  Failure to publish regulatory changes through the right process could be grounds for a complaint based on 5-4, again that's an administrative issue, not a challenge to the BoG or NEC authority itself.

Read the constitution itself to see the powers reserved for each body respectively, and the AFI's to see where the USAF still retains authority.

[Spike]

^ Great that they can make immediate binding decisions, but if they don't let us know....how can it be implemented by us?

I agree with your post fully.  I don't agree with how our leadership lets those in the field know of those decisions.

Don't forget we only recently got the "live feeds" of the board meetings.  Before that we had to wait moths (sometimes 2 years) before we got the transcripts and letters regarding changes.

[Pylon]

Of course the whole "is it binding or not?" argument could be put to bed if, administratively, NHQ got their act together...   

[RiverAux]

Not really. 

Even working at a pretty fast speed there will always be a lag time between when some new policy is approved and when it will show up in the regulations and there will always be someone saying that they won't believe such a policy is coming until they see it in the regs even if you can show them where it was approved by those with the power to do so.

[Spike]

^ That is what needs changed then.  Whatever is decided by the boards need to be published in regulations within 1 week.  That would clear up confusion, and stop this debate. 

Honestly, if you were to come to me and say the "Board changed 39-1 and we can no longer wear boots with BDU's", I would ask for written proof.  Even though there are live feeds from these meetings, not everyone watches them, they are not available to everyone and are not official.  Until a change letter is published or a regulation updated, it is "your word" against the regulations. 

We are only luck enough in the past 4 years to watch the board meetings.  Sometimes the quality is crap and the feeds go out.  We still have to rely on the written word here.

Changing regulations by word of mouth is not how CAP operates.  It is not how any large organization operates.  It surely is not how the Air Force operates.